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

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