Good stuff. It's amazing to me that these two knuckleheads actually think they have ANY credibility on the "sanctity of marriage."

That doesn't mean they can't create legislation though. Knowing right from wrong is a totally different concept that actually living it.

It's kinda like a drug addicted cop. He still arrests drug addicts because that's his job. Even though a little of the evidence might not make it back to the lock-up.

Oh, I'm not suggesting they can't create and promote legislation.
That's their job, after all.

I'm just saying this particular piece coming from these two guys carries about the same snicker factor as, say, Marion Barry deciding to become tough on drugs.

No credibility.

But who creates legislation shouldn't effect the credibility. If the bill is just, it just is. If a well written driver safety handbook is written, the credibility shouldn't be effected if it was written by a habitual offender drunk driver. Is the information therin still valid? That should be the determination of whether the bill is valid, not the author.

But as always, there is how things should be, and how things ARE.

Credibility is affected in this case, whether or not it should be affected.

Well that's a bit hypocritical then doncha think. Homosexual tendencies don't effect your judgement. Unless you are coming up with opinions that oppose homosexual tendencies? Bullshit.

Wow, making excuses for hypocrites now.

Shameful.

Wow, you totally missed my point. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Here are two guys who have written legislation to uphold the sanctity of marriage, who have demonstrated they do not believe in the sanctity of their OWN marriages.

"Do as I say, not as I do."
No credibility.