RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » 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?  

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

02/01/2011

Only 3 IA lawmakers spoke in favor of marriage ban; polygamy and incest cards still managed to find play

by Jeremy Hooper

From today's Iowa House debate on marriage (in)equality:

If we remove the gender requirement for marriage, there is no rational basis to define the number”...“So we open up the possibility of the constitutional recognition of polygamous relationships. That’s a slippery slope. And I don’t know where the logic is to draw the line. We wouldn’t recognize incestuous relationships between two consenting adult brothers and sisters. That raises up within us disgust, and we can’t accept that. We draw lines. We define marriage.


Rep. Rich Anderson (R)
***

***For those (Democrats) who spoke in favor of equality: LISTEN to archive audio from the debate.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails