Lawmakers in the New Hampshire House of Representatives are set to vote today on a proposal to rescind that state’s law legalizing same-sex marriage, and a proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to limit legal marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The House Judiciary Committee has recommended voting down both bills.
Gay marriage opponents who are backing the measures say that voters, not legislators, should be the ones to decide the matter. But — and this is the part that really caught my attention — they also say, “the consummation of gay unions can’t be spoken of in polite society” (as per an Associated Press report).
You’re kidding me, right? You shouldn’t talk about gay sex at tea parties, so gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed? That’s their argument? I guess hetero sex is a perfectly fine topic for “polite society” in New Hampshire?
And here’s what makes it even better. N.H. State Rep. Nancy Elliott, earlier this week, explained her opposition to gay marriage during a Judiciary Committee Hearing by giving a very graphic description of anal sex, and then claiming that fifth graders in the Nashua school are, as part of their sex education class, now being shown graphic photos of two men engaged in anal sex, and told that they should try it. All because gay marriage is legal.
Of course, that crap about the school’s isn’t true, and Elliott had to admit that in a public statement issued yesterday. Still, she said it. And here’s the video to prove it.
9 Comments
This woman — and her near-catatonic colleagues — are beneath contempt.
But their meddling goes right along with the VA governor’s posturing against gender equality and the TX attorney general’s filing against same sex divorce.
Their own sex lives must be either dreadful or nonexistent. Come to think of it…no, don’t!
Well thats just not true. We discuss hardcore anal at ALL my tea parties. Usually right before the cakes are served.
Phyllis, you have no rational basis to take a swipe at her ‘colleagues.’ Asa matter of fact, the other committee members in the video all support Marriage equality, and were quite disgusted with her testimony. One of them actually wrote, “Oh, mercy!!!” ona piece of paper and passde it to her neighboring colleague. I can understand your disdain for Nancy Elliot, but don’t assume her ‘colleagues’ were on her side. As it was, the committee voted *against* her recommendation.
Her “near-catatonic” colleagues are actually disgusted with her, and have muted reactions simplpy because they are no longer surprised by anything she says. They are, furthermore, in a setting in which it is not appropriate for them to interrupt or openly display contempt.
Given the vote SLAVERY would never have been abolished.
Given the (male) vote Women would never have been given the right to vote.
Why do the people of NH, or any other state, think that their constitution is for denying rights?
The US constitution, and state constitutions, are about AFFIRMING rights, not denying them.
HOW did she getting voted in as Rep.? OMG She needs to be tested for Dementia.
How about IMpolite society?
I know a lot of lesbians who would argue gay sex is NOT about wigging a man’s penis inside someone’s anus… and I know quite a few straight women who would agree that they’ve had “straight” sex very much like that.
^^^^^^really wants to be invited to matt’s next tea party….