Did Jebbie Bush's Brother Offer to Officiate a Gay Wedding?

Jeb Bush's idiot brother George W. Bush seemingly keeps creating new issues that could hobble Jebbie's presidential effort.  Besides the ghost of the lie and deception based Iraq War, now it seems that Dubya may have offered to officiate at a gay wedding ceremony - something that will certainly not resonate well with the Christofascist base of today's Republican Party.  One can almost hear the shrieks from the "godly folk" at FRC and similar hate groups.  The Washington Blade looks at the story.  Here are highlights:

Despite his reputation for being an ardent opponent of LGBT rights and supporter of a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, former President George W. Bush sought to officiate over a lesbian wedding in 2013, according to a recent report in the Boston Globe.

The article, published on Saturday, is on a newly constructed $1.4 million home intended for likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush at the Bush family compound on Walker’s Point in Kennebunkport, Maine. The construction of the home was initiated by Jeb Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, and mother, former first lady Barbara Bush.

Embedded in the article is a paragraph on how when visiting Kennebunkport, Jeb Bush sometimes patrons H.B. Provisions, a general store owned by lesbian couple Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, who married in 2013.

As was widely reported before, the Boston Globe notes that former President George H.W. Bush made headlines when he attended their wedding in 2013. According to reports at the time, George H.W. Bush served as a witness at the wedding.

But the article also reports something that has previously been undisclosed in the media: former President George W. Bush “offered to perform the ceremony but had a scheduling conflict.”

Some mornings, Bush drops into H.B. Provisions, a cozy general store owned by Bonnie Clement and her wife, Helen Thorgalsen (George H.W. Bush made international headlines when he attended their wedding in 2013; George W. Bush offered to perform the ceremony but had a scheduling conflict).

It remains to be seen whether George W. Bush’s reported willingness to officiate over a same-sex wedding will impact the potential presidential campaign of Jeb Bush.

Last week, the likely 2016 candidate said ahead of a potential U.S. Supreme Court ruling there’s no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Additionally, Jeb Bush said support for “traditional marriage” — code for social conservatives to mean opposition to same-sex marriage — is a “core American value” and important to ensure children born in poverty have a chance to succeed. A spokesperson for Jeb Bush couldn’t be reached for comment in time for this posting.

Romney Flip Flops on Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Once again proving that Mitt Romney and his campaign will say anything that the audience of the moment may want to hear, Romney has been dancing furiously on the issue of whether or not he supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  At first he's for it, next he's for states' rights in deciding marriage issues, and then he's back to supporting an anti-gay amendment, most likely after getting a whipping form the Christofascist element of the GOP base.  It is precisely the kind of behavior that lead to the Salt Lake City Tribune's decision to endorse Barack Obama.  Romney's positions on everything and anything morphs by the moment depending upon the audience.  Oh, and lets not forget his "plans" for tax cuts and dealing with the budget deficit are devoid of specifics.  Here are highlights from BuzzFeed on Romney's gyrations on the issue of an anti-gay constitutional amendment: 

A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

In a little-noted comment in the spin room following this past week's presidential debate in New York, Romney campaign senior adviser Bay Buchanan, the sister of former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told The Advocate's Julie Bolcer, "He very much supports traditional marriage, but he's also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment. It's a state issue."

The report also stated that when asked about how Romney's opposition to same-sex couples' marriage rights, including his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, would help same-sex parents, "Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption." 

Although President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden support same-sex couples' right to marry, the decision to stop supporting the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would have been a moderating move for the Romney campaign, whose party platform includes support for the amendment.

In April of this year, however, the National Organization for Marriage's chairman, John Eastman, said he expected no such change.

"Governor Romney has signed our pledge where he will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, where he will support an amendment to protect traditional marriage nationwide," he told a conservative radio host Steve Deace. "He has signed that pledge and we fully expect that he will honor his pledge in that regard."

Sadly, in the eyes of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the theocrats at NOM, gay Americans are little more than trash to be discarded or driven back into a totally inferior position under the nation's laws.  The First Amendment promise of freedom of religion only applies to conservative Christians in their warped and hate filled world view.

Marriage Equality Goes Prime Time

For LGBT Americans the contrast between the GOP convention and platform and those of the Democrats cannot be more stark.  The Republican view of the future has LGBT citizens remaining stigmatized, our relationships threatened by a GOP federal marriage amendment and we remain subject to firing from our jobs at will for who we are, and we remain denied the 1000 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples via the word "marriage."  In the Democrat view of the future, we have full equality and employment non-discrimination protections.  Indeed, the GOP offers a nightmarish alternate universe for LGBT Americans compared to the Democrats.  Yet amazingly, I continue to see on Facebook and elsewhere LGBT individuals who say they "like" Mittt Romney and/or Paul Ryan.  How can you like someone who wants to forever keep you inferior and subject to discrimination.  I simply don't understand the mindset.  Or are these folks just stunningly uninformed?  A column in the New York Times looks at how the Democrats have taken the support for equality prime time if you will.  Here are excerpts:

In light of my Sunday column on how thoroughly prime-time speakers at the Republican National Convention ignored the issue of same-sex marriage, I thought I should note the repeated mentions of it on the first night of the Democratic National Convention here in Charlotte.

I thought I should also note something else that occurred to me this morning, as I revisited speakers’ comments on the matter. Although the Democratic Party’s platform for the first time this year has a plank advocating marriage equality, three prominent speakers who nodded to that – Michelle Obama; Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio; and Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts – did so in glancing fashions.

And with a consistency that can’t have been accidental, all three sidestepped the words “gay” or “lesbian” or the initials LGBT, unless my electronic search of the transcripts of their remarks is in error.
It was an intriguing suggestion that while Democrats are increasingly lining up in support of marriage equality, which has been championed over the last two years by the Democratic governors of the states of New York, Washington and Maryland, they still believe it must be framed in careful ways, with careful language. They’re perhaps still concerned that they not come across as too fixated on this issue or too beholden to identity politics or, well, too liberal.

The trend the author noted continued last night  suggesting that even our supporters at times see us as still semi-radioactive.  But the Democrat approach is still far preferable to that of the Republicans who allowed portions of their party platform to be written by the likes of hate group leader Tony Perkins (who also has an affection for white supremacists).  The column author summed it it up thus:

I was trying to make an observation that I stand by: the issue of same-sex marriage remains sensitive enough, and some voters’ comfort with the rising visibility and acceptance of LGBT Americans remains shaky enough, that even supportive politicians often enter this area with some degree of caution, making precise decisions about diction. And I think that’s part of what you saw and heard on the convention stage in Charlotte last night.

My primary response to the brief references to same-sex marriage was gratitude. My secondary response was excitement. A fascination with the details and flavor of those references was maybe my tertiary response. And my post about it was meant to be an analysis, not a complaint.

I too feel gratitude and hope that LGBT youth around the country take note that the Democrats (i) take note of their existence in a positive way and (ii) support their happiness and the worth of their lives.  Would that the Christofascist controlled GOP would do likewise.

Norfolk, Virginia, Medical School Professor Signs Anti-Gay Letter to Congress

It is bad enough when one hears the constant anti-gay propaganda from the professional Christian set, but it is even more shocking when one hears such animus from medical professionalsl. Particularly when they are members of a publicly funded medical school faculty where their homophobia could well be imparted to medical students and other doctors. Thus, I was shocked to discover that Judith V. Williams (pictured at left), one of the professors at Eastern Virginia Medical School who also is on staff at the Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk, Virginia, had joined with other pediatricians in a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi urging passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Equally troubling is that Dr. Williams signed the letter in a manner so as to perhaps use the medical school's name to strengthen the credibility of her anti-gay views. The text of the letter which can be found here at G-A-Y-US sounds as if it were written by Peter LaBarbera or one of the other professional gay haters. Indeed, one has to wonder if Dr. Williams believes in voodoo and witchcraft too. Here are some highlights from the letter signed by Dr. Williams and other homophobes (NOTE: the American College of Peditricians should not be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which does not put religious belief before children):

*

The Board of Directors of the American College of Pediatricians, an organization dedicated to the health and well-being of the youngest of our citizens, its members and supporters strongly urge you to press forward with vigor and amend the Constitution to guarantee that marriage in the United States will forever be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

*

We support this amendment because it will prevent the continuing erosion of the safety, nurturance, and protection afforded to children by this time honored marital partnership. Anything less than a Constitutional amendment would allow continued discrimination against those children, few in number now, who are being used by social engineers to support what a small number of selfish adults want, over the needs of potentially hundreds, perhaps eventually thousands, of children.

*

Adult wants overwhelmed the needs and best interests of children, and we are continuing to see the dire consequences of that defeat in our medical offices, clinics, and hospitals. What does that have to do with the issue of homosexual parenting? Everything! Again, social scientists, the Media, and a small number of misinformed Pediatricians are disregarding the real needs of children and asking that again in this country there is conducted an uncontrolled, unscientific, social experiment on our children by encouraging their rearing by same-sex parents.

*

We, the undersigned, are distressed that some professional medical organizations have ignored both science and tradition in helping to promote this misguided social experiment. Our children deserve better than this and the best science demonstrates that now, as always, children do best when reared by a man and woman, mother and father, married and committed to them.

*

Please pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to assure that present and future generations of children will not, once again, fall victim to the triumph of selfish adult wants over their real needs.

*

Apparently Dr. Williams thinks it is better for children of LGBT couples - who will continue to exist despite the efforts of bigots like Dr. Williams - be deprived of the legal rights and benefits that would flow from their parents being able to legally marry such as health care insurance, survivor benefits, etc. It's another case of punishing the children while pretending to punish the parents. Her claims that she cares for the best interests of children are obviously disingenuous. It's all too typical of the as backwards thinking of these zealots. Be assured, I DO intend to call EVMS's top leadership and inquire as to whether they (1) agree with Dr. Williams and/or (2) condone her using the medical school's name in signing such a bigoted letter. For anyone desiring to contact Dr. Williams, here is her information:

*

Judith V. Williams, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Dermatology
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Norfolk, Virginia

Phone: (757) 668-7546 (SKIN)

Fax Number: (757) 668-8795

*

Here is the information for the medical school's president:

*

Harry T. Lester, President

President's Office

Andrews Hall

P.O. Box 1980Norfolk, VA 23501

(757) 446-5200

Why Time is on the Side of Gay Rights

While there have been some major set backs in the progress of gay rights in the last election, over all, time is on our side and the demographic changes and voting pattern changes that are taking place mean that in time, our enemies will either die off and/or be out voted by younger and more tolerant voters. While this bodes well long term for gay rights, it is not good news fro the Republicans and Christianists - who increasingly make up the Republican voters who now control that party. Larry Sabato - an under graduate classmate of mine - of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia has a guest article on his site that looks at these developments and trends. Here are some highlights:

*

Discussions of the current political situation and comparisons between the 2008 election and earlier contests frequently overlook a crucial fact. As a result of changes in American society, today's electorate is very different from the electorate of twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Three long-term trends have been especially significant in this regard: increasing racial diversity, declining rates of marriage, and changes in religious beliefs. As a result of these trends, today's voters are less likely to be white, less likely to be married, and less likely to consider themselves Christians than voters of just a few decades ago.

*

The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class.

*

Married white Christians have gone from close to 80 percent of the electorate in the 1950s to just over 40 percent of the electorate in the first decade of the 21st century. . . . the decline in married white Christians has been even more drastic among younger Americans. The proportion of married white Christians among voters under the age of 30 has plummeted from almost 80 percent in the 1950s to less than 20 percent in the first decade of the 21st century.

*

The danger posed to the Republican Party by the declining size of its married white Christian base was clearly illustrated by the results of the 2006 midterm election. According to the 2006 national exit poll, married white Christians made up just under half of the midterm electorate and they voted for Republican House candidates over Democratic House candidates by a decisive 62 to 38 percent margin. However, voters who were not married white Christians made up just over half of the electorate and they voted for Democratic House candidates over Republican House candidates by an even more decisive 68 to 32 percent margin.

*

Republican leaders will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the generally liberal views of this group, this will not be easy. In 2006, according to data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 57 percent of these voters supported a woman's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, 66 percent opposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, and 71 percent favored a single-payer health care system.

Disingenuous Anti-Gay Double Speak

I'm back in town and will post more later tonight. One thing I wanted to comment on however right away was the anti-gay double speak that is being generated by Christianists - both by Sarah "Bible Spice" Palin and in a number of comments left by anti-gay marriage supporters (which I will NOT publish). In all instances, the writers and Palin dress up their anti-gay positions as if they are not judgmental of gays, and then proceed to judge us and endeavor to restrict our CIVIL legal rights based on their Christianist beliefs. First, a look at Bible Spice Palin's remarks to CBN News concerning her opposition to gay marriage and support of a Federal Marriage Amendment:

*

Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?

*
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

*

Excuse me, but isn't telling us that we cannot marry because it offends her warped verion of religious belief judging us and telling us what we can and cannot do? The woman is a cretin if she thinks a Federal Marriage Amendment isn't an anti-gay judgment. Moreover, the judgment is RELIGION based. In my legal opinion, an unbiased application of the U. S. Constitution to the gay marriage issue would require that ALL of the state anti-gay marriage amendments enacted to date are illegal based on both the First Amendment and under the Equal Protection Clause. CIVIL marriage rights and who gets to have them should not be based on one set of religious beliefs.

*

As for the anti-gay comments on this blog, one writer - who obviously is falling for the knowingly false information being disseminated by the supporters of Proposition 8 - made the following unfounded remark:

*

but what I do not agree with is if gay marriage is passes then my religious leaders could get sued for not performing same sex weddings because it would be considered discrimination.

*

Sadly, this writer has been duped by this lie. Nondiscrimination laws do not and never have required churches to modify their religious ceremonies and/or beliefs/doctrines for INTERNAL church issues: e.g., the Roman Catholic Church does not have to marry individuals who were previously married and divorced - and to this day it doesn't (unless the Church is paid a big monetary fee and an "annulment" is issued). The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution allows/requires this outcome and will even if Proposition 8 fails.

*

Another issue that rankles me is the mindset that if Proposition 8 fails, then - Heavens forbid - gays and gay marriage might be mentioned in schools. As if all us LGBT folk will magically cease to exist if we simply cease to be mentioned. Of course the anti-gay writers never ask the question how they are going to shelter their darling children forever. Sooner or later the little dears will venture out into the real world and - horror of horrors - encounter or hear about LGBT individuals whether "mommie and daddy" like it or not.

*

In the final analysis, in the minds of most opponents of gay marriage, gays and lesbians are not considered fully human and/or deserving of the same rights in every respect as other citizens. Sadly, we are viewed as "sinners" who made the "choice" to be gay and for that we must be forever punished and marginalized. As I have said before, in my opinion, the Christianists are a clear and present danger to constituional freedoms for ALL citizens in this nation.

Obama Pledges Equality for All, Including Gays

It is blatantly obvious to a casual reader of this blog that I whole heatedly support the candidacy of Barack Obama and as many readers know I have both contributed money, donated old office furniture to his local office, and allowed his campaign staff to utilize my phone lines for phone banking. In my opinion, he is our best hope of turning this nation around and setting it on a better course. One of my many reasons for supporting Obama is that he does believe in equal rights for gays. In contrast, the McCain/Palin ticket believes that gays should be banned from the military, have no rights as couples, and should "pray away the gay." I truly shudder to contemplate what will happen to this country should McCain/Palin be elected. This week, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign responded in writing to a series of questions submitted by William R. Kapfer, co-president of Window Media, the Washington Blade’s parent company. Here are highlights from those questions and written responses:

*

Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?

*
Barack Obama: Michelle and I have been blessed with many openly gay and lesbian friends and colleagues whom we have been close to for many years. While that fact has made the issue facing the LGBT community more personal, the fundamental reasons I have for supporting equality are greater than any individual. I am running for President because I believe that we as a nation need change. We need to end the divisive politics of George W. Bush and pursue policies that treat all of us, regardless of identity or background, with dignity, equality and respect.

*

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of nti-gay rulings?

*
Obama: I would have to consider the totality of the candidate’s record and qualifications. However, I think someone who has an established record of failing to support equal opportunities for all Americans would not fare well in an Obama-Biden administration.

*

Blade: Important gay rights legislation unrelated to marriage has been stalled in Congress for quite some time. The gay community has high expectations for an Obama administration. What are reasonable expectations for a first-term Obama administration: How aggressively would you push for Congress to pass ENDA, the hate crimes bill, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and other gay-related bills in your first year in office, and would you mention those bills in your State of the Union address?

*
Obama: These bills are all important priorities for me. Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples. America must live up to our founding principle of equality for all, and it’s wrong to have millions of LGBT Americans living as second‐class citizens in this nation. I support these efforts because I know that equality is a moral imperative. Back when I was in the Illinois Senate, I co‐sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. The non-discrimination bill has become law in Illinois. If I am honored to serve as your President, I will continue to do what I’ve done throughout my career and in this campaign: speak out on behalf of the cause for equal justice and opportunity for LGBT Americans.

*

Blade: Do you think repeal of all of DOMA would, in fact, prompt Congress to strongly consider and possibly pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

*
Obama: Again, I think this issue ties in to who controls Congress. And a Democratic Congress that enacts a repeal of DOMA would not be likely to pass a Constitutional ban on gay marriage — partly because our party rejects enshrining discrimination and divisive distinctions among citizens into our founding documents.

New Time Poll: Gay Marriage Gaining Support

A new Time magazine poll shows those for and those against gay marriage to now be evenly split. It also shows that 58% of respondents are AGAINST amending the U. S. Constitution to bar gay marriage. Obviously, this information will merely increase the hysterical efforts of the far right Christianists to do all they can to throw up bars to gay marriage since it is clear that time is NOT on their side, particularly with younger voters supporting marriage equality for gays by a significant margin. Thus we can expect all kinds of shrill warnings and dire predictions of the end of civilization form Daddy Dobson, Tony Perkins and similar demagogues who make a living demonizing gays, immigrants and other who are not white evangelical Christians. What will these gay haters do to shake down money and live off the gullible without working a real job once gay marriage is widespread around the country? Here's a breakdown of the poll results insofar as they apply to the issue of gay marriage:

*

Do you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex couples from getting married? All respondents:

*

Favor 35%

*

Oppose 58%

*

No answer/don't know 7%

*

**
Should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to marry, giving them full legal rights of married couples, or not? All respondents:

*

Should be allowed 47%

*

Should not 47%

*

No answer/don't know 6%

Anti-Gay Marilyn Musgrave Renews Call For Federal Anti-Gay Amendment

In what may be a sign of desperation, anti-gay extremist Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave has - after months of silence - suddenly renewed her calls for the passage of a federal anti-gay amendment to the United States Constitution. After barely scraping by in a close re-election contest in 2006, Musgrave is facing what may be an even stronger challenge this year from Democrat Betsy Markey. As we all know, when faced with close elections, the GOP always panders to hate and bigotry and using LGBT Americans as their favorite whipping boys. Inasmuch as it is a foregone conclusion that the Democrat controlled Congress will not advance the amendment proposals, Musgrave's move can constitute little else than an effort to secure the votes of died in the wool gay haters. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

(Denver, Colorado) The architect of two failed attempts to amend the US Constitution to bar same-sex marriage is throwing her support behind a new bid to advance the measure. After more than a year of silence on amending the Constitution, and now facing a tough battle for re-election to a third term, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) has signed on as a co-sponsor of the latest attempt to gain Congressional approval.

*

The spokesperson for Musgrave's Democratic opponent for re-election, Betsy Markey, was quick to attack Musgrave. "Nothing's changed," Markey spokesperson Anne Caprara told The Coloradoan. "She's made this big deal about being this new person, this new image, but we're still back on same old issues when people are paying $4 for gas and wondering how they're going to be paying for their grocery bill."

Larry Craig Sponsors Federal Marriage Amendment - Update

What more needs to be said about the hypocrisy of Senator Larry Craig being a sponsor of a re-cast Federal Marriage Amendment than wht is in this "ad." Would that the GOP actually was a party of ideas and vision for the future instead of slavishly pandering to the most lunatic elements of the Christianists.

Larry Craig and David Vitter Sponsor Bill To "Protect" Marriage

The Republicans have reached new levels of hypocrisy with the re-introduction of a proposed "Federal Marriage Amendment." The re-introduction of this legislation shows to what lengths the current GOP will go in order to pander to Christianists. As the Huffington Post notes, some of the sponsors are the same old gay-hating fruit cakes, but the surprising thing is that two less than paragons of marital virtue are also sponsors: Larry Craig and David Vitter. These two jerks go beyond being shameless and certainly are not exactly the poster boys for upstanding examples of the supposed sanctity of the ‘union of a man and a woman.” But then again, the GOP has increasing come to stad for nothing except hypocrisy. Here are highlights from HuffPo:

*

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. This isn't especially surprising. Republicans are looking at the political landscape, and they're feeling awfully discouraged. The polls look bad, the base looks depressed, and fundraising looks iffy. Rallying the far-right troops with an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution -- even though it has no chance at even getting so much as a hearing -- might be helpful to the conservative movement.

*

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.

"Family Values" Senator's Number on "DC Madam" Phone List

David Vitter, one of those "family values" members of the GOP who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment due to the Christianist fabricated need to protect the sanctity of marriage, apparently doesn't honor the sanctity of marriage in his own life. The Washington Post reports today that Vitter has confessed to his less than Godly conduct:

"Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.

The statement containing Vitter's apology said his telephone number was included on phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates dating from before he ran for the Senate in 2004.

Not surprisingly, Vitter has put out one of the typical meally mouth apology statements all so typical of these hypocrites:

"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."

I feel sincere sorrow for Vitter's family, but none for this anti-gay hypocrite.