Dems: Vitter a hypocrite for bid to prohibit same-sex marriage

[sabra]

Source: The Hill

Congressional Democrats yesterday accused Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) of hypocrisy because he championed a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Last year Vitter told colleagues on the Senate floor, “It is very appropriate and well overdue that we in the Senate focus on nurturing, upholding, preserving and protecting such a fundamental social institution as traditional marriage.”

...

“You need to read his speech about marriage, and if you read that speech and compare it to his behavior you can certainly conclude there is hypocrisy there,” Vitter’s colleague and one of the Senate’s 15 female members, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), said.

“Several years ago, when folks who were focused on the health of marriage and the upbringing of children from around the country gathered to begin the attack on this problem, they came to the Congress with the idea of proposing a constitutional amendment,” Vitter said last year when an amendment banning gay marriage reached the Senate floor. “I was in the House at the time, and I was honored that I was one of the four House Republicans … whom these leaders approached to be the original co-authors of this constitutional amendment.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-vitter-a-hypocrite-for-bid-to-prohibit-same-sex-marriage-2007-07-13.html

[Spinzonner]

1. Actually, he's just trying to protect same-sex couples

from committing adultery like he did. If they aren't allowed to marry there would be no adultery.

:sarcasm:

[compote_tom]

2. The irony here

Is that for years the "conservatives" supported federalism(state rights), and the thought of the federal "guvmint" being involved in state issues(such as marriage) was repugnant. Of course that was before the religious right took over the conservative movement. I wonder if anyone knows what a principled conservative is now. Barry Goldwater was soundly criticized for his comment "they pay their taxes don't they" when ask how he felt about self proclaimed communists speaking at a college campus before he was to speak. I wonder if he would even recognize what passes for conservative today.

[TankLV]

3. Oh my, it's so simple, really. If there's a FEDERAL regulation, like say outlawing discrimination,

that would apply to a fucking racist community, then the fucking REPUKE RACISTS would naturally demand "states rights" to be the fucking REPUKE RACISTS they are.

Likewise, if some locality somewhere has mandated clean air and water standards, or non-discrimination, or, allow gays to marry, then it's perfectly natural to demand FEDERAL LEGISLATION so they can tell OTHER places what THEY can do, as long as it matches their own BIGOTRY, RACISM, and HATRED.

See? It's quite really simple - it boils down to always legislating what only THEY want into law, EVERYONE ELSE CAN GO GET FUCKED...

[Strathos]

5. That's exactly why they oppose the hate crimes bill

They are scared to death they won't be able to preach against homosexuality and turn people against homosexuals. You should hear some of the arguments I've had with those people who say "hate crime legislation will limit free speech". I've asked what kind of speech are you talking about, and of course they can never answer and they give the same tired old shit every time, "it's the thought police and a crime is crime, no matter if it's hate based or not." Fuckers!

[SpiralHawk]

4. The bill also Mandates republcion Diaper Sex with Prostitutes

All citizens will be mandated to embrace republicon family values, hitch up some Pampers like good republicons, and hand over credit cards to Hookers...

[knowledgeispwr]

6. Good.

The focus of this scandal (and future ones) should be the hypocrisy that hurts everyone involved.

[moose65]

7. One minor quibble....

Aren't there 16 women in the Senate? The article says 15.