RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie Gallagher forfeits right to ever again talk about gay-related 'slippery slopes' » Extremely anti-gay FRC to lecture folks how to 'rightly' respond to 'wrong' SCOTUS decision » This is such a corrosive idea to put out into the world » Audio: Will you please stop 'attacking' NOM president for saying your sexual orientation, family are 'disordered'? » Video: Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for increased book sells, vows to defy pro-equality SCOTUS ruling » Reliably tacky NOM turns Memorial Day into day of anti-gay politicking » Ireland: Not only a practical win, but also another tremendous psychological shift » Hillary Clinton campaign honors Harvey Milk, LGBTQ rights » You don't have to pounce on every less-than-pro-gay retailer, anti-gay conservatives! » Video: Tony Perkins tells pastors they 'may have five years' before being 'dragged kicking and screaming from your church'  

« 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