David Vitter on Marriage “Protection”

David Vitter one year ago on marriage “protection”:

This week, the U.S. Senate focused much of its attention on the Marriage Protection Amendment, a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman. While more senators voted for it this time than two years ago, we still didn’t meet the threshold for a constitutional amendment to pass. But we are making progress.


Voters in Louisiana and at least 44 other states have shown their support for traditional marriage by voting to protect it. But these laws are being attacked in courts across the country, and activist judges should not be able to suppress the will of the American people. This is why we need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

[Hey, David, here’s a thought. Instead of a constitutional amendment, how about we protect marriage by you keeping your pants on? A lot simpler, huh?]

Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and is a bedrock institution for our own society because it has provided permanence and stability for our very social structure. [Prostitution has been a core institution of societies throughout the world, too, but I’m not sure how much stability it’s brought to your family structure.] Studies have shown that the institution of marriage has a positive impact on the lives of both parents and children because, for example, it reduces the risk of poverty and the risk of crime. [Uh oh. So since you said “fuck you” to the institution of marriage, does that mean your kids will now be bankrupt criminals?]


The majority of children whose parents either never marry or get divorced, live through at least one year of poverty. And boys who grow up in fatherless households are two to three times more likely to commit crimes and end up in jail. [What about boys growing up in households where the father pays for sex from hookers? I don’t know. Maybe they’d be better off with a pair of nice lesbian moms.]


In contrast, marriage benefits both the physical and mental health of children, fosters better academic performance from children and strengthens the relationship between parents and children. [And how does cheating and lying to your family affect the relationship between parents and children? How does exposing your wife to the risk of disease and to public humiliation affect the physical and mental health of your family?] That’s why it’s very important to further the marriage debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.


Some folks in Washington may not get that, but certainly a lot of folks in the real world, certainly in Louisiana, get it. [Do they “get” it that you think so little of marriage that you value it less than a few minutes of physical satisfaction charged by the hour?] Two years ago Louisiana passed a state marriage constitutional amendment with 78 percent of the vote. Folks in Louisiana simply want their wishes honored, and they don’t want the amendment by undone activist judges in federal courts or courts in other states, which is why this federal constitutional amendment is necessary. [Hey, what about folks in Massachusetts? Why shouldn’t their wishes be honored too? Which they couldn’t be with a federal marriage amendment. Is it only people in Louisiana that count? Are they the best? If so, why didn’t you get yourself a good homegrown Louisiana hooker? Or did you get one of those, too?] The only way to ensure that activist judges do not overrule the will of the American people is to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


As an original co-author of the federal marriage amendment, I voted for it. I think it’s a very important debate for us to further. I think we’re making progress and winning a lot of hearts and minds and I will keep working to win approval of this constitutional amendment. [Oops. I think you may have shot yourself in the foot there, David. Or was it in the hooker’s face?]


David, I’ve never cheated on my partner. I’ve never paid for sex from prostitutes. I’ve never exposed my family to ridicule, humiliation, and health risks. I’ve never lied to my constituents. I’ve never hypocritically fought to “protect” something while screwing it in private.


Remind me again why I’m the one marriage needs protection against? From the way I see it, marriage needs a giant condom to protect it from the likes of you.


1 Comment

  1. July 11, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    […] David Vitter, the holier-than-thou Senator from Louisiana who wants to protect marriage from LGBT couples but not from D.C. hookers,  was a Southern campaign chairman for none other than […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: