Scaife family values
Richard Mellon Scaife, who has helped finance the campaign against the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church through his contributions to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, is the subject of an intriguing profile in Vanity Fair magazine. It turns out that Scaife favors open marriage.
Michael Joseph Gross writes:
Asked whether his infidelity is hypocritical, in light of his political commitments, he refers not to a moral principle but to his own personal history. “My first marriage ended with an affair,” he says, amused. And monogamy is not, he continues, an essential part of a good marriage. “I don’t want people throwing rocks at me in the street. But I believe in open marriage.” Philandering, Scaife says with a laugh, “is something that Bill Clinton and I have in common.”Those are surprising words indeed to hear from a man who spent so lavishly to uncover Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes and to advance the movement fueled by family values. But it would be a mistake to read the saga of Richard Mellon Scaife’s divorce as simply a story of moral hypocrisy. His treatment of women, especially his first wife, suggests a high regard for his own gratification. His commitment to conservative politics has never been primarily about upholding traditional morality; it has been about promoting policies that help to preserve his own wealth and that of people like himself.
Eh, the author should have read the whole article. Dick was asked about same sex marriage, and:
Does he think his best gay friends should be able to get married? Scaife throws his hand in the air and exclaims, “Yes, I do!” A moment later he adds, “I haven’t really thought about it. But if they want to get married, that’s their business. I couldn’t care less.”
interesting contradiction! hard to get a handle on what's going through his head. perhaps he needs to meet and befriend LGBT individuals to see how his previous actions have hurt them.
- Weiwen Ng
Posted by Weiwen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 7, 2008 7:03 AM
Thanks for the catch, Weiwen.
Posted by Jim Naughton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 7, 2008 10:22 AM
If Mr. Gross's thesis is correct, that Scaife donates to right-wing causes (and undermines the Church) to keep himself wealthy, it certainly is an odd way to go about it. Why not simply contribute to capitalist politicians and be done with it?
While I'm inclined to believe the Vanity Fair report - after all, Gross got both Scaifes on the record for a remarkably silly he said/she said - it still doesn't follow how Scaife benefits by donating to IRD. He's never given a thought to religion in his life. His thoughts evidently run to cheap prostitutes (and no, I'm not referring to his current wife).
The Ahmansons, OTOH, are evidently dominionists hoping to stone Gay people to death for the Greater Glory (or somethin'). So we still don't have the full picture of Scaife and IRD.
After that tawdry piece in Vanity Fair (I dutifully
Posted by Josh Thomas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 7, 2008 6:32 PM
read every word of it), I can only think the Scaifes chose their forum well; the article is about vanity in the extreme. Don't these people have lawyers? It's like watching Linda Evans and Joan Collins get to it in "Dynasty" - a guilty pleasure, to be sure, but an awful lot of fun.
(Sorry for the two-part comment, my finger slipped.)
Posted by Josh Thomas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 7, 2008 6:38 PM