Sens. Craig and Vitter team up to co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment.
Filed Under: Ethics
By on Jun 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Sens. Craig and Vitter team up to co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment.
Larry Craig and David Vitter — “two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity” — have named themselves as co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sports
Surveillance
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Comedy GOLD.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pmAwesome…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pmMan, you gotta love the Republicans’ lack of self-awareness. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
I heard that both Craig and Vitter pushed for the language to include, “marriage ‘shall consist only of the union of a man, and a woman who stands next to him at the podium during his damage-control press-conference.’” But it was voted down.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pmYou can’t make this stuff up.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pmHere they go! Trotting out the ole “Gay Marriage” distraction…you gotta have a wide stance to have the lack of shame, Craig…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pmstranger than fiction
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm…it’s…so hard…to…to…type…a joke…when…you are…already…ROTFL
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pmYou really can’t write this $hit, they write it for us. I’m surprised that the King of marital fidelity, John McSame isn’t also sponsoring the bill.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pmSo I guess that whole “States’ Rights” thing has gone out the window, huh?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pmOhhhh, the irony…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Oh my, that’s just plain FUNNY.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pmI can hardly wait to see what the Daily Show does with this. Sometimes, it just writes itself.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:53 pmThose wives looked thrilled to be with their men. :-D
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But let’s be fair. Larry Craig believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that sex in public bathroom stalls should be between a man and a man.
We don’t really know where Vitter thinks man on man sex is appropriate — just where sex and diapers are appropriate.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pmRepublicans are now intentionally releasing their best material when Stewart and Colbert are on vacation.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pmlaughing…so…hard…can’t…breathe…crying…chest…pain…lungs…collapsing…can’t…breathe…too…funny…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pmBoth of these fine public servants value marriage. It allows them to trot the wife out to prove they aren’t gay or seeing prostitutes regularly. But the most important part is the alimony and testimony part of a marriage. Can’t testify about a congressperson you are spoused up with, you will disappear.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pmIf passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman….
…wide stance and diapers notwithstanding.” ;o)
June 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pmThis is a very perceptive comment. They’re crafty, those Rs, you gotta give ‘em that.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pmROFL!!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pmNO MORE REPUBLICANS!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pmWhat a riot, can hardly type from laughing…Crying with laughter…Damn, these guy’s have over dosed for sure…Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pmlol no rogerse real marriage is between civilians and their governments.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pmCan we say - JOHN STEWART - he just got a whooper of a comedy skit here, wow, go with it John, it doesn’t get much better than this.
Diaper David and Tappy Widestance what an awesome pair.
What makes Repukes such hypocrites anyway, is it the water?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pmTo be fair, Craig and Vitter were not trying to “marry” anyone when they were trolling for sex and it’s easy to speculate that this legislation would probably more accurately be called “Save My Marriage Amendment”.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pmSens. Craig and Vitter team up to co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment.
- - Some jokes just write themselves.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm.
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
…OUTLAW DIVORCE!
.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pmThis seems like a rather narrow view for such a wide-stanced guy as Craig.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pmrogerse Says:
If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman
Isn’t that the definition of marriage.
roger does not understand (go figure!) that “definitions” are dynamic and changing according to culture and time. He probably does not realize that our own culture has at various times defined marriage as “taking a wife” (property) and uniting governments. Even Biblical acceptance of more than one woman as a wife and the ordering of a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother to maintain a blood line constitute different definitions of marriage.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pmThe two easily agreed that the Marriage Fidelity Protection Amendment wouldn’t be the best pursuit at this time.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pmBe the joke, boys; be the joke!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pmYa know I don’t like to pick on people that are mentaly impared but there has to be exception’s every now and then….Would the troll care taker’s please remove their charge, he’s crapping on himself and drooling all over the place..Use lot’s of towels and disenfectant, no telling what he has, could be catching…Know it’s not worth keeping….Blessings and thank’s to the clean up crew.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pmIs this serious?
As an enthusiastic Marriage Equality advocate, I have to thank these two find gentlemen for their unwitting support for my cause.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pmPRESERVE HAPPINESS
June 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pmOUTLAW ALL MARRIAGE!!
And I thought the GOP didn’t have a sense of humor.
Amendment 28: Marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman excluding all others, except of course those employed or self-employed in the business of negotiable virtue or other liaisons where the spouse is not aware, nor would want to be.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI think “marriage” should be abolished altogether. Any couple, including the heterosexual ones, should have to have a civil union to gain access to certain benefits. This would take religion out of the equation entirely. Couples could have an optional religious ceremony of some sort, but would still need to get a legal civil union in order for their partnership to be recognized by the federal, state, or local governments. I think this is the only way to separate church and state when it comes to marriage - gay, straight, or otherwise. All marriages would be equal this way. And we can even refer to them as civil unions or some other legally descriptive term, since the word “marriage” implies a religious sanction.
I’m sure I’ll be attacked for the above statement but I myself come from a religious background in which homosexuality is frowned upon. I am not an atheist and I’m not against religious, but I am only pondering what I perceive would be a fair and objective solution to removing another aspect of religion from government and politics.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pmWOW, First Rove’s indignation over the outing of a CIA operative, now this. WTF is wrong with these people.
And how in the wide, wide world of sports do they get anybody to vote for them or with them? Sheesh!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pmS.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that the marriages of Larry Craig and David Vitter are annulled, and neither of them will ever be allowed to remarry.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pmThis is like Jeffrey Dalhmer sponsoring a bill against cannibalism.
Reality is stranger than fiction
June 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pmKind of reminds me of Tammy Wynette singing “Stand by Your Man … and his man, and his man’s man, and his girlfriend on the side and the occasional hooker”
June 27th, 2008 at 2:11 pmMax-1 Says:
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
…OUTLAW DIVORCE!
- - If divorce were ever made illegal, there’d be FAR fewer marriages.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pmCraig and Vitter are trying to save themselves from getting the boot in their next elections, this would never pass ratification.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pmrogerse Says:
“If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman”
In the case of your parents, the man and woman were brother and sister.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pmrogerse,
What about all the Loyal Christians(R) that marry for life only later to get a divorce and then remarry? “Till death do us part” means nothing to them and you’re O.K. with that? But let two men get married for life and gawd forbid, THAT is a sin? Isn’t infidelity a sin? What about Craig’s homosexual trysts? And Vitter’s lust for hookers? Not sins?
Oh, IT ONLY COUNTS WHEN YOU’RE A REPUBLIFUNKINNAZI? NO?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pmGood post’s Lady Z and Scary….Can I add the cost for union’s licences should be high and the divorce aspect real cheap…A simple contract might be the way to go..Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pmRog, Daryll is the parody troll around here. If you want to take the job from him you’re going to need to study up first because you’re way over your head here.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pmZooey Says:
PRESERVE HAPPINESS
OUTLAW ALL MARRIAGE!!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I’ll second, third, fourth… ? that!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm#43 Badmoodman,
June 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pmAnd less broken homes too!
How many wives did Soloman have again?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pmToo bad Mark Foley can’t co-sponsor this bill in absentia :)~
June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmPlease, not widestance Craig and Diaper Dave; insanity reigns with these two. They can’t possibly know how ridiculous this makes them look.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmBut Zooey,
June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmI’ll be happiest when I’m married to the man I love.
Isn’t Haggard back in action somewhere? This could be the first bill sponsored by a ‘hat trick’ of nutjob repubs.
As Zooey said: Look at the faces of those wives; that is not the “I am happy to be here look”. Thay may even pull a Lorena Bobbit deal and cut him off at the *cough* knees.
Thanks for the laughs GOP; you make this stuff way too easy.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pmCraig and Vitter should team up with Reverend Ted Haggard to sponsor the “support those who snort meth from the gay hooker’s dick with church donation cash” protection act.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pmScaryBrownHusseinChick (ThinkOutsideTheBush) Says:
I think “marriage” should be abolished altogether. Any couple, including the heterosexual ones, should have to have a civil union to gain access to certain benefits. This would take religion out of the equation entirely.
I absolutely agree with you. “Marriage” is nothing more than a legal contract entered into by two parties, exactly like a sale, a will, a partnership, etc.
It should be treated as such.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pmSo same sex marriage is somehow going to destroy the institution of marriage and must be banned at all costs yet infidelity is apparently harmless. You have to wonder if these clowns ever actually listen to what they say.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pmThere’s NO WAY you can make this stuff up.
Comedy writers everywhere won’t know what to do when these buffons get sent packing….They may actually have to work one day a week. That’s because there’s enough material left behind to keep them busy just trying to weed their way thru the piles - FOR YEARS!!!
LOL….
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm..If divorce is out lawed, homacide’s will increase, I guarentee it……LOL..Just ask any one that had to get a divorce….Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pmMax-1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
But Zooey,
I’ll be happiest when I’m married to the man I love.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I’ll be happy when you can marry the man you love, too. :)
But if marriage is only for “certain people,” (i.e. a man and a woman), and not available to any adult person who wants to get married — I say get rid of the whole concept.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pmWTF is wrong with these people.
Please, everyone, refrain from trying to answer this question. This is a blog, not a doctoral thesis.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pmOh, the list of co-sponsors for this piece of crap - the same old gang of freaknuts:
Cosponsors [as of 2008-06-26]
Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID]
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Jebus. The Batshit Crazy Brigade…
June 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pmI’ve cross-posted this on TheZoo:
The hilarious irony of being Republican
June 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pmWell if I had to wake up next to some frigid frump like Mrs Vitter everyday, I’d want some extra lovin too!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pmIf passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman..
John McSame’s version:
“shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman..and a mistress“
June 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm#63…Laughing so hard can’t type any more….Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pmOkay, sorry, busy day, so if someone posted this, my apologies:
the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
But I’m assuming Craig is okay with a union of man and man if it’s “outside the marriage”, and Vitter is okay with any union of man and woman, especially if it’s done in a motel room?
Is this another SNL sketch???
June 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pmSorry, I can’t come up with anything that rises to the level of sarcasm which this deserves.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pmAnd they added and AMENDEMENT to the bill:
It is permissible to have fun in public bathrooms.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pmIt is OK for a husband to try a baby diapers.
Please tell me that in the picture both Ms. Craig and Ms. Vitter are wearing tops that read “I’M WITH STUPID”
Please!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pmZooey Says:
But if marriage is only for “certain people,” (i.e. a man and a woman), and not available to any adult person who wants to get married — I say get rid of the whole concept.
I totally agree. There should be two categories:
1) “civil unions” sanctioned by the State and dissolved by the state with all the rights and privileges endowed by the state and federal governments and
2) “marriage” committed in a religions setting to be dissolved only by the religious body that sanctioned the “marriage”. If you want all the perks that go with it, then if you get “married” you also have to do the “civil union”.
I think this would be the perfect solution to the problem.
My thoughts are if we had a system similar to this, most people would not commit to the religious “marriage” because I suspect that the church would make it much harder to get out of than the State would do with a “civil union”.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pm“I am not gay”
June 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pmIf there are any trolls here (and there should be a plenty), please explain to me, in detail with examples, of how an amendment worded to include marriage as a union “only of a man and woman” will protect heterosexual marriages.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:34 pmI’m just curious, because as of today, about 99.9% of marriages are hetero, and over half end up in divorce. I’d say that “straights” are doing a fine enough job of ruining marriages.
Right on cue, these hypocritical bastards fire up this amendment in an election cycle. Anything to distract the public from the fact that John McCain is Grandpa Munster on crank, and that the Republican Party is bankrupt of ideas, ethics, and honor.
Coming Soon to a Congress near you: a constitutional amendment outlawing the burning of the American flag!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pmI still like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg
June 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pmCraig & Vitter should draft a bill protecting marriage from men like them.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pmWhat is it about monogamous homosexuals that scare the Repugs so?
Oh, that’s right. Anything different than their little imaginary world make them wet themselves.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pmNotice who the GOP had trot out this piece of farce. Vitter and James.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pmThey know the homosexual stuff won’t make much hay for them this election, but they have to throw it out as a trial balloon. And they don’t want to sacrifice any “good” GOP members.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pmThe Republi-thugs know no shame.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pmWhat in the hell does marriage (of any kind) have to do with the Constitution? Have I missed something in my readings of what was written in the Constitution?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pmScaryBrownHusseinChick (ThinkOutsideTheBush) Says
June 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I’m sure I’ll be attacked for the above statement…
________________________________________________________
Not from me, you won’t. I agree with you completely. Separating unions recognized by God and recognized by government is the only way to go.
When Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier back in 1956, they had two ceremonies. The lavish wedding spectacle that was presented to the public was the religious (Catholic) ceremony, but the civil ceremony required for the marriage to be valid under Monagasque law was a small private affair (no catering).
Couples who wanted their union blessed by the church generally had two ceremonies, since only the civil ceremony was recognized by the government.
I think that’s an excellent system.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pmAddendum to that “Constitutional Amendment”:
[Marriage] “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman”… and his mistress, and the guy in the next stall.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pmLeftside Annie Says
June 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Cosponsors [as of 2008-06-26]
Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID]
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Jebus. The Batshit Crazy Brigade…
__________________________________________________
Good luck, guys. In order for this amendment to get green-lighted, you need 38 states to ratify. This means it will only take 13 states to derail it.
Many people who are against gay marriage believe it should be up to the states to decide. I doubt the 38 can be scraped together.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pmTeleMan Says:
What is it about monogamous homosexuals that scare the Repugs so?
Oh, that’s right. Anything different than their little imaginary world make them wet themselves.
Fewer opportunities for anonymous bathroom sex for Craig… For Vitter, he just believes only heterosexual men should be able to pretend to be married while screwing around - it’s HIS RIGHT do trash marriage, not gay people’s.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pmThis bill must be designed to protect Larry Craig’s marriage. After all, if gay marriage were legalized, if Craig has a gay lover, he could pressure Craig to divorce his wife and marry him. In other words, it would be “put up or shut up” time. We couldn’t have that, now could we?
Remember, the safety of our country depends upon the passage of this bill. Just recall the dire warnings from the Christian Reich about this, including the pronouncement that Hurricane Katrina was New Orleans’ punishment for allowing a gay event to occur in the city (Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, with the recent flooding, must have committed similar egregious sins as well).
And consider the following news flash from three years ago, “On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the approval of the Civil Marriage Act.” Maybe nature hasn’t yet unleashed their fury on that country, but if the Christfascists are correct, there time is coming.
Perhaps Vitter signed on just to add some “credibility” to the bill?
Even Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert couldn’t make up something this outrageously funny.
Anyone have any info regarding other Senators jumping on the bandwagon or rather, going into the bathroom stall with Craig & Vitter on this farce?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:01 pmS.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment, declares that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman and any 3rd party (or 4th, or 5th, etc.), whether male or female, the man decides he wants to drag into it from time to time and at any time he so wishes.”
June 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pmRe: #88 –
Good on you for checking the fine print, Linus.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pmHow come all the truly hilarious shit gets posted while I am out?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pmIs S-mart really as stupid as she sounds?
Let’s hope she doesn’t breed with rogerse.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pmSens. Craig and Vitter team up to co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment.»
Is this a desperate grab to erase any anti marriage journeys going on in their marriages?
Or is it a tired out task to revive the gay wedge issue for political hype?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pmSenator McCain, do you think you can keep it in your pants long enough to give us your opinion on this bill.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pmlock_box was more amusing than S_Mart. As usual I would have to ask again for a clear well articulated answer as to how the hell same gender marriage poses any threat whatsoever to hetero marriage. Let’s go dipshits. Pony up a real answer for once
June 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pmHere are some places; Netherlands/Holland, Belgium, South Africa, Spain, Canada
Ah, so that’s how it works in Simpletonville?
Stay out of CA and MA, then, or you’ll be a blatant hypocrite instead of just a wingnut hypocrite.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pmNot So S_Mart Says:
This sounds like a wonderful compromise but, this is not good enough for the left wing lunatics. It’s either all or nothing for them.
Liberals remind me of that kid in school who had overly religious parents that wined and cried about everything the school did no matter how accommodating it tried to be. Let me offer a little advise, take you kids to a more accommodating school!
You may want to elaborate more, please. Unless this was a construed attack on “Liberals”, it doesn’t make any sense, especially in regard to the topic at hand.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pmDing, ding, ding, we have a winner folks. Dumbest comment yet. Perhape it needs a name change so 1/2 S_Mart.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pmWith all the problems this country has right now perhaps somebody like Rogers or Tracy can explain why this issue is taking up any time in Congress?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:24 pmI’d like to help you out K_Mart, how’d you get in?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:26 pmS_Mart Says:
…take you kids to a more accommodating school!
you should have stayed
awake in school.
right?
(
good luck.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pmShayne Says:
With all the problems this country has right now perhaps somebody like Rogers or Tracy can explain why this issue is taking up any time in Congress?
Good point. rogerse is always whining about Democrats wasting time on Congressional hearings. He must be furious about this one because it is sooooo stupid.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
lock_box was more amusing than S_Mart. As usual I would have to ask again for a clear well articulated answer as to how the hell same gender marriage poses any threat whatsoever to hetero marriage. Let’s go dipshits. Pony up a real answer for once
I second this.
And don’t try the “it will lead to incestual marriage, necrophilia, etc., etc.”. Those are seperate issues, and NOBODY is advocating for those types of marriages.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pmTP — you owe me a new laptop… I just snarfed liquid all over mine…
June 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pmThose two are buffoons. They show no respect for their own marriages, then want to force a definitiuon of marriage on others that they don’t even honour themselves. It’s like watching the Two Stooges. I’m sure another Repub will soon jump on board to fill out the trio.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pmNote to bloggers: S_Mart has seen fit to start providing “dirty” links. Flag him and do NOT click on his links.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pmI tell you being a republican is proof positive of insanity.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pmYou have to be insane to be a republican how else could you explain people that love to have others tortured and killed while shouting praise jesus?
I tell you republican = insanity!!
We already have the Defense of Marriage Act! Or do they not know that?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pmThe looks on their wives faces….well you can see it…what do you think they are thinking?
June 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pmWow!
These two are the poster children of prev sex.
Oh please, this is not a federal matter. If marriage is so scared then why do I see people getting married in star war, chicken suits and other distasteful costumes?
Marriage is between two consenting adults. It isn’t the state nor the feds business.
GMAFB
June 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pmOne is sticking his dick in women who are not his wife and the other is sticking his dick in the ass of men. Now how sick do these two have to be to think it is their place to say that a man should only marry a women.
You can just read Craig’s mind as he thinks, boy that Vitter is cute as hell, I wonder if he is a wide-stancer.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pmHow fitting for the both of them.
Vitter can provide the diapers and Craig the toe tapping to exite the other Senators into supporting their reserections of puritan rule.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:01 amROTFLMAO!
This one puts the icing on the hypocritical cake.
Just another example of the so-called “moral majority” accusing others of the sins they themselves are comitting - as a distraction. All from Nudie Gingrich’s reThugliCon manual.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:11 amI should say things they define as sins. But only if other people do … whatever it is.
They’re so tangled up in their wretchedness they don’t even know what it is they think they are supposed to believe.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:15 amThe sad, and slightly scary aspect of all this, is that they’re doing this because they think their constituents are too dumb to realize they’re being played, by two hypocrites.
They must have so low an opinion of the intelligence of people who sent them to congress, Craig and Vitter think this bit of political chaff will cause the voters to doubt the charges made against them, and just maybe, return them to office after the election.
Sadly, given the easily-manipulated nature of their conservative constituents, it’ll probably work.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:39 amBreaking news from the British Journal of Nutsology.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:48 amIt is now a proven scientific fact that being republican is proof positive of insanity says Dr Elmwood Futherthom.
All republicans should be treated, and some can recover.
However die hard bush supporters are beyond help and should be quarantined as soon as possible for the greater good of humanity; these people have lost all signs of being human and have become a danger to themselves and others. If republicans are spotted in your area they should be pointed out to local mental health professionals. The sooner the better. That is all.
I’ll get back to you when I can get up off the floor from LMAO.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm*giggle, chortle, guffaw, snort.*
Oh shit, I think I just ruptured my spleen!
June 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pmIt’s the party of family values!
June 29th, 2008 at 12:39 am