RECENT  POSTS:  » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist? » It's not a 'marriage debate' simply because pro-discrimination lawmakers say it is » The AFA's 'Anti-Christian Bigotry Map' is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you'll see today  

« 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