RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » 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'  

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

01/13/2014

Bipartisan, (R)yan?

by Jeremy Hooper

HR 3829, the silly named “State Marriage Defense Act of 2014,” has one Republican sponsor and 27 GOP co-sponsors. It is yet another attempt by House Republicans to waste time on go-nowhere bills rather than do the work of the people.

But in the anti-equality spin machine, this 100% GOP bill is somehow "bipartisan." Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson recently wrote/tweeted:

Screen Shot 2014-01-13 At 5.32.37 Pm
[Ryan T. Anderson]

He meant by-a-partisan, perhaps?

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