Dinesh D’Souza, Who Opposes Gay Marriage, is Divorcing His Wife for a Younger Woman

Dinesh D’Souza, the man behind the propaganda film 2016: Obama’s America, is in trouble with his base today. D’Souza has been a speaker on the evangelical circuit for years, commanding high speaker fees, and he’s the president of The King’s College in New York City, a school that is a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ.

So what’s the problem? The conservative “scholar” was seen at an evangelical conference last month with a younger woman beside him, someone he referred to as his fiancée and whom he shared a hotel room with… which is especially interesting given that d’Souza is still technically married.

WORLD Magazine’s Warren Cole Smith broke the story and explains:

According to San Diego County (Calif.) Superior Court records, D’Souza filed for divorce only on Oct. 4, the day I spoke with him. Under California law, that starts the clock on a six-month waiting period for divorce. D’Souza on Oct. 4 told me his marriage was “over,” said he “is sure [new fiancée] Denise is the one for me,” and said he had “done nothing wrong.”

D’Souza is now under investigation by The King’s College to see if what he did was inappropriate.

Normally, I would say this is none of our business. It’s his life and this is between him and his wife and any other people directly involved and that’s it. But D’Souza is a conservative Christian who has a history of speaking out against gay marriage because he thinks it’ll ruin “traditional” unions:

Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.

What would a President Obama do, for instance, to protect traditional marriage? Here the answer appears to be: nothing!

Guy marrying his male partner of many years? Unconstitutional! he says.

Sleeping with your mistress while you’re still technically married? D’Souza’s totally cool with it.

That’s why this story matters. Conservative Christians love to tell other people they have no right getting married because it goes against God’s Will. When they themselves break the rules, though, it’s just a “sin” that needs a bit of correcting. This is why you never see Christian groups trying to outlaw divorce — they don’t really care about maintaining “traditional” families. They only care about maintaining their own power, which means putting down same-sex marriage in the process.

The Right Wing will no doubt just brush this off. To them, D’Souza’s marriage is worth more than that of a gay couple in a long-term relationship. Good luck making sense of that.

I would love to see D’Souza fall from grace, but I know that’s not going to happen.

He’ll just lie low for a little while… then write a new book talking about how his faith saved him when he was at his lowest point. Then, his followers will fall for his schtick, as they always do. And D’Souza will rise again, somehow.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • RobMcCune

    It’s insurance on the off chance “traditional marriage”  makes a comeback in this country. If his lust based, freewheeling hedonistic sex must come to an end, he wants to be stuck with a hottie.

  • John the Drunkard

    Just for those who haven’t checked: in all four gospels, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. He does, however, expressly forbid divorce and adultery.

    • TiltedHorizon

       For the sake of clarity, Jesus does condemn homosexuality in a roundabout way.

      Matt. 19:4

      “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?”

      Secondly, in terms of divorce and remarriage there is no distinction between “divorce and adultery”, divorce equals adultery according to Jesus.

      Luke 16:18

      “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

      Lastly, to expand on your statement, in all four gospels homosexuality is condemned 4 times. Adultery (which includes divorce) is condemned more than 90 times (I stopped counting after 90). Considering how many times adultery is condemned it is clear what the real offense is.

      • Winchester

        Its funny, but marriage was on the way out.  Now Gays insisting on Marriage may actually be the ones to save it

    • Amakudari

      And without much qualification, for those who want to check that. It’s possible but uncertain whether anything is grounds for divorce, but “she wasn’t right for me” is obviously out of the question.

      Matthew 19:3-12:

      Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. “The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

      Strangely, you don’t hear Christians speak too highly of congenital infertility, emasculation or total celibacy when discussing traditional marriage.

    • Winchester

      Now remember, a mans arguments have nothing to do with how he lives his life.  Thats what atheists always tell me.  So if a man promoted atheism and condemned religion, but was a mass murderer, that would not affect his arguments.

      Right?

      • Deven Kale

         Could you rephrase the question? It doesn’t seem to make any sense in it’s current form.

      • Shipoopi

        Yeah, I suppose you’re right….. except the mass murderer isn’t a hypocrite.

      • GribbletheMunchkin

        Thats correct. Dinesh D’souza’s arguements fail on their own lack of merit, and his adultery and sexual immorality (bibles words, i’m fine with it) are not relevant to his arguement.
        That said, what this post is about is exposing him as a hypocrite. He argues against gay marriage for biblical reasons but happily violates other biblical prohibitions. Furthermore, to those christians who value him, this doesn’t appear to be a problem.
        We aren’t condemning him because of his adultery, we are pointing out that he is a hypocrite and so are those christians that follow him.
        Your hypothetical atheist murderer would not necessarily be a hypocrite, his arguement might be sound, even though he is a vile murderer. If he was denouncing religion while leading prayer groups however, he would be a hypocrite.

        • Niky

           Just for the record, as a Christian, with many Christian friends, Christians aren’t covering anything up for him.  In fact, they are pretty disheartened at his alleged hypocritical actions.  Personally, I emailed D’Souza’s website today.  I received a response from his assistant, of his public statement on fox news and to be honest its pretty pathetic.  He makes a lot of excuses about how he has been separated from his wife for two years and blah blah blah, clarifying everything but whats important.  The problem is, that in all D’souza’s silly explanations about checking into the state laws to see if being both engaged and married at the same time were legal and his alleged ignorance to the biblical dilemma of being married and engaged at the same time, he fails to even mention the fact that he’s completely disregarding the fact that DIVORCE IS ADULTERY, so all his explanations are irrelevant and make him look even more guilty.  Not to mention completely dishonest.  No true Christian that’s half way intelligent could honestly admit that one of the top religious apologists, and professing conservative evangelical leaders in America, could have missed that being in a relationship with a woman while married was wrong, when marriage is one of the major themes of the bible.  Believe me, Christians are not happy about this.    After saying all that, Just so you know, Christians are not any better than anyone else.  The fact that he royally screwed up, to say the least, makes Him a sinner like everyone else.  Only God will know if D’souza truly doesn’t believes what he preaches, or if D’souza believes wholeheartedly but gave in to temptation, like all of  MANKIND has at some point.  In D’souzsa’s case tempted by a gorgeous girl who came along during a really rough time in his marriage and He took the bait?  I don’t’ know?  But the bible doesn’t say that because we’re Christians were somehow exempt from ever failing miserably.  That’s the whole point.  As a matter of fact there are COUNTLESS examples of Devout followers of God messing up beyond belief, and reaping the consequences, but God restoring them back to Himself.    For example, King David whom the bible refers to as “A man after God’s own heart” lusted after a married woman named Bathsheba. David then used his power to sleep with her.  When she became pregnant, in order to cover up his sin, King David had her Bathsheba’s husband killed.  God did not let David sweep this under the rug. As much as humanity, likes to downplay what they’ve done, God promises in Heb 4:13 that ALL things will be brought into the light.  He also punishes David with a curse that what he did in secret would be done to him but, rather than in secret, it would happen for all the world to witness.  God also tells David that because His actions gave others an opportunity to Blaspheme God, God allowed David’s son to DIE.  This is 2 Sam 12:14.  In other words God doesn’t mess around when men and women in places of leadership misrepresent who God is.  In saying all of that.  The entire message of the bible is GRACE.  So while it might seem like Christians are sweeping certain things under the rug, and that after a period of laying low takes place Christians, go  right back to approving of someone.  According to the bible Each human is called to model the same Grace that Christ demonstrated when He died on the Cross for the sins of humanity.  Therefore, if someone has a true repentant heart, which at this point does not appear to be the case for D’souza, considering he’s denying any fault in the, matter,  than Christians are called to restore them back to themselves.  AKA forgive and forget.  Romans 3:23 says for ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God it also says “let he who is blameless cast the first stone”  After all said and done, King David was repentant as is seen in Psalms 51:1-17.  As a result  God demonstrated His grace in the sanctification of a relationship (Between David and Bathsheba) that had once brought the condemnation of death.
          This is not a “healed but always deficient” relationship, but a “healed
          and holy household,” a union that brought forth Solomon, a child regarded by both sacred and
          secular authority as one of the wisest men ever born. He succeeded his
          father as King, and his name appears in

          the direct bloodline of Christ in the New Testament genealogies.  ps. please forgive the terrible editing flaws.  I am too lazy to properly edit this post.  :)  Blessings, Niky

          • cipher

            So in other words, D’Souza gets to go through life violating as many rules as he likes while telling others how to live and in general being a dickwad, and in the end gets to go to heaven – while we poor benighted atheists who are too proud to acknowledge our desperate need for a savoir will go to hell and be roasted alive for all of eternity while you and your friends get to stand on a mezznine in heaven, laughing and jeering?

            Thanks for clarifying.

            Oh, and Christians are NOT upset about this. Hemant is correct – as long as D’Souza continues to hate all the right people, Christians will continue to embrace him as one of their own. Wagons in a circle – it’s what you people do best.

            • George D

              No true Christian ever jeers at the sinnerman since a Christian is only a sinner who turned to Christ for forgiveness, and the beginning of becoming a different person than he once was.  No, like the heavenly Father, the true believer wants the atheist to be like him, would never condemn him even for his atheism (I have a son who is one), and awaits the time when the true from the false (tares from wheat) are separated, and the true ones go their reward, and the false ones to their chosen destination.  Only God knows if heaven and hell are proper since believers think they exist.  Sometimes, knowing my own self, I think I deserve hell….and am just glad I know He will ultimately save me if I endure until the end.  When you look at some of the awful hypocrites around, the violence and evil men do to one another, doesn’t there have to be some kind of punishment in the after life?
              No, the Father does not enjoy allowing sinners to go to their chosen destination….he rather urges all to turn to His salvation.  Atheists believe in no God.  But if they did, which would they rather have….one who let them alone to do what they wanted to do and then a, you didn’t make it, OR a God who revealed to them a way to be saved if you met the conditions and a guarantee He would stand behind His Word if you stood behind your choice of Him?  I’d choose the second kind of God.  Just some thots to think about.

              • cipher

                Thanks; I spent many years thinking about it. I don’t have to think about it any longer.

                Just to be clear – if your son remains an atheist and goes to hell, you’ll be okay with that? You’ll enjoy your eternity in heaven, knowing he’s suffering?

          • Deven Kale

            I feel a little bad for not really saying anything about nearly all of your comment. It’s mostly because there’s really nothing there I care to mention, except this (I don’t know why these are bothering me so much the past few days): “I don’t’ know?”

            Why the question mark? Are you not sure if you don’t know? Do you not know if you don’t know? Do you want someone else to say that you don’t know for you? Have more confidence than that. If you don’t know something then make it a statement instead of a question, like this: “I don’t know.” Use a period next time, don’t make it a question. It’s just ridiculous to frame it that way and makes you look ignorant.

      • Baal

         Hement’s post specifically addresses the question of why D’Souza’s otherwise irrelevant personal life is relevant.

      • http://v1car.wordpress.com/ The Vicar

        In this case, the man’s acts are, in fact, a refutation of his own arguments, and therefore relevant. If he had based his opinions on something other than the Christian Bible which did not oppose his own actions, then his adultery and divorce would indeed be irrelevant.

  • http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/ James A. Lindsay

    The crazy bit is that if it weren’t for the hypocrisy, no one at all would give a damn about this (or, at least, no one should).

    Did I mention I really get annoyed by D’Souza? I really get annoyed by D’Souza.

    • http://twitter.com/ylaenna M. Elaine

      Me too. D’Souza and Wolpe.

      • cipher

        David Wolpe? Really? He doesn’t bother anyone.

        I can’t fathom putting D’Souza and Wolpe in the same category. I’m stunned.

    • Foster

      “The crazy bit is that if it weren’t for the hypocrisy, no one at all would give a damn about this (or, at least, no one should).”  Really?  Because (regardless of biblical inspiration for its ugliness) I tend to think cheating on your wife is a really despicable thing for anyone to do.

      • Piet Puk

        I tend to think cheating on your wife is a really despicable thing for anyone to do.

        Not as much as being gay, apparently.

      • Coyotenose

        Lemme see if I can restate that whole ” no one should” thing.

        Adultery is vile, but any given instance of it affects a pretty small group. No one outside that group has a compelling interest in that misdeed, and few are likely to in the future. But when the adulterer is actively trying to intervene in the public sphere, and adultery is relevant to his argument, then we should all care.

        Adulterers disgust me, but only a couple of specific ones are relevant to my personal life. Ones like Gingrich and D’Souza, however, are forcing their adultery into relevance for everybody.

        The only question in my mind is which is viler, adultery or anti-gay bigotry?

        • Silentbob

          Adultery is vile… Adulterers disgust me…

          I have a question which may appear to be a trolly question, but I promise it’s not. I genuinely don’t get it. Why is adultery “vile” and “disgusting”?

          I mean suppose my wife were sexually attracted to another man…

          Scenario One:My wife has an affair on the side. But she still loves me and doesn’t want to leave me. So she keeps it a secret.

          Scenario Two:My wife thinks adultery is vile. So she “does the right thing” and divorces me first, in order to be with the other man.
          Now, presumably, the first scenario is “vile”, and the second scenario okay. Why?!

          In the former, everybody’s happy, nobody’s hurt. In the latter, I’m broken hearted because by wife’s left me, and my wife has had to sacrifice her marriage – even though she didn’t want to – to sleep with the other guy. How it that better?

          I understand there’s scenario three; that my wife denies herself and remains “faithful”. Leaving aside the question of why she should prefer this to scenario one, I’m more curious about the comparison between one and two. Why is taking the risk of hurting my feelings worse than definitely hurting my feelings, and her own to boot?

          • http://twitter.com/evildex Dexter Lira

            She promised to be exclusive *to you.* That she’s banging some other dude means that your marriage isn’t working out for her in at least one vital area (sex? companionship? novelty? you call it) otherwise there would *be* no affair. 

            You’re supposed to be “in this together.”

            At the very least that breach of contract means she doesn’t respect you enough (your intelligence, your ability to understand her, your ability to trust her, etc.) to tell you that *her needs have changed* and the marriage may need to be looked after. 

            She isn’t giving you the option to change  the terms of your marriage or to dissolve it entirely. You may not want to exercise the option, but everyone agrees that to make a rational decision on something, you need to have the best information, especially if it will affect both of you. Your cheating wife isn’t giving you that information.  

            Now you can decide, “Honey, I still want to be with you even if you’re banging that other dude.” Or “Honey, you should really decide if you want him or me in your life. I won’t stand for being a cuckold.”  It would be none of my damn business. 

            But if you both decide that it’s for the best to part ways, then maybe it *is.* You could find–or be– the partner who doesn’t quit on something as important as facing life  together with someone you love.

      • Nyandle

         So where might I ask if not through biblical inspiration, does that absolute moral standard come from?  Why do you think Cheating on your wife is despicable? 

  • smrnda

    I’m sure he’ll be able to do a Newt Gingrich. He’ll use this as a way to demonstrate that wonderful virtue of Christian forgiveness, which means he can engage in any hypocrisy and, as long as he says the right magic words to the holy man, he isn’t *really* a hypocrite. 

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

       Good point about Newt Gingrich…. against gay marriage because he supports ‘traditional marriage’ so much that he has gotten hitched three times (starting with his high school geometry teacher), often abandoning a wife either when she was sick or just some younger woman came along.

      Justified by his “religious convictions”… yeah, his unwavering religious convictions (first Lutheran, secondly Southern
      Baptist, thirdly Catholic, fourthly…. well we may have to wait for the
      fourth wife to see what his fourth religion will be… but whatever it
      is we can be sure he will be convicted to it [or at least that is what
      he will tell voters], as long as he can use it to deny marriage equality
      to LGBT Americans).

      http://youtu.be/hmm7um6MWhc

      • Baby_Raptor

        Don’t forget…He slept around because he loves America so much! 

        No, I’m not snarking, he did actually claim that. 

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

          Yeah. Newt Gingrich loves traditional marriage so much ‘he done did it’ three times! 
          That makes him three times more patriotic than the rest of us!

    • Niky

      In all respect, you should do a little more research about what grace and forgiveness are. Does a man who commits a crime but is then pardoned fail to be guilty of the crime he’s committed?  No. Grace does not render someone innocent. Rather a biblical perspective MUST acknowledge that we Humans (which includes Christians) are all of the above, hypocrites, liars, murderers, adulterers, etc. unable to ever become anything different. That is where Jesus Christ comes in.  His death and resurrection were God’s way of dealing with the problem of Man’s inability to be blameless.  Jesus paid the penalty for our guilt.  Mankind is just as guilty but instead of serving a life sentence in jail, someone else served in our place, so we could live.  When I say we, once again I do not just mean Christians, I mean anyone who wants to be pardoned from their guilt.  Grace/forgiveness  does not render the Christian not *really* guilty.  It is quite the contrary actually.  :)
       
      The very idea of freedom presupposes some
      objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Unless we
      return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we
      perish. – C.S. Lewis-

      Non-Christians seem to think that the Incarnation
      implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course
      it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No
      creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that
      are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because
      men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. -C.S. Lewis-

      • cipher

        You really don’t understand where we’re coming from. Most people here were Christians at one point (yes, I know – they couldn’t have been truly saved) and have a far deeper understanding of Christian theology than you suppose.

        You need to stop getting all of your information from your pastor.

  • Jason Goertzen

    Dinesh D’Souza is the only apologist who even comes close to being as irritating to listen to as William Lane Craig–and for the same, ignorant smugness.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=628665833 Bill Santagata

    I always despise the moniker “traditional marriage.” Never mind the fact that our marriage laws are far from “traditional,” even if they were: whose fault is it that “gay marriage” is not traditional? When was gay marriage given the chance to become “traditional”? Back in the 1700s? They would have hanged you. In the 1950s? You would have been forced to undergo electroshock therapy? In the 1990s? You would have been hitched to a car and dragged to your death like Matthew Shepard.

    The whole “traditional marriage” argument blames gay people for their own history of discriminatory treatment, which when seen in this light is revolting.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

       Yup. “Traditional” is meant to appeal to people.

      But “traditional” voting meant that women could not vote.

      The traditional South meant Negros get to the back of the bus.

      Traditional child rearing meant you whip your kids as much as you want.

      I say to hell with stinking traditions if they are not better than more modern options.

  • http://twitter.com/ylaenna M. Elaine

    Hemant, you get bonus points for finding the funniest still shot of D’Souza. It’s begging for a caption.

  • Deanna in NC

    Thanks, Hemant, for posting about 
    D’Souza.  He’s the only guy I can think of where my first thought of him is, “He is such a tool”.  BTW, it’s fun to read the comments at the World site, originator of the story, because the religious people are equally unhappy with D’Souza.

  • Deanna in NC

    Oh, and since D’Souza is such an equal opportunity offender (religion, gay rights, democrats), there is a diary over at DailyKos about his transgressions with over 160 comments, along with front page status.   
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/16/1145334/-Dinesh-D-Souza-take-hiatus-to-spend-time-with-more-families

    • Coyotenose

      Also let us not neglect to point out whenever D’Souza comes up that he’s a racist who makes a living telling other racists that black people are angry and inferior.

  • jose

    It’s only objectively, absolutely wrong when other people do it. I know because Jesus told me.

  • Erp

    Actually some Christian groups very much want to outlaw divorce or make it extremely difficult to get.  Ireland outlawed divorce when it became an independent nation under the lobbying of the Catholic church (it only became legal again in 1996 over strong church opposiiton).    Several Christian groups also have fought for covenant marriages in state legislatures (and won in some: Louisiana, Arizona and Arkansas).  Covenant marriages theoretically have more limited grounds for divorce (theoretical because a couple could get divorced in another state though it might require changing the place of residence of one partner).  

    • amycas

       How does that work? Are covenant marriages a subset of civil marriages, or a different category altogether? What if one person in the marriage decides that they don’t agree with the idea of covenant marriages anymore and wants to get a civil divorce? Are they trapped in the marriage then?

      I’m not trying to aggressively question you. I’m just really interested in this. I had heard of covenant marriages, but only in the specifically religious context. I didn’t know that they were recognized civilly and could have their own grounds for divorce.

      • Baal

         Covenant marriages were floated in my state but didn’t pass.  The xtians wanted the State to change the divorce rules and you’d opt in to covenant marriage at the time of getting your license.  The law included provisions that you could not divorce less than 1 year from declaring your intent; mandatory marriage counseling, it provided funds for religious orgs to provide that counseling; added a fault requirement back in and list limited explicit grounds for the divorce.  I forget the terms that were gender biased but I remember it being easier on men than women. 

  • Andrew B.

    Old testament prohibitions are only appealing to those that have no incentive to violate them anyway.  A heterosexual man might oppose marriage equality because he has no interest in marrying another man, but be more lenient in the case of divorce as he may wish to avail himself of that right at some point.  Likewise, a Christian who would not dream of “committing” the “crime” of blasphemy may clamor for its prohibition, but not feel the same way about eating shellfish.

    • Andrew B.

       Perhaps I should say “religious prohibitions” or just “prohibitions in general.”

  • Erik Cameron

    Religious spokespeople who get caught having gay sex don’t change their stance, I’m not sure we should expect people who get caught in adultery to do so. The best you’ll get is an apology for slipping followed by going back to bed with his young wife.

  • http://www.travismamone.net/ Travis Mamone

    Well, I guess the only thing I can say about this is BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  • Amakudari

    Dinesh D’Souza, who has a teenage daughter, saith:

    Children lose their childhood on the day that parents divorce. They become vulnerable to a host of social pathologies that are well known. Judith Wallerstein’s landmark twenty-five-year study shows that the problems of divorce persist even into adulthood…. If children had the vote, there would be no such thing as divorce. Children are to the right of even Muslims on this issue.

    You know, I don’t have a huge problem with divorce. My parents separated when I was in elementary school. It was rough for a little while, but both my sister and I agreed it was the right decision as well we could at that age, and certainly a few years down the road. We maintain great relationships and constant contact with both parents. Heck, my stepparents have been wonderful. I wouldn’t wish it any other way and am not “to the right of the Taliban.”

    But I hate for-thee-but-not-for-me moralists (however redundant that is). I’d have no problem banning divorce for “traditional marriage” imbeciles.

    • amycas

       ” If children had the vote, there would be no such thing as divorce.”

      This is definitely not true for me or any other person I’ve ever met who was a child of divorce. In fact, in my psych class just this summer we discussed the affects of divorce on the children, and it turns out that it’s better to get a divorce then it is for the children to grow up with parents in a bad marriage. The children pick up on the unhealthy relationship.

      • Deven Kale

        [I]n my psych class just this summer we discussed the affects of divorce on the children, and it turns out that it’s better to get a divorce then it is for the children to grow up with parents in a bad marriage.

        I can vouch for this. My parents were not a good match, and their marriage was a total failure. However, because of religious and other pressures outside of the family, and the false idea that divorce is always the worst option for the kids, they stayed together. Every single one of us children wish they’d gotten the divorce instead.

        Now that we’re all away from them, we’re finally starting to see the real results of them not getting that divorce. One by one, we’re each being diagnosed with mental and/or social disorders. I believe it’s largely because they’re always in bad moods because of their bad marriage, and so the atmosphere in their home has always been, and still is, extremely negative.

        This is why I have no problems with the divorce rate and single parents. If you’re in a bad relationship, then you need to get out of it. It’s far better to have two (or in some cases, just the one) happy separated parents that love you, than two together but miserable ones that can’t stand each other.

  • Jezier

    Don’t you see? That’s just another marriage destroyed by gay marriages! If such a guy divorcing his wife does not convince you of harm done by same sex marriages, what will? 

  • Octoberfurst

     You know, this doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s typical conservative hypocrisy. So now we find out that the  devoutly Christian D’Souza, a man who rails against gay marriage and bemoans the lack of morality in this country, is divorcing his wife for a younger hottie and is even sleeping with his “fiancee” while still married.  And of course he sees nothing wrong with that. I agree with Hemant that normally this would not be anyone’s business but D’Souza is such a self-righteous, judgmental little toad that you really have to call him out on it.
      Will the Religious Right and other conservatives denounce D’Souza and end his speaking engagements? Some will. But the Right is very forgiving when one of their own gets caught.  After all the Right cheers Newt Gingrich when he rails against same-sex marriage and waxes poetic about “traditional marriage” but he is on this 3rd marriage! His adultery has not effected his political career very much. (Of course had he been a Democrat the Right would have taken him out and had him drawn & quartered.)  The Right is truly a group that believes in “do as I say, not as I do.”   

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TMA4MMUP3RACR4QNAX7HOFNBQY Emilia Liz

    A little observation here. I am not sure that the gay marriage issue is as much a left/right-wing matter as many on either end of the political spectrum seem to believe. For example, it was not a Republican government that signed in the much-reviled Defense of Marriage Act; it was Democrat Bill Clinton. Similarly, male homosexuality was a criminal offense in the former Soviet Union – obviously here, religion played no part in the government’s  anti-gay stance.

    Second, may I point out that the Left is also chock-full of family values hypocrites? Anti-spanking activists who spank their own children (Murray Straus), childfree advocates who extol others to adopt rather than have biological children but never adopt themselves (Diamanda Galas), Asian-American activists who chastise Asian women for sleeping with white men but who sleep with white women (Karin Aguilar-San Juan)… the list goes on.

    I’ll end by stating that I don’t share D’Souza’s views on gay marriage (I joke that I don’t have anything particular against gay marriage, just against state-sanctioned marriage in general). I also agree that he is a hypocrite. But I don’t know if he’s that much more guilty of anything that non-Christians and non-conservatives are. 

    • Baby_Raptor

      “The other side does it too” is never a good argument. All it does is make people want to argue more. It’s not a defense, it’s not smart…It’s really best left alone. Hypocrisy is best judged/called out on a case-by-case basis…If you sit around screaming “Both sides do it!,” it loses it’s power.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TMA4MMUP3RACR4QNAX7HOFNBQY Emilia Liz

        I’m in no way defending D’Souza; he’s come across looking somewhat like an idiot – but I think to imply that only conservatives are hypocrites or that all conservatives are hypocrites is not accurate either (I’m not saying this the author of this article does either, by the way).

        • Baby_Raptor

          Not what I meant to say at all, and I apologize if I came off that way. I don’t mean to claim that the Left never does it; I know that’s not true. 

          I just meant that it’s better left unsaid. It just causes arguments, and dulls the effect. 

        • smrnda

           I consider myself very far left, and the people you chose as examples of left-wing hypocrisy I had never even heard of.

          Also, if a person on the left engaged in hypocrisy, I would definitely condemn them. Given the way Newt Gingrich just brushed himself off and picked up where he left off, we’re waiting to see the reaction to D’Souza.

          All said, if people on the right and Christians do condemn him for his behavior,  and it appears some have, I will give them credit for at least not giving a guy a free pass to promote their ideals and then not live by them.

          Another thing about hypocrisy is that I believe it requires an attempt at justification. If a person against beating kids beats their kids (I don’t believe it’s right to call it ‘spanking’ it’s beating) and they admit to doing so, but admit they were wrong, it would be different than if they tried to justify it for themselves.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TMA4MMUP3RACR4QNAX7HOFNBQY Emilia Liz

            To everyone who responded to my post:

            I’ll say that perhaps there is a greater onus for the right to prove they live by their so-called family values because, as one commentator said, they’ve made family values, in those exact words, their hallmark. I still do believe that the left have their own version of family values that they don’t always practise in their personal lives. So yes, in a way someone like Dinesh D’Souza looks worse than a left-wing advocate who doesn’t live up to his or her values.

            Plus it’s more fun to make fun of right-wing family values hypocrites. Remember for instance Dr. Laura Schlessinger? After she started embracing the family values line, one of her ex-boyfriends came out with some nude photos of her. I don’t know if a picture of the above-mentioned Karin San Juan walking hand-in-hand with a white person would have the same effect…

    • Coyotenose

       1. There are multiple orders of magnitude in difference between the two sides on family values hypocrisy.

      2. The left-wing hypocrites are usually extremists. The right-wing ones are almost always mainstream. There is no comparison.

  • HughInAz

    D’inept D’loser is an extremely nasty piece of work. Do some googling and learn about his racism and homophobia while at Dartmouth and as editor of the Dartmouth Review.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Filing for divorce in San Diego County, California suggests that the primary residence of D’Souza’s marriage is in California.

    I wonder if his marriage to Dixie Brubaker began to fall apart on June 6, 2008, when the first same-sex marriages were performed in California, and then his marriage got better on November 5, 2008, when Proposition 8 passed, banning same-sex marriages, but then his marriage took another downturn on August 4, 2010, when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals delcared the ban unconstitutional.

    This would make sense to D’Souza, since he finds every way he can to assert or imply that two people of the same sex being able to marry somehow ruins marriage for people in “traditional” marriages like him. It’s a well-known fact that same-sex marriages emit deadly Gay Rays which are toxic to traditional marriages even at a radius of 100 miles.

    Mr. D’Souza spends a lot of time in New York, and same-sex marriages have been legal there since July 24, 2011. When he marries Ms. Denise Odie Joseph II, they really should live very far away from anywhere there could be a same-sex marriage lurking, or the Gay Rays will ruin that traditional marriage too.

    I suggest the center of Afghanistan.

    • AxeGrrl

      Zingingly fab post, Richard :)

  • GodlessPoutine

    “Sleeping with your mistress while you’re still technically married? D’Souza’s totally cool with it.”
    Maybe his wife’s also okay?  Did you ever think that they could be in one of those Conservative Christian open-marriages?  

    Oh wait, those are the Mormons.

    But seriously, if you go back far enough in the Bible, polygamy is totally okay.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Is this the idiot that did the Obama: 2016 movie?

    • brianmacker

      Yes.

  • anonymous

    > This is why you never see Christian groups trying to outlaw divorce

    They were promoting the ban in places where divorce was outlawed, in Catholic holes like Ireland and Malta.

  • Msironen

    “It is chiefly because of sex that most contemporary atheists have chosen to break with Christianity. … When an atheist gives elaborate justifications for why God does not exist and why traditional morality is an illusion, he is very likely thinking of his sex organs. It may well be that if it weren’t for that single commandment against adultery, Western man would still be Christian.”
    No points for guessing the author of the quote, sorry. It’s that obvious.

    • Deven Kale

       If only he knew my story: It basically blows (pun intended) that theory completely to hell. I’ve probably had fewer partners than the average Christian of any stripe, which is odd for someone that cares more about sex than truth.

  • brianmacker

    I remember reading some articles by D’Souza and being very unimpressed with his intellect.    It might have even been a book by him a long time ago.    His arguments were laughable and I’m not sure how he got through publishing without his reviewer cracking up.  

    • allein

      Now I really do want to read his “What’s the Matter with Christianity” or whatever it’s called that’s sitting on my desk at work. I could use a good laugh.

  • Mertvi43

    What ever that guy  D’zousa was he is already fallen out of grace. Not so that he could not repent, but he is simply living in sin according to Christian terminology.

    Atheists may laugh and ridicule and put God’s name down with D’zousa kind of people. So happened to king David also after killing a man and taking his wife to cover his adultery. God’s enemies got a good reason to put God’s name in shame. Unfortunately this happens today also.

    All this doesn’t tell that majority of Christians would not live good life. Rather it is an exception that makes the rule strong. This case also proves the fact that the Bible calles sin to be true. We are all sinners and D’zousa kind of people are gross example of that. So much of humanism that tries to prove otherwise i.e. that humans would be basically good.

    • cipher

      Don’t worry; we’ll all be in hell soon enough. Then you and your friends will have the last laugh, just as God promised you. I’m sure that will bring you no end of pleasure.

  • Don Gwinn

    Dinesh D’Souza told me that his marriage would fall apart if gay marriages were allowed in his state. . . . and he was *right!*

    (With apologies to Instapundit.)

  • Beau Quilter

    Check out the latest Christianity Today interview of D’Souza:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/dinesh-dsouza-denies-infidelity.html?start=2

    Dinesh says he didn’t say what “World” reporters say he said; and he accuses “World” of conducting a vendetta against him.

    But the best part of the article?! CT asks him to respond directly to the charge of infidelity. D’ Souza’s stuttering response (recorded exactly in the article) is worth the price of admission:

    “It’s absolutely not the case, um, that, um, that, um, um, you know, it’s…. Look, the issue here is that World is attributing to me an admission that I never made—is attributing to me a quotation that I never said. That to me is the problem. … They are just claiming based upon my non-assertion that I did something that I didn’t do.” 

    The follow-up that never happened: So, um, can you answer the question? Have you been unfaithful to your wife?

  • rich h

    I have 2 questions:
    1. There really _is_ someone who wants to sleep with d’Sousa?  Wow….
    2. Which gay marriage caused the breakup?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jerry-Howe/100001160196027 Jerry Howe

    I think that he is probably a repressed homosexual, given his attitudes toward homosexuality. It is rampant in his culture.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X