Stick that on your billboards, Orrin....
Utah's senator of 30 years had this to say: "I don't know anybody today in the Congress who wants to act or be homophobic, so that may be part of the problem here."
Would that mean, if these were 15 year old girls, they would have jumped all over this?
We have a congress so out of touch with reality, especially our own senior Senator, that pedophilia=homosexuality.
From a post of mine in June, in which I was quoting a DailyKos entry:
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
But the larger point, Orrin, is your assumption that your rarified body could never, just never be a crew of bigots. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the US Senate has not just occasionally, but usually been a crew of bigots. It's natural state is a state of bigotry. 200 years ago, most respected gentlemen of the upper chamber either had slaves or had no problem with slavery. 100 years ago, most senators thought the idea of women voting was downright preposterous. 50 years ago, most Senators supported some form of de jure segregation. 40 years ago, most Senators believed we had to fight the Viet Cong, because all Communists were all the same, no matter where they were. And 3 years ago, your assclown colleagues fell for an argument that we had to fight a largely secular Shiite country "over there," so we wouldn't have to fight almost exclusively hyperreligious Sunnis originating from other countries, "over here." While you're trying to come up with an explanation of how the last example isn't derived from bigotry, I'll be over here, reading "War and Peace." Backwards. In Espironto. Let me know when you've got something.
While I'm waiting, I'll conclude with this: the reason this marriage amendment matters isn't because it defends the sanctity of holy matrimony. If you gave one amoeba's tiny popcorn shit about marriage, you'd go after the one serious societal ill currently harming relationships the most: crushing consumer debt. But, natch, you won't. The reason it matters is because the US Senate has always been a house of bigots, but over the course of time, it always come around, leaving the bigots behind. And the fact that you couldn't even get a majority in the Senate to go for your goofy ass Amendment indicates that the upper chamber is about to leave this bigotry behind as well.