Craig and Vitter defend marriage

It may be difficult for anyone with a sense of irony not to side with the gays on this one: Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsoring a Marriage Protection Amendment?

If ratified, it would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) introduced the amendment at the end of June, collecting a list of 10 co-sponsors that includes upstanding Senators like Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Wayne Allard (R- Colo.), along with Craig (the senator busted for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom) and Vitter (the senator implicated in a prostitution scandal).

Right Wing Watch helpfully notes that Craig and Vitter are "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.'" Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, also noticed the irony and took the opportunity to call the senators "perfect spokespeople for this cause because they are showing the same contempt for the Constitution that they showed for their own marriages."

On the Huffington Post, Dan Sweeney calls it "chutzpah defined" and says it "takes the hypocritical cake." Mike Lillis provides a tongue-in-cheek defense on the Dept. of Irony: "If this amendment had been in place, of course, neither episode would have happened."

Vitter defends himself: "I strongly oppose attempts by liberal judges to redefine marriage, and so do a very large majority of Louisianans. … As I've said, I am deeply remorseful over having sinned in my past. But I don't think walking away from my beliefs is the way to make up for that." Craig seems unwilling to comment.