Vitter, Craig Reintroduce Marriage Amendment

With Congressional Republicans terrified of the potentially disastrous electoral showing that seemingly awaits them this November, it looks as if they are pulling out all the stops to demonstrate to their right-wing base that they are committed to advancing their agenda, no matter how obvious the pandering or how fruitless the effort may be – which explains why several Republican Senators have, once again, introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The ultimate irony is that two of its main sponsors are Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho – not exactly the poster boys of the family values crowd or particularly upstanding examples of the supposed sanctity of the “union of a man and a woman”:

SJ 43 IS

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 43

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.'.