RECENT  POSTS:  » Audio: #SCOTUS marriage hearing (part 2; Question 2) #LoveMustWin » Audio: #SCOTUS marriage hearing (part 1; Question 1) #LoveMustWin » Own worst enemies: Anti-gay protestor proves animus right inside #SCOTUS » FRC's closing argument to #SCOTUS: Marriage equality teaches children that evil is good » Video: 'PBS NewsHour' shows stark, cruel stakes of marriage fight; entitlement of opponents » FRC launches new site: 'Freedom' to discriminate against LGBT people, so long as you say 'my religion' » Own worst enemies: Anti-gay activists make opening statements on SCOTUS steps » Video: Media outlet that primarily backs anti-equality Republicans faults pro-equality Democrat for listening, learning, growing » Video: Scenes from the self-defeating extremist parade that was NOM's #March4Marriage » Video: Equality versus NOM #march4marriage supporter who thinks we're 'so unnatural'  

« 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