RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

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

04/06/2009

Sorry Mario, but no one's bi-ing it

by Jeremy Hooper

Another anti-gay person with a paycheck to earn, another uninformed Iowa postmortem:

Mario-DiazIn this opinion, the justices act as a legislature, marriage counselor, psychologist, advocates, even priests or pastors, but not as judges. [With Friday's decision], they have not only opened the door to same-sex ‘marriage’ but, if you are bisexual and are ‘in love’ with a man and a woman, you should be able to go to Iowa and marry them both. According to them, to say ‘no’ would be ‘discrimination’ based on your ‘sexual orientation.’ -Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s Policy Director for Legal Issues
Iowa Judicial Activists Trample on Marriage and the Constitution [CWA]

Because it's not enough for these folks to confuse civil law and religious ritual. They also have to confuse people's sexual orientations with their desires for monogamy in a way that puts bisexuals in a non-commital boat of multi-partner love. Forget the fact that all people, regardless of sexuality, have the capacity for loving and/or committing to more than one person. It's only the LGBT community that this crew wishes to decry, so it's only bisexuals whose capacities for attraction/potential interest in polyamory Mr. Diaz wishes to exploit.

The reality is that this Iowa opinion is a kick-ass, game-changing ruling, and the"pro-family" crew is DESPERATE to find something in it that they can denounce. But through that desperation, it is their movement's crude and cruel intolerance that they'll unwittingly announce.

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


Your thoughts

No there is also polygamy with more than one person of the opposite sex! Practiced without penalty in guess where?

Posted by: LOrion | Apr 6, 2009 3:07:28 PM

God, the "bisexual people would then have to be able to marry two people" argument is just so, so bad. When I hear it I think I can only conclude one of two things: they didn't bother to think it through, or they think their audience is stupid enough to be convinced by it.

Posted by: zortnac | Apr 6, 2009 4:14:55 PM

Unfortunately it extends beyond just the social conservatives. You might remember this piece from January, which inspired quite a bit of commentary:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/01/lgbt---p.html

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 6, 2009 4:24:24 PM

I, as a bisexual, am very confused (by his stupidity), I just can't commit (to this blatant lack of reason.)

Also why does CWA always seem to have a lot of men in it? At least I think (s)he's a man, I'm assuming (s)he isn't a hideous woman.

Posted by: corvidae | Apr 6, 2009 5:46:46 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails