RECENT  POSTS:  » 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. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

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

02/01/2011

Two Iowa lawmakers: We [sit] in [non-defense] of this bill

by Jeremy Hooper

If we had to pick the most telling moment from today's Iowa House debate on marriage (in)equality, it would have to be the moment when Rep. Nathan Willems (D-29) asked two of his most outspokenly gay-banny colleagues...

Screen Shot 2011-02-01 At 4.07.30 Pm

...Reps. Pearson (R-42) and Massie (R-74) to yield for questions on the bill, and both flatly REFUSED to do so:

Because, why, you know? Everyone's familiar that popular saying: "With great power comes great responsibility -- unless it involves justifying your choice to rollback court-tested Equal Protection for your gay constituents via a spiteful majority vote."

***

***For those who *did* talk 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