Importance of marriage vows

Michael Gerson, an opinion writer, recently included the following in one of his pieces, "Marital infidelity is destructive to spouses and children and a violation of the Seventh Commandment. It is not, by itself, a disqualification for public office."

I must strongly, vehemently disagree.

When a man and woman get married, they exchange vows, central of which is fidelity to one another.  When entering elected office, an individual takes an oath, central of which is fidelity to the office being entered and the laws under which it operates.  If the elected official cannot adhere to the marriage vows, then I have serious doubt about his/her adherence to the oath of office.  If one cannot maintain fidelity to his/her spouse, it is a character flaw disqualifying one from holding public office.

Character counts, particularly for elected officials.  Giving and keeping one's word is a crucial measure of character.  If we are to believe a politician and entrust him/her with our votes, the individual must have unimpeachable character.  Character and the values it represents (honesty, integrity, ethics, morality to name but a few), are essential for faithful performance in elected office.  Thus, when giving his/her word via the oath of office, character is central.  Otherwise, the oath is meaningless.

If the individual seeking public office cannot adhere to marriage vows, perhaps the most centric of the vows and oaths we take, there is no doubt he/she is unqualified for office.  Failing in the vows is a failing of ones word, a crucial character failing.  By failing to uphold and maintain the marriage vows, one declares that his/her word has no value.  Similarly, his/her actions in violation of said vows clearly demonstrate contempt for the honesty, integrity, ethics, and morality attendant to the vows.  Consequently, why should the voting populace believe the individual will serve the public with honesty, integrity, ethics, and morality in public office?  It is totally unbelievable.  The fatal character flaw exhibited by marital infidelity, which Gerson declares is "destructive to spouses and children," must be seen as fully disqualifying.  If one is willing to visit destruction upon one's spouse and children, that is not the type of individual in whom we should place our trust by providing our vote.

To those who whine in opposition to this view, the following is offered.  If the individual is in a failed marriage, he/she can obtain a divorce before acting with infidelity.  But it cannot be that deliberately violating of one's marriage vows is viewed as acceptable.  Nor can it be seen as anything but disqualifying one for public office.  It is a simple litmus test.  Either an individual's character, professed by offering one's word, has value and is to be accepted, or not.  If not, if the individual puts so little value in their own word, vows, and oaths, then he/she is unworthy of and disqualified from holding public office.

Sadly, all too sadly, far too many do not hold this view.