« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/06/2009
Sorry Mario, but no one's bi-ing it
Another anti-gay person with a paycheck to earn, another uninformed Iowa postmortem:
“In this opinion, the justices act as a legislature, marriage counselor, psychologist, advocates, even priests or pastors, but not as judges. [With Friday's decision], they have not only opened the door to same-sex ‘marriage’ but, if you are bisexual and are ‘in love’ with a man and a woman, you should be able to go to Iowa and marry them both. According to them, to say ‘no’ would be ‘discrimination’ based on your ‘sexual orientation.’ -Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s Policy Director for Legal Issues
Iowa Judicial Activists Trample on Marriage and the Constitution [CWA]
Because it's not enough for these folks to confuse civil law and religious ritual. They also have to confuse people's sexual orientations with their desires for monogamy in a way that puts bisexuals in a non-commital boat of multi-partner love. Forget the fact that all people, regardless of sexuality, have the capacity for loving and/or committing to more than one person. It's only the LGBT community that this crew wishes to decry, so it's only bisexuals whose capacities for attraction/potential interest in polyamory Mr. Diaz wishes to exploit.
The reality is that this Iowa opinion is a kick-ass, game-changing ruling, and the"pro-family" crew is DESPERATE to find something in it that they can denounce. But through that desperation, it is their movement's crude and cruel intolerance that they'll unwittingly announce.
Your thoughts
No there is also polygamy with more than one person of the opposite sex! Practiced without penalty in guess where?
Posted by: LOrion | Apr 6, 2009 3:07:28 PM
God, the "bisexual people would then have to be able to marry two people" argument is just so, so bad. When I hear it I think I can only conclude one of two things: they didn't bother to think it through, or they think their audience is stupid enough to be convinced by it.
Posted by: zortnac | Apr 6, 2009 4:14:55 PM
Unfortunately it extends beyond just the social conservatives. You might remember this piece from January, which inspired quite a bit of commentary:
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 6, 2009 4:24:24 PM
I, as a bisexual, am very confused (by his stupidity), I just can't commit (to this blatant lack of reason.)
Also why does CWA always seem to have a lot of men in it? At least I think (s)he's a man, I'm assuming (s)he isn't a hideous woman.
Posted by: corvidae | Apr 6, 2009 5:46:46 PM
comments powered by Disqus
