Must be an election year. The Federal Marriage Amendment is Back. Guess who's co-sponsoring...

[jefferson_dem]

Yup, it's David "Diapers" Vitter --->

and Larry ""tea room queen" Craig --->

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support
Posted June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Just this week, a group of Republican senators re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which, as we know, would ban gay marriage.

And once again, the language is pretty straightforward:

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 isn’t especially surprising. Republicans are looking at the political landscape, and they’re feeling awfully discouraged. The polls look bad, the base looks depressed, and fundraising looks iffy. Rallying the far-right troops with an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution — even though it has no chance at even getting so much as a hearing — might be helpful to the conservative movement.

But the funny part is looking over the list of the 10 original sponsors. Most of the names are predictable — Brownback and Inhofe, for example — but there are two others whose names stand out: Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room.

As my friend Kyle put it, these two are “not exactly the poster boys of the family values crowd or particularly upstanding examples of the supposed sanctity of the ‘union of a man and a woman.”‘

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16020.html

[msongs]

1. correct name for craig = "tea room queen" & what is the dems platform gay marriage view? nt

[jefferson_dem]

2. I like your name for Craig better...

;)

[book_worm]

3. the more hypocritical you are the more likely you'll be a Republican.

[AspenRose]

4. Diaper Man!

[jody]

5. IMO same-sex marriage is more important now that SCOTUS with Heller has removed RKBA as a divisive,

polarizing issue.

IMO the entertainment community with the coming-out of many beloved actors/actresses and some same-sex marriages have encouraged many voters to accept same-sex marriage or not to let it affect how they vote.

Another IMO, I believe Repugs are overreaching this time because I sense the electorate are less concerned about same-sex marriage than about outsourcing jobs, housing-market crash, gas prices, war with Iraq and possibly Iran, and other issues that really affect the life of these United States.

All in all, Rovian tactics to divide and conquer the electorate may be expensive and ineffective in this GE.