Jul 9, 2008
Pair of GOP adulterers cosponsor so-called defense of marriage act
Only Republicans would have the audacity, hypocrisy and gall to have the likes of Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, known as the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” that denies gay couples the right that every other American enjoys, the right to marry whoever they please.
Craig, R-ID, and Vitter, R-LA, are just two of 12 cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 23, but their past performance is the absolute height of hypocrisy. This is old news because the resolution was introduced on June 25, but I just heard about it. It just struck me as shameless. Perhaps the best way to protect marriage would be to not allow Craig and Vitter to marry.
As you know, Craig was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal restroom in the infamous foot-tapping incident. Craig pled guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts. He has been a strong supporter of anti-gay measures, and despite an attempt to have sex with another man, he denies he is gay.
In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam. Upon his return to the Senate, he was cheered by his GOP senate colleagues. Perhaps, they were just happy his indiscretion was with a Congressional Page or a male.
The language is nothing new from past efforts. Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
This appears to be little more than a ploy to boost the GOP’s sagging prospects at the polls where they are stuck with an unexciting and uninspiring candidate who has flip-flopped on almost every single issue just to get elected. With the candidate’s past marriage record, maybe the best way to protect marriage is to also bar him this basic human right too.