RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/04/2005

Colorado: No anti-'mo amendment this year

by Jeremy Hooper

    An attempt by House Republicans to write discrimination into the state constitution of Colorado bit it in committee yesterday. The proposed anti-'mo marriage amendment was defeated by a 6-5 vote along party lines, because queers gettin' hitched makes right wingers uncomfortable.

    Sponsor of the measure, Rep. Kevin Lundberg (pic.), gave one of those "I'm not a bigot, BUT queers are destroying marriage and I want to dash their hopes of ever achieving full equality" speeches that are oh so predictable and very played out. The least they could do is throw in some new untruths to spice things up. Like maybe they could say that wedding dresses makes lesbians' asses look fat, or that wedding cake is homophobic.

Just give us something new to discredit.

Gay marriage [AP via KKTV.com]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails