Should Tim Scott being single matter?

For me, Tim Scott being single doesn't matter, but IF he's living a life that lacks self-control, that does.

U.S. Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C., at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa on February 22, 2023 for his “Faith in America” tour.

U.S. Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C., is a bachelor and has always been a bachelor. At 57 years old, he has not been married and does not have children. 

A fact mentioned in several profiles I've read of him since he announced he was running for president.

If elected president Scott would join a rare club. Only three presidents were bachelors when elected James Buchanan (1791-1868), John Tyler (1790-1862), and Grover Cleveland (1837-1908). Buchanan remained a lifelong bachelor. Tyler married while in office, and Cleveland was married in the White House. 

Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) was single when he became president in 1829 and was a widower. His wife, Rachel Donelson, passed away the previous year. 

Is Scott's bachelor status a problem for him? Among some voters, yes. 

Should it be? It depends.

Conn Carroll, the commentary editor at the Washington Examiner, wrote about his concern that people are getting married later or not getting married altogether. He then described the benefits of marriage. 

Then concluded the piece writing, "But Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) doesn’t seem to care about any of this. It’s not that he has chosen a life of celibacy — he hasn’t — he just has chosen to ignore the institution of marriage entirely. I think this is a mistake. And I think it makes his candidacy a nonstarter."

Like Conner, I'm concerned about the institution of marriage and the growing trend of younger people shying away from it. I also understand its benefits (and challenges), my wife and I will celebrate 30 years in August, but I don't think it is fair to say he's ignoring the institution of marriage. 

Conner isn't alone. 

Will Chamberlain, a conservative attorney, tweeted, "Tim Scott is 57, never married, no children. Not to be harsh, but that's simply disqualifying."

That caused quite the ruckus. 

He then followed it up with this statement after someone asking him if he'd rather have someone who has been married three times and has children from three different mothers.

"Ideally my candidate would have gotten married once, but if I'm to choose between a 57-year-old thrice-divorced candidate with three kids and a 57-year-old never married candidate with no kids I'll take the former," Chamberlain responded. 

Say what?