D’Souza’s Fiance Was Married Too


Oh, this story gets juicier and juicier. Turns out that the woman D’Souza was cavorting with is also married, or was as of a few months ago. Right Wing Watch looked at her Facebook page, which shows that she got married on Dec. 31, 2011. And at leas as of May of this year, she was still letting her husband tell her how to vote:

While some of us are still nursing heartbreak over Santorum’s defeat or the great Doctor’s Man of La Mancha campaign, unfortunately for you WAPO, we on the Right have already rallied around a man we’ll make, with however many misgivings, our guy. I was already going to vote for Romney because my husband told me to.

Here’s the thing about all this: I have no problem whatsoever with someone starting a relationship while they’re getting a divorce. D’Souza has been living apart from his wife for two years now and says that his wife had asked for a divorce back in 2010. If he just let that lie there until he met someone new and then initiated the divorce, I think that’s perfectly fine. Hell, I dated a woman for more than a year who was going through a divorce. The relationship is over, you move on. Not a problem for me at all. And he says he only met this woman three months ago.

But remember, D’Souza holds himself out as a Christian apologist. And it was the Christian media that pushed this story out there, questioning his morality for sharing a hotel room with this woman (premarital sex being forbidden by the Bible, of course). He now denies sharing a hotel room with her and denies having told someone that “nothing happened,” but that’s not exactly believable. A 51 year old man traveling with a 29 year old woman he says he only met three months ago, who was also married as of a few months ago, introducing her as his fiance, but someone is supposed to believe that they haven’t had sex? It strains credulity more than just a bit.

Comments

  1. tbp1 says

    I’ve said all along that this isn’t a sex scandal, it’s a hypocrisy scandal.

    D’Souza is essentially a public scold, claiming the religious high ground and criticizing other people’s supposedly inferior moral standards and behavior.

    Depending on which Bible verse you quote, the religious tradition that he claims to adhere to either forbids divorce altogether, or permits it only in very narrowly defined circumstances. So far I have not seen any evidence that those circumstances apply in this case. In either event, remarriage after divorce is forbidden by Jesus himself. Since both parties involved here are currently married, I see absolutely no way a divorce and remarriage could be justified within his supposed belief system.

    Like most public figures who are conspicuously religious, though, Mr. D’Souza thinks the rules he wishes to impose on everyone else don’t apply to him. It’s a little encouraging seeing that he had to resign from his sinecure at King’s College, but I doubt this will hurt him in the long run.

  2. davidct says

    It seems like just more of the same moral behavior that we have come to expect from from prominent Christians. If he says he is sorry he will be forgiven and become pure again.

  3. grumpyoldfart says

    Eventually he’ll do a Jimmy Swaggart, let the tears flow, admit that he is a miserable sinner – and hey presto – the mugs will forgive him, and head to his website, looking for a donate button.

  4. beezlebubby says

    Sort of reminds me of the sanctimonious, bible-thumping asshole that married my mother. He used to LOVE to hammer away at me because I’m atheist, because I support progressive causes, and especially because I support full equality for gay people. At one point, I got so sick of his preachiness and general dickishness that I asked him if EVERYTHING in the bible is true. (yup) I asked him about about gay sex. (God hates fags)I asked him about under-aged sex. (God hates perverts) Then I asked him about premarital sex and cohabitation. He turned purple and fell silent. He and my mom lived together, unmarried, for over a year.

    Now all he ever wants to talk about is politics. Oi.

  5. raven says

    I find xian marriage harmful and really insulting to my deeply cherished long term relationship(s). Maybe we should outlaw it.

    This womans marriage didn’t even last a year if she was married December, 2011.

    My toaster and I have been together for 20 years. My microwave oven and I have been together 35 years.

  6. Pierce R. Butler says

    It strains credulity more than just a bit.

    Fortunately, modern credulity has extra elastic for greater durability!

  7. DaveL says

    A 51 year old man traveling with a 29 year old woman he says he only met three months ago, who was also married as of a few months ago, introducing her as his fiance, but someone is supposed to believe that they haven’t had sex? It strains credulity more than just a bit.

    Well, that’s one of the perks of being a Christian apologist. It means having a ready-made constituency that’s prepared to believe any manner of far-fetched story. All you have to do is tailor your narrative to flatter their cherished beliefs.

  8. says

    I agree — it’s almost impossible to believe that they didn’t have sex at some point, whether or not they decided to share a hotel room the night in question. (Wouldn’t they have two separate receipts he could have shown the King’s College BoD, not that it proves anything much?)

    But when you’ve built your career on hackery and distortions of the truth, is it any surprise when nobody is willing to take your word for it?

    As for his lengthy separation, I’m not sure that passes the sniff test either. I’m more than willing to accept they were really separated, but it seems to be awfully convenient for D’Souza that they didn’t file for divorce until he had a groupie he wanted to marry. Sure, there’s no law against it, but in terms of keeping up appearances, “quietly separated” was a lot better than “recently divorced.”

  9. says

    Dear social conservatives,

    Nobody is forcing you to live by these crazy and completely unnecessary standards. You’re the ones trying to force them on the rest of us, and then failing again and again to abide by them yourselves. If you’re the ones who actually believe in this crap and you still can’t manage to stick with it, exactly what do you expect of those of us who don’t?

    Signed,

    Not a hedonist, just a realist.

  10. baal says

    I am a hedonist but understand that my actions have an impact on other people. Absent consent, I should (and do) minimize my impact on them – particularly if I’m intentionally having fun. D’Souza seems to be about the opposite.

  11. sawells says

    Bear in mind that a religion with rules that people could actually follow doesn’t work. The structure depends on rules that nobody can follow, thus generating guilt and obedience to the priesthood,

  12. marcus says

    “Bear in mind that a religion with rules that people could actually follow doesn’t work. The structure depends on rules that nobody can follow, thus generating guilt and obedience to the priesthood.Usually the more ridiculous and arcane the rules, the more benefit they are to the aforementioned structure.

    Couldn’t just leave that hanging there.

  13. says

    Here’s the problem I have with it.

    The media and Republicans will give D’inesh and D’enise a free pass, and so will the liberals because “he who has not…”

    That DOES NOT happen when the culprit is a Clinton or a Weiner, and in Weiner’s case, it was not even any physical dalliance.

    Know why this happens?

    Because Republicans stay mum and refuse to focus on the culprit as much as they seek to point out “well, both sides do it”, and the media buys in the false equivalence.

    And if that was all, at least we only have a lopsided playing field.

    What makes it worse is the “I do not have a problem with…” rising above the fray that liberals like yourself indulge in.

    Why are even mentioning what you do not have a problem with? All you need to do it point out the hypocrisy and nothing else.

    This is why Democrats lose when they should be winning comfortable, and lose massively when it should be a close contest.

    The failure to hammer the hypocrisy unconditionally.

  14. says

    People’s private conduct is their private business.

    Exception: people who make other people’s private conduct public business.

  15. dan4 says

    “…or the great Doctor’s Man of La Mancha campaign…”

    Who is this supposed to be in reference to?

  16. F says

    What makes it worse is the “I do not have a problem with…” rising above the fray that liberals like yourself indulge in.

    Why are even mentioning what you do not have a problem with? All you need to do it point out the hypocrisy and nothing else.

    This is why Democrats lose when they should be winning comfortable, and lose massively when it should be a close contest.

    The failure to hammer the hypocrisy unconditionally.

    Try again. The thing we don’t have a problem with is non-hypocritical behavior. The thing Ed (and others) don’t have a problem with is relationships or sex that doesn’t involve cheating on someone – we are supposed to say that we do, as if we believe the religious rules D’Souza hypocritically violates? Or not say anything at all, as if we assent to their crazy rules? Sorry if we only accurately want to point out where the problem is, and make it clear where the problem isn’t.

  17. F says

    dan4 says:

    “…or the great Doctor’s Man of La Mancha campaign…”

    Who is this supposed to be in reference to?

    Dude has a serious personal problem with windmills.

  18. Nemo says

    D’Souza has been living apart from his wife for two years now and says that his wife had asked for a divorce back in 2010. If he just let that lie there until he met someone new and then initiated the divorce, I think that’s perfectly fine.

    Hmm, I don’t. If she asked for a divorce in 2010, he should’ve given it to her in 2010, instead of waiting until it was convenient for him.

  19. says

    D’ouchebag is a prick; that’s pretty much a given.

    He leaves his wife two years before he files for divorce. Aside from the PR problems that might arise I can think of two reasons that he would do something like this. One is because of what might happen to his bank balance during a divorce proceeding. The other is to drag out the separation until his wife decides to move on with someone else and then accuse HER of doing what he’s been doing. That would be the reptilican way.

Leave a Reply