....but there have been a lot more enemies to fight along the way. For example, remember David Vitter (R-PAMPERS), hypocrite extraordinaire?

If you look closely, you'll see that there is a certain someone cheering Raisin ringside.

Here's a closeup of the action....

Raisin really wanted to fight Larry Craig (R-STILLNOTGAY), but he wouldn't come out of the bathroom stall!

Nice wide stance there, Larry!

Of course, the fight now is to keep this guy from getting the championship belt....

The Raisin didn't forget the bloviaters! When you have a gasbag as big as Rush Limbaugh, you can always count on a lift from your faithful friends!

As you know, there are a lot of female evildoers out there, and Raisin would nevah evah beat up a girl! Don't worry, kids, there are a lot of tough broads in Raisinland!

So sleep well, kids, secure in the knowledge that Raisin will protect what is dear to all of us, just as he always has....

Thank you so much, dear Raisinettes, for all the support you always show Raisin and the Mighty Mikk0mouse. It wouldn't be any fun without you!

So a bunch of Sentaors are trying to push through their petty little gay-hating Constitutional ammendment, S.J. Res. 43, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And 2 of the bill's sponsors are Senators Larry "Wide Stance" Craig and David "Diaper Dave" Vitter, who, as you probably know, are members of the GOP Rogues Gallery of Pervs.

You can't make this shit up, I swear.

With the looney left having threatened the very institution of marriage by allowing gays in California to marry, we finally have some men of decency stepping forward to say, "Not in my country."  S.J. Res 43 is a joint resolution to propose a Constitutional amendment to  limit marriage to a relationship between one man and one woman and I say its about time.

Co-sponsors David Vitter and Larry Craig openned themselves up to personal criticism after revelations last year that Vitter was a client of the now deceased DC Madam and Craig was mistakenly arrested for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis airport.  Still, these men of concious and their 7 other co-sponsors know that when marriage is threatened they have a responsibility to take a stand regardless of how hypocritical it may appear.

We applaud Vitter, Craig, and the 7 other sponsors for seeing a threat to the American family and rising up to do something about it.  I urge all readers of my blog to write to their congressmen and let them know that you want them to join with Vitter and Craig to protect wholesome family values.

But it was unquestionably a win for the little people, those that believe in the more beautiful things in life.

Like flowers. And trees. And Pamela Anderson before thirty-two surgeries.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of a pleasantly pulsating Euro 2008 Final was that Spain decided that they would do the naive thing.

They would continue to play football and history be damned.

This is like a politician standing up and deciding to tell the truth about something as ridiculous as, oh, I don't know, politics.

Or his sex life.

Germany carried on being Larry Craig.

Deny, deny, deny. And if you keep on denying, you might sneak one between someone's legs in the very last minute.

In truth, the Germans were very lucky to lose by a mere goal.

The Lilliputians from Spain wriggled around the Germans' crudity like so many children avoiding the advances of suspicious-looking men outside the gates of their school.

No, they did not want a sweetie, thank you.

They wanted to pass the ball to each other and enjoy the simple pleasure of the opposition not being able to get it back.

Because the opposition did not have the brains, the skill or the imagination to engage the ball in anything other than a sad hoofing.

Michael Ballack was a drunken cousin at a wedding.

For most of the game, he would bump into people, pretending it was by accident.

Then, when the bouncers would occasionally step in to admonish, he would blow self-righteous snot down his nose at them in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

The Italian referee, probably an admirer of self-righteous cynicism, let him get away with it for most of the match.

The German captain should have been red-carded, if only for his awful impersonation of Judas Iscariot at a Charity Telethon when Germany were denied a penalty.

There was, though, something terribly comforting about seeing so many perfect German specimens be Arnold Schwarznegger trying to bed Scarlett Johannson.

In their clumsiness, they revealed their inadequacy.

In their preening, they revealed their sense of entitlement.

And in their incapacity to even get a shot on goal, they proved for every man on earth that size really does not matter.

There perhaps was no greater example of the depths to which German football is prepared to sink than to see goalkeeper Jens Lehmann, a sad old trollope at the best of times, kick out at Fernando Torres, even after the Spaniard had put the ball beyond Lehmann's reach for the game's only goal.

Watch the slow motion.

Lehmann, as he realizes he has gone down too early and in the wrong direction, tries to give Torres an Ballackesque accidental kick on the leg as the Spaniard moves away from any potential contact with the German.

If only we could all lose as gracefully.

If you did not see just a little poetry in those empty German faces watching the Spaniards, still surprised to have finally proved they are as good as they secretly thought they were, reliving a relieving victory, then you are not human.

Or you are Franz Beckenbauer.

This was a Kaiserslaughter.

And when you look at that word 'Kaiserslaughter', one that I invented not ten seconds ago, what do you see tucked away near the end?

Yes, the word 'laugh'.

I can only hope that you are laughing too.

The Pond thanks David de Groot for stepping in with a picture of a happy pizza when we couldn't find one of a happy paella.

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.’.

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.

Original DVD cover.
(From left to right: David Vitter, Wendy Vitter, Larry Craig, Captain Underpants, Vito Fossella, David Dreier)

Here's the list of the sponsors in the Senate (from THOMAS at the Library of Congress):

S.J.RES.43
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] (introduced 6/25/2008) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 6/25/2008
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 6/25/2008
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 6/25/2008
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 6/26/2008
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 6/25/2008
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 6/25/2008
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 6/25/2008
Sen Thune, John [SD] - 6/25/2008
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 6/25/2008

From the Bay Area Reporter:

It's back.

The fringe right is trying yet again to amend the United States Constitution to "save" the nation from same-sex marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment, HJ Res 89, was introduced in the House on May 22.

...snip...

The lead sponsor is Representative Paul C. Broun (R-Georgia), just about the most junior member of the chamber; he won a special election last July. There are 38 co-sponsors, all Republicans, mainly from safe districts and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Three notable exceptions are co-sponsors Californians Brian Bilbray, Duncan Hunter, and Gary Miller.

The lead sponsor of earlier incarnations of the amendment, Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) said after the amendment was twice defeated and Democrats regained control of the House that it was useless to pursue the matter further. She is not a co-sponsor of this latest effort.

...snip...

Progressive members of the House announced formation of the LGBT Equality Caucus on June 4. It is chaired by Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), the only two openly gay members of that body.

...snip...

All but two of the initial 52 members of the caucus are Democrats and they often have unofficially functioned as a caucus on these issues for many years.

And on the campaign front, from ABC News:

Michelle Obama addressed the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Gala in New York City Thursday night and renewed her husband's promise to repeal federal policies that she says limit the rights of gays and lesbians.

...snip...

D.O.M.A stipulates that states are not required to recognize same sex marriages, even if the marriages are recognized in another state. The law also states that the federal government define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

...snip...

Last week Sen. Obama, D-Ill., told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that while he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, “these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level.”

...snip...

Last week McCain reiterated his support for D.O.M.A.

"I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which clearly indicated the unique status of a marriage between man and woman," McCain said in Arlington, VA. "I will continue to support that, I will continue to have my position."

Tip of the hat to the lovely and talented Ms. Jenn for pointing me towards the story. Jenn's birthday was yesterday, dear Raisinettes. Wish her a happy belated one! :D

What is surprising is who the Republicans tapped to headline this doomed bill: habitual prostitute client David Vitter (R-LA) and suspected old-school gay cruiser Larry Craig (R-ID).

If this isn't all just an elaborate joke... then it's a wonderfully, wonderfully amusing world we live in.

I give up! It is impossible to overestimate Craig's ability to make a fool of himself. He seems determined to claim the legacy of most embarrassing Idaho politician. This is not an easy accomplishment considering the competition from some past candidates: George Hansen, Helen Chenoweth & Steve Symms.

When everyone, especially Republicans, were hoping that Craig would just shut up until his term in office came to its final ignoble end, he joins the only other Republican senator who can compete for "pious hypocrite of the century", David Vitter (R-LA), in co-sponsoring S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”

Once you have stopped laughing, go here for the details.

Hello all,

So I'm officially pronouncing June 2008 as the "Month of the Gay" - every day there is something in the news. People love us, people hate us, but everybody is talking about us. ;-)

Yeah yeah...I'm sure you're getting tired of it. I certainly am. I'm really not that different from the rest of y'all, which I'm sure you've figured out by now.

To continue the march of the "far right" tripping up all over themselves to "out-hate" each other, a group of 10 GOP Senators have....drum roll please.... REINTRODUCED a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage!

Now, beyond the fact that this has been tried soooooooo many times without avail and is probably more a reflection of the desperation of the lackluster GOP leadership on the national level that they have to pull a page from Karl Rove's 2004 strategy book.

The most entertaining part, however, is exactly who is involved. Yes folks, two of our most illustrious and moral US Senators, David Vitter and Larry Craig are both co-sponsors of this piece of legislation.

Yes, David Vitter who was caught hiring prostitutes and Larry Craig, who...well...we all know what Larry Craig did (and yes, I will be tracking down that bathroom for a souvenir photo when I go to MSP in August for the GOP Convention).

I think it is reprehensible, beyond the sheer hypocrisy obviously present, for these two individuals to be riding the moral high-horse in the "defense of marriage" given their own personal actions that have made their own marriages and the Republican Party a national joke when it comes to morality.

The more they push this kind of agenda, the more it reminds us of their own failings as individuals. I take pitty on them and hope their wifes can escape the shame they continue to bring to their families.

Happy Sunday all...I'm off to church.

-OxyChaz

...

Larry Craig, (Idaho) and David Vitter(Louisiana) — “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.”

...

Vitter:

In early July 2007, Vitter's phone number was included in a published list of phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, a company owned and run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the "D.C. Madam", convicted by the U.S. government for running a prostitution service. Hustler magazine identified the phone number and contacted Vitter's office to ask about his connection to Palfrey. The following day, Vitter issued a written statement:

This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.

The statement containing Vitter's apology said his telephone number was included in phone records dating from his days as a member of the House of Representatives.Phone records show that Vitter's number was called by Palfrey's service five times, the first on October 12, 1999, and the last on February 27, 2001.Two calls were placed while House roll call votes were in progress.

...

Craig:

On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct. The nature of the alleged activity has been categorized by some as cottaging. According to the police report, the police officer sat in a bathroom stall as part of an undercover operation investigating complaints of sexual activity in the restroom. After about 13 minutes of sitting in the stall, the police officer observed Craig lingering outside and frequently peeking through the crack of the door on the stall. Craig then entered the stall to the left of the officer's stall. The police officer made the following observations, which he recorded in his report of the incident, as to what happened next:

At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.

According to the incident report and criminal complaint filed in court, the officer showed Craig his police identification beneath the partition separating their stalls, and the officer then pointed his finger towards the restroom exit. Craig initially said no, but he ultimately complied with the officer's request to leave the restroom. After Craig and the officer left the restroom, Craig was reluctant to go with the officer and demanded the officer show his police identification a second time. Once the officer complied with the request, Craig, the arresting officer, and a police detective, who was stationed outside of the restroom, went to the airport police station.

After the arresting officer read Craig his Miranda rights, the officer interviewed Craig about the restroom incident. At one point, Craig handed his business card to the arresting officer, which identified him as a U.S. Senator, and said to him, "What do you think about that?" Craig told the officer that he was worried about missing his flight, and the arresting officer asked the police detective to call the airline to hold the flight. The detective reported that no one answered the telephone for the airline, and the arresting officer proceeded with the interview.

Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct by signing and mailing a plea petition, dated August 1, 2007, to the District Court in Hennepin County, Minnesota. He paid $575, including fines and fees.

...

From CBS: Craig and Vitter have been in the front ranks of GOP members of Congress who preach family values, antigay rights, and opposition to same-sex or civil marriage. Both are married with children.

True, the Democrats have some bad apples, too. Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana still hasn't really explained how $90,000 in cash found its way into the family freezer. But in a recently published gallery of members of Congress already in the pokey or under investigation, the count was 13 Republicans and two Democrats.

...

After Senator Larry Craig was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for acting improperly after his arrest for lewd contact toward another man in an airport bathroom in February 2008, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington questioned why the committee had not taken similar action against Vitter. The committee later dismissed the complaint.

When the Eliott Spitzer prostitution scandal, then governor of New York, hit the headlines, commentators contrasted the end-results: Spitzer resigned while Vitter stayed on. In response, Jeff Crouere, a New Orleans conservative political commentator, called on Vitter to resign saying he was an ineffective representative and reflected poorly on the state. Additionally, one gauge of the scandal's impact, local fundraising, indicated that Vitter has weathered the controversy well: first quarter 2008 finance reports show that he made, according to The Times-Picayune, an "impressive haul". Vitter once again received unwanted attention after the suicide of Palfrey in May 2008.

...

Craig announced that he would serve out his Senate term, but advisors say that Craig will not seek reelection. His term ends January 3, 2009.

Vitter is up for reelection in 2010.

My most frequent commenter has begun a blog of his own.

Walter Wink’s article on myth of redemptive violence.

Irony of the new shot at a Marriage Amendment. 

Barna Research Group takes on "the American Dream."

Stephen Hawking and Co. in the works of a "bottom up" re-working of the Big Bang Theory.

How your brain lies to you.

I've finished Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything.  I'm sticking with my assesment of "genius," but with plenty I'm uncomfortable with.  First thoughts below.  Further thoughts forth coming...

I'm going to be in California for the next three weeks.  I'll be at the Shane Claiborne/Chris Haw even in Fresno- pretty excited about that.

New study describing a literal internet addiction.  This could lend a serious element to my joking about my facebook and blogging fetishes.

Bill O'Reilly is a large babbling moron, who often finishes off his guests with the well contrived, classic "well, you're just wrong," argument.  Here is a typical show condensed to one minute (no content really gets lost).

There were ten original sponsors of this effort to save our land from such a fate. Two names on the list: David Vitter and Larry Craig. 'Cause nothing says "holy union" like prostitutes and foot tapping.

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.

That, of course, is meant to pave the way to make an amendment to the Constitution of the US prohibiting gay marriage.  Complete and total bullshit and everyone knows by now how I feel about folks mucking about in my (and your) Constitution for crap like this.  Here's the best part:  it's cosponsored by:

1. Larry Craig:  yes, the dude arrested for foot loving a cop in the Minneapolis airport; and
2. David Vitter:  the genius caught in the prostitution scandal in DC, over which the madam in the deal took her own life.

I love the hypocrisy of politicians.  You can almost excuse Vitter.  After all, his sins of the flesh were, at least, with women.  But Craig?  Come on.  That self hating SOB can't find enough bills to sponsor to try and drive those demons out of him.  Maybe he should try James Dobson's Love Won Out program (nevermind that the program's director was found in a gay bar in 2000).  Or maybe not, since gay isn't something one can just decide to give up.  Embrace it, Larry, and get on with your life.  Stop self hating and get the hell out of my Constitution.  It's no place to try and work out your personal crises.

B'Man: I had to check to see if it was April 1 (h/t Faiz at ThinkProgress):

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.”

]]> http://earthlingblues.wordpress.com/?p=30 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:18:34 +0000 earthlingblues http://earthlingblues.wordpress.com/?p=30 Wide Stance Larry and Canal Street Dave speak out for Republican family values.

Hoping to bring the ignorant and intolerant out to the polls in November, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi has introduced Joint Resolution 43, proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Most of the co-sponsors are usual suspects ― Wayne Allard, Sam Brownback, Michael Enzi, James Inhofe, Pat Robers, Richard Shelby, and John Thune ― but two of the co-sponsors really stand out.

Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, best known for soliciting a sexual encounter with an undercover cop in a Minneapolis airport restroom, stands forth to defend the institution of marriage against those nasty homosexuals. Because, after all, he's an traditional kind of guy who believes that gay sex belongs in a public restroom, not in the home. Wide Stance's values are so traditional that he nearly had a seizure over the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy." Nasty and bad, indeed. You can bet Wide Stance never cheated on his wife Suzanne ― not with another woman, anyway.

Another defender of traditional values is Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, famous mostly for being a client of the late D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, as well as the Canal Street Madam, Jeannette Maier. Canal Street Dave has bravely stepped forward to oppose same-sex marriage because, you know, letting queers get married would threaten his traditional marriage much more than his long-term business relationship with prostitute Wendy Cortez ― a relationship for which, Vitter assures us, God has forgiven him. So who are you to criticize?

See also:

S.J.Res.43 (THOMAS)

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support (The Carpetbagger Report)

Digg it!   Stumble it!

Two of the more notorious Senators in the current Congress, Larry Craig (R-ID) and David Vitter (R-LA) are cosponsors.  My hope is that the author of this is so hard up for sponsors he is looking past some of their recent history, which can't help make the case for the sanctity of marriage.

First there is Larry Craig who was busted for soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in Minneapolis.  Maybe this is overcompensating or trying to show his anti-gay credentials, what ever the case, he was going to plead guilty to the charge.

Sen. Larry Craig said he "overreacted and made a poor decision" in pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after his June arrest following an incident in a Minneapolis, Minnesota, airport bathroom.

Tuesday, in his first public statement on the arrest, the Idaho Republican said he did nothing "inappropriate."

"Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been," said Craig, who has aligned himself with conservative groups who oppose gay rights.

Most importantly we got this wonderful video out of the whole story.

Now while I am guessing that Larry Craig is staying in the closet because pressure from his community and political party, which is sad, the hypocrisy is shared by his colleague from Louisiana.

David Vitter's number was found on the DC Madam's phone list records, and he apologized to God and his wife.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter, 46, said in a statement, which his spokesman, Joel DiGrado, confirmed to the Associated Press.

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter continued. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

So soliciting sex from men (when you are a man) in airport bathrooms or soliciting prostitutes provide you with enough morality hypocrisy to prevent same sex couples from getting married in front of family, friends, and god.

From my world view, let us ignore the hypocrites and embrace these great couples!

Equal rights for all!  Be proud this weekend!!

-Josh

Roger Wicker (R-MS), who's like, brand-spankin' new (he was appointed to the seat after Trent Lott resigned due to likely criminal activity) and faces re-election already in the fall, and very well might lose to a popular former governor, Ronnie Musgrove, who is a Democrat, decided to introduce the bill, I guess, to make himself look good to all the brainchilds living in Mississippi. (Mississippi isn't the current dumbest state in the country, though. Louisiana just took it back from Texas. More on that in the next post.) As usual, it has a false bullshit name, like "Marriage Protection Amendment" or something.

But that's not the story. Nope, the story is the two Senators who signed on as co-sponsors. Quick Quiz: Out of the whole Senate,. who would you be LEAST likely to take moral advice from, especially in matters such as marriage? That's right:

Two terrible hypocrites: an adulterous bathroom goblin and an adulterous diaper fetishist. Larry Craig and David Vitter should have gay diapered bathroom sex and then filibuster the crap out of each other, because that is what Jesus wanted when he wrote the Fruitcake Constitution.

Yeah, don't you remember? David Vitter (R-LA) bought lots of cheap whores and made them diaper him, and then he apologized to his wife, who had the DC Madam killed, or Dick Cheney did, or who knows which Republican had the DC Madam killed, but anyway. And Larry Craig went trolling for hot man-on-man action in public airport bathrooms. Because that's how typical "family values" Republican politicians act.

Dan Sweeney at HuffPost points out:

Sure, we know that the moral high ground was ceded by the far right a long time ago. It all depends just how far back you want to go. The list of disgraced fundamentalist zealots reads like a Who's Who of giddy peccadilloes: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard and on and on. But, generally speaking, once they've been outed as self-loathing perverts, they try not to come down on the rest of us anymore.

Perhaps we should send a message to Vitter and Craig, because obviously, it hasn't hit them yet: You. Do. Not. Get. To. Tell. Us. How. To. Live. Any. More. You lost the right to moralize about the same time you strapped on a pair of adult diapers and/or opened your stance a little too wide.

Haha, I'm sorry, David Vitter's diapered ass is even funnier to me than Larry Craig tapping his foot for handjobs in the bathroom. And they're both really fucking funny.

Oh, in case you missed it Ted Haggard has moved back home with his wife and is totally Not Gay Anymore, which, in case you didn't know, is a fundamentalist Christian euphemism for Still Fucking Gay.

HAHA UPDATE! I KNEW that there had to be a much better nickname out there for Larry Craig than Senator "Wide Stance" or whatever, and there totally is: Senator Water Closeted! That came from a Wonkette post that spells "summer" with a "c" and October with a "Cock." Yep.

Here's the language of their bill:

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.’.

Called the Marriage Protection Amendment, the bill aims to write anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by stating marriage as "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Page One Q has more.

The full text of S. J. RES. 43 follows:

110th CONGRESS 2d Session

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE"

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.

Man Claims Drug Use & Oral Sex With Obama

See Larry Sinclair’s allegations:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Webster Tarpley Reports on Larry Sinclair

I've known, respected and loved many homosexuals in my life and my feeling has always been the same: why should I care? Why should I care what attracts or repels others? Other people's sex lives have no impact upon me unless they're attracted to me, right? (Or abusive, but that's a completely different story.)

An argument has been put forth that since gays choose to be homosexual, they are undeserving of the rights of the straight community. This is patent bullshit.

I know that gays do not choose homosexuality because I know I never chose to be straight. When I was a little boy, I constantly wanted to get naked with little girls. (Bit of a perv at six, I gotta say.) This was not a decision, it was a compulsion. I could no more control it than my affection for honey or being stoned.

Alternately, I had a homosexual encounter with an older boy when I was 8. It didn't "turn me gay." It didn't traumatize me. I'm not ashamed. What's the big deal?

Moreover, I've never repeated the experience in the long decades since. I'm still steamy for the ladies. So how can I believe that a person who is attracted to their own gender has any choice in the matter? I never chose.

It seems to me that the only choice for gays is the question of how to deal with it. Do you dishonestly marry and then spend long years shamefully trolling airport bathrooms a la Senator Larry Craig? Or do you do the long work of revealing yourself to your friends and families, facing down the misunderstanding and dissapproval that so often come to people in this situation?

Most straight people never experience this level of personal challenge. But nearly every gay person has. As such, many homosexuals are fiercely proud, independent and competent people. People who have been tested in the crucible of public scorn and emerged tougher than your average "straight."

More power to 'em. Congratulations, Californians. May this wisdom spread to the rest of our sorry nation.

But while I praise the decision to allow homosexuals the opportunity to be protected by the archaic nuptial ceremony and the privileges it affords, I'm not so sure we're dealing with the root problem. That is: worker's rights.

Any adult should have the right to determine their own beneficiaries.

The problem for homosexuals was that after long years of co-dependence, during a time of crisis the loved ones were not able to assert their right to the patient. One person would be hospitalized and the hospital would allow the family to determine who could and could not see the patient, sometimes excluding the lover who really cares. When one person died, the other couldn't take possession of their jointly owned assets.

This doesn't affect just homosexuals. One can imagine a nephew raised by an uncle who cannot become a full beneficiary without adoption and is thereby denied legal access to their ward's estate. This is absurd.

I'm sorry. If Leona Helmsley can leave $7 million to a viscious little rat turd dog, then real working Americans should be able to determine who sees them when they are sick, who arranges their funerals, and who inherits their possessions.

It's basic human truth.

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

For those of you who like visuals, this chart from Senator Larry Craig's website tells the story quite well:

Keep in mind that China has now set up shop off the coast of Florida to suck up the petro that has been declared off limits to us by do-gooder Dems.

Time to let it flow, folks. Our friends in the sea will adapt...

Full story here:

McCain seeks to end offshore drilling ban

Nuestro corresponsal en Los Angeles está que echa chispas porque hoy se autorizaron en California los matrimonios Gay. Vea el Op Ed de el señor Buergo AQUI. ¡Nosotros reportamos: Usted decide!