RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Discriminating with the Stars': Reality TV personality to head FRC's Action arm » FRC back to scanning Google Images for drag queens; ENDA must be back in news » NOM EXPOSED: NOM & Co. trying to create an iconic image to rival HRC's » 'Gays against gay marriage' = the new 'ex-gay' » Of course Bryan Fischer's bizarre obsession with homosexuality is *our* fault (#AlwaysTheVictim) » Mark Regnerus' telling aside: 'Mr Peters, remember that?' » If NOM isn't anti-gay, why do they recruit speakers that viciously condemn gay people? » NOM EXPOSED: NOM conference speaker accuses gay dads of using kids to ‘accessorize’ marriage » NOM's Roback Morse warns about the evil, pro-LGBT TV » Liberty Counsel attempts to turn anyone–can–opt-in email blast into sinister, insular act  

« 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