Staff Reports
Big talk about divorce from some on the left finally ran into a problem: when the subject was a man who left his wife after she murdered their children, suddenly the moralizing stopped being about “women’s choices” and started being about how he should have stuck it out. This week, The View co-host Sara Haines asked aloud why Patrick Clancy didn’t remain married to Lindsay Clancy after she killed their three young children. The response was predictable: outrage from the right, and a rare test of the left’s “do as I say” divorce politics.
Leftist women who told others to divorce now have explaining to do
For years, a certain wing of leftist feminism loudly encouraged women to divorce MAGA husbands over politics. It was a moral demand dressed up as empowerment — divorce him if he votes wrong, the message went. But when conservative commentators point out the obvious double standard — why is it fine to dump a husband for politics but not to leave a spouse who murdered your kids? — suddenly those same voices act shocked. Sara Haines’ question about Patrick Clancy exposed the hypocrisy: selective sanctimony wrapped in virtue-signaling.
Why Patrick Clancy’s choice is not a mystery
Let’s be clear: finding your children killed by your spouse is not a domestic squabble or a political disagreement. It is trauma, horror, and a change in the basic facts of life for anyone involved. Forgiveness is a private spiritual or emotional process. Choosing to remain married to the person who did that — for public approval or to prove a political point — is not a reasonable expectation. When The View worries about “marital love ending,” they’re missing the human reality: love can survive forgiveness, but it doesn’t require living with a murderer.
What this reveals about modern moralizing
This episode is less about Patrick Clancy and more about the left’s habit of weaponizing personal choices as political proof. If you demand women leave their husbands for voting Republican, you can’t then shame a man for choosing to end a marriage after unimaginable betrayal and violence. The “woke marriage police” have picked their causes based on politics, not consistent principles. That’s the real scandal — not a man choosing protection, sanity, and separation after losing his children.
At the end of the day, common sense should win. Patrick Clancy didn’t sign up to be a prop in a culture-war morality play. He’s a man who survived a nightmare and made the only reasonable decision a person could make under those circumstances. If liberals want to keep lecturing the country about marriage, privacy, and “empowerment,” they should at least apply the rules consistently — or stop pretending they’re motivated by principle and admit it’s just politics.
