Creep of the Week
All good, God-fearing Americans know the institution of marriage is under attack. Admittedly, it's a little surprising considering that folks against "gay marriage" thought they showed homos good in 2004 when they passed anti-gay marriage amendments across the country.
"You can have Abercrombie, Judy Garland and folk music," the heteros told the homos. "But marriage? That's ours. Hands off."
And yet, the homos persist. They're like some kind of exotic creature that just regenerates a tentacle for every one the enemy cuts off. A big, rainbowed starfish affixed to the bottom of the U.S.S. Straight Arrow, if you will, determined to crawl to the deck and take over the ship.
So it's going to take some strong sailors to beat back the gays and protect marriage once and for all.
Enter Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and David Vitter (R-LA): heterosexuality's finest to the rescue. The two have come out (no pun intended re: Craig) swinging (again, no pun re: Vitter) by co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would etch into the United States Constitution that marriage is for heterosexuals only.
The bill reads, "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."
Craig and Vitter, you may recall, both have, shall we say, issues in the whole marital fidelity area. Craig is famous for his restroom "hey undercover cop in the next stall, blow me" foot-tapping and Vitter has a few prostitutes under his belt.
But hey, at least they're not gay (well, Craig is, but he says he isn't and if we can't take a Republican at his word these days then the terrorists have won).
It's maddening that the Republicans are still humping this issue. It's insane that the two biggest marriage hypocrites are so hot to get in on it.
Of course, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment isn't really about marriage. Sure, on the surface it's about keeping the sacred institution of marriage out of the reach of gays and lesbians. But it's really about keeping gays and lesbians viable political targets and distracting voters from things like the war and the crappy economy. And it has implications that reach much further than whether or not two brides or two grooms say, "I do."
According to America Blog's John Aravosis, "[T]he amendment would likely rescind state and local laws that outlaw job discrimination against gays and provide gay partners with health benefits, and it would likely rescind laws protecting unmarried women from things such as being beaten to a bloody pulp by their boyfriends (this actually happened in Ohio, where the state court found that the local anti-gay marriage amendment invalidated state laws covering the domestic abuse of unmarried women)."
Why not give the offices of Craig (202-224-2752) and Vitter (202-224-4623) a call and ask who they think they're fooling?
