RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

« 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