RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« 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