RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » 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.  

« 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