These men are elected to represent their constituencies and run the executive arm of government. They are not elected to give citizens a running commentary or rant from on high about the values people should or should not hold. This gives a whole new meaning to micro-management.
This is a great piece from Sushi Das, just change the name of the country, the pollies and the scandals and it could be printed and be relevent any almost any western democracy. Values are not something that can be generalized take, for example, the eating of dog, there are those who will cry out that it is against our values, but why? "Dog is man best friend" I hear some cry. So fucking what? I know people who have pet pigs and I don't hear the anti-dog eating league crying out against pork (I hear P.E.T.A. crying out but they are a different story). Hell, if it's not a rare or endangered animal and if it tastes good with the sauce of your choice, go for it.
What about abortion? It is against Christian values: I don't recall Christ mentioning abortion. The bible says it is wrong: I can find passages in the bible that could quite easily be interpreted (and Christians have shown us that interpreting the bible as you like is just dandy) as abortion being OK with God. It is murder: Murder is the killing of another human with malice aforethought, so then how do we define "human"? A foetus has no brain so it can't know it is human, it can't know anything and that doesn't sound very human to me. A new-born baby may not know what it is, but it does know that it IS. Soul makes it human: Prove the existence of soul.
Should we base values on faith? Sure, if you like, just don't expect me to do the same.
Should we base values on tradition? Sure, if you like, just don't expect me to do the same.
Should we base values on what does and does not un-necessarily hurt other people? Yes.