This week the Iowa House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Iowa State Constitution (62-37) to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in their entirety. The proposed amendment, which must now pass the Iowa State Senate, would place Iowa among the minority of states that have taken constitutional measures to not only ban the recognition of gay marriage, but also ban the recognition of any other type of same-sex unions that would allow civil benefits between same-sex couples such as hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, family trust and estate rights, etc. Republican Rep. Rich Anderson had this to say in favor of the ban:
“If we remove the gender requirement for marriage, there is no rational basis to define the number. So we open up the possibility of the constitutional recognition of polygamous relationships. That’s a slippery slope. And I don’t know where the logic is to draw the line. We wouldn’t recognize incestuous relationships between two consenting adult brothers and sisters. That raises up within us disgust, and we can’t accept that. We draw lines. We define marriage.”
But before the Iowa House went on to pass the measure, it received a good old fashioned grade-A PWNING from a 19 year-old engineering student, the likes of which have not been seen since Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade single-handedly dismantled the Baird School for boys. Hear the oral argument from 19 year-old Zach Wahls after the jump:
Does the Slippery Slope argument against Same-Sex marriage hold water?
Without mixing Church & State, are there any valid reasons why Gay couples should not be allowed to marry or, at the very least, be allowed to have civil benefits?
If you were the House Chair in the video, do you even attempt to respond to Zach Wahls or do you basically pack it up and call it a day?
