Sen. Tim Scott Announces Presidential Campaign -- Is It Weird That He's Still Single?

Are we not supposed to ask this question, and if so, why?

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott announced his presidential bid earlier today and a Washington Post reporter made the Internet mad when he referenced a question he asked Scott while promoting his forthcoming book:

I’m not sure that I share the outrage to the question. Scott proudly campaigned as an unmarried, 30 year-old virgin, and even though he reportedly later divulged that, … er … status changed when he was in his 40s, it doesn’t make the question unfair. Scott was the person who made it a campaign issue, not the Washington Post.

So let’s ask the obvious question: Does it concern you that he’s 57 years-old and unmarried?

We talked a bit about this on today’s radio program. I’ll be honest: I do find it concerning for a couple of reasons: If Scott were to become president (I don’t think he has a shot, but for the sake of discussion) it presents a way for him to be compromised. What if he were to marry on the campaign trail or while in office? It seems unwise to subject a new marriage to a presidential campaign or a dating, wedding, and honeymoon period to the fishbowl existence of the White House. The executive office is a demanding job that visibly sucks the life out of the office holder. The most perilous time for a marriage is during the first seven years. Statistically, it’s unwise.

Can you imagine a single POTUS — we haven’t had one since James Buchanan and that was our first and only bachelor POTUS — trying to date? Are the women surreptitiously ferried to the White House supposed to sign NDAs or …?

One of the ways society judges whether or not a man is successful is by the family he’s built — just as we also gauge his character by his choice of wife. If the wife is a bully who needles him incessantly, if his kids lack discipline and respect, then we assume he’s a pushover who will only be pushed around by geopolitical enemies, too.

Some will wonder how can family be so important if the person wanting the top job never tempered his ambitions to start one himself?

Do we really downplay the importance of the nuclear family, the role it plays as the building block of society, to satisfy modern cultural hegemony? Even as we protest the secular society’s declared war on the nuclear family, fathers, and men?

Are we not supposed to ask this question, and if so, why?

The bigger question is, however, will this be an issue for Scott?

*Quick addendum — I’m genuinely fascinated by this and even more so after seeing some comments on social media questioning, with genuine inquisitiveness, whether or not the focus for a committed bachelor and a family man can be the same. I think humans do have a tendency to trust the familiar and many don’t honestly know any committed bachelors in their lives.

I also disagree with some speculation that Paul was advocating for the single life in 1 Corinthians. In verse 7 he makes it clear that singleness as it pertains to celibacy is akin to vocation, and rather a personal decision brought about as a result of persecution and suffering (7:25). If you can live a godly life single, lead it singularly, if you can lead such married then marry or stay married. Paul doesn’t lift up one as better or more functional than the other.