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

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

Dems: Vitter a hypocrite for bid to prohibit same-sex marriage
By Alexander Bolton
July 13, 2007

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.”

The words are coming back to haunt Vitter, who is married, following his admission this week that his phone number appeared in the records of the “D.C. Madam,” Deborah Jeane Palfrey, whom prosecutors have accused of running a prostitution ring.

“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.”

more...

He was just about the biggest anti-immigrant bastard in congress. He was constantly harping about "rule of law" and how we shouldn't give anybody amnesty.

Force him to resign, he has broken the law (and admitted to it) and sullied the office.

It will have the pleasant side effect of allowing Governor Blanco to appoint a replacement of her choice -- until a special election can be held. But having another Democrat in the Senate for even a few months, could do wonders...

Of course, my theory on why the Republics are popping veins while they heatedly defend this guy, is they know they cannot afford to lose another Senate seat, even temporarily. So they will pull out all the stops to defend him rather than taking the opportunity to censure him and look non-partisan -- which they surely would do, if they had a safe majority in the Senate, IMO.

I thought he just said he got massages and didn't admit to sex.

Who knew.

...I suppose that he did not outright admit the details... but he did admit to "a very serious sin" in his past having something to do with his number showing up on the DC Madam's list... I drew the obvious inference, since as others have pointed out, getting a massage is not a sin...

but i would hope getting a massage in a diaper from an escort service while married is not something god would condone. Didn't he specifically deny having sex with an escort? I'm not trying to split hairs, in any case he's a hippocritical scumbag. I'm just questioning whethere there are actually legal grounds for his removal.

...and there are, after all, he is now known to have used two different services -- the "escort service" in DC and the brothel in NO. Now the DC Madam wants to argue that she did not offer sex for hire; the NO gal makes no such claim.

So at least he should be looking at charges.

in that case he definitely should face charges

but Rethugs are above the law.

Are having what they said in 1998 come back to bite them in the ass! They're dropping like flies!

:nopity: