RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« 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