Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
discrimi-nation

Iowa State Sen. Merlin Bartz: Gay Marriage Bans Are Just Like Underage Drinking Bans

Iowa may be one of a handful of American states with legalized same-sex marriage, but State Sen. Merlin Bartz is intent on ridding his state from the evils of equality. Already cracking down on gay camping, Bartz has a new argument against letting homosexuals use the M-word: Discrimination is a core part of Americana!

Law is all about discrimination, argues Bartz, who once tried to get county recorders not to issue gay marriage licenses. And he is right! Laws discriminate against certain things all the time, giving priority to some criteria (saving for retirement!) while penalizing others (tobacco tax!). Writes Bartz in an op-ed:

Ironically, a basic precept of law is that it indeed does discriminate. The litmus test, therefore, is not a question of discrimination or nondiscrimination but whether the discriminatory nature of the law is justifiable. If the justification is rational, defensible and promotes an outcome that we as a society seek and cherish, the answer should be affirmative. The answer should also not fixate on the question of perfecting equality in society (noble yet achievable only in theory). Instead, it should focus on the basic tenet of fairness, a much more recognizable and realistic goal.

Take tax law, for example. In this arena, we find some of the most blatant discriminatory practices that can be found anywhere in government. We discriminate in favor of home ownership by allowing the deduction of mortgage interest. We discriminate in favor of individuals with less income in a multitude of ways ranging from college student financial aid to exempting sales tax on food. We discriminate in favor of parents with children by allowing additional dependent credits. We discriminate against illegals and illegal activity, limiting eligibility for certain tax credits and prosecuting tax fraud. These and a myriad other examples of discrimination are commonly defended as basic fairness precepts, even though they are far from achieving equality

And then there are these things:

“No shoes, no shirt, no service”; “Local checks only”; “No one under 21 admitted”; “Requires a high school diploma or an equivalent GED”.

See: If you don’t want gays getting married, you aren’t “uncompassionate and bigoted,” says Bartz; you’re just a discerning person. Like shop owners who don’t want beachcombers walking in all disheveled, or restaurants who don’t want to risk being ripped off by check scams. Perpetrated by blacks and Latinos, of course!!

By:           John Rogers
On:           Jun 1, 2010
Tagged: , ,
  • 18 Comments
    • Mark Alexander
      Mark Alexander

      There is no shortage of willful ignorance in this country.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • clark
      clark

      Says the man with herpes on his lip……

      Jun 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      Hey Merlin: (wasn’t he a Gay wizzard?) Maybe you should be more concerned with how you gots that herpes on your upper lip than preventing Gays from getting married……….. Something which has been going on in your state for over a year now and has not yet caused it to spontaniously implode…………..

      Jun 1, 2010 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Looks like he has a little pillow burn on the top lip there. he should speak up and tell his male hookers to take it a little easy on him.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      In a manner of speaking, he’s right on principle. The problem for him is that there is no reasonable secular justification for this sort of discrimination against gays.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade MacMorrighan
      Wade MacMorrighan

      @Brutus: Hopefully someone responds to him in a future issue with that same good sense!

      Jun 1, 2010 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rainfish2000
      rainfish2000

      It’s like saying that the Food Stamp Program discriminates against well-fed rich people because it is not available to the wealthy. This miscreant’s convoluted logic speaks volumes about his anti-gay agenda and very little about his grasp of reality.

      Tobacco taxes do single out users of tobacco, but not just Puerto Rican or Gay or Black users. You also have the choice not to smoke. And if the phobes counter with the ridiculous notion that being Gay is a choice, then so is being heterosexual and that presumption should not afford them any more privileges.

      Poor kids have programs to help them go to college because a pool of talented people, who can contribute to society as a whole, should not be limited to just one class of people. Again, a Swiss cheese argument.

      This “Rand Paul wannabe” is warped in his common sense (or lack of sense) and should not be taken seriously. Just another trollish hater looking for attention.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      I was going to type ‘how do you make yourself pull a lever for someone named Merlin.’

      But then, oops …Barack Hussein Obama
      [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/dvlaries/emoticons/embarrassed2.gif[/img]

      Jun 1, 2010 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      He’s right for the most part.

      Too bad the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling went through each of the five reasons the state gave for why the discrimination was rational and showed how they were all bunk.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob
      Rob

      Only a matter of time before he gets caught in an airport bathroom.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      I hope his herpes sore turns out to be cancer.

      Jun 1, 2010 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      There is a difference between LAW (against murder, rape, and vandalism) and policy (in favor of things like taxation on the basis of need or use). If marriage is a policy which accomplishes a social aim variable in its purpose, then it’s a policy and up for discrimination. If it’s a law, then… Of course, there’s a difference between positive and negative rights: If the purpose of straight marriage is to prevent queers from marrying, then I guess the guy has a point?!

      Jun 1, 2010 at 9:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Herpe Lips should talk…which “Luggage Lifter” “gayve” him that?????

      Jun 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Iowa State Senator Merlin Bartz can suck a fart out of my asshole.

      Jun 2, 2010 at 3:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      He states that the “discriminatory nature of the law is justifiable. If the justification is rational, defensible and promotes an outcome that we as a society seek and cherish, the answer should be affirmative”. How is it rational to deny humans basic civil rights , how is that defensible? Is the outcome where certain members of the public are unfairly discriminated a society in which America seeks and cherishes?

      Jun 2, 2010 at 6:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tessie Tura
      Tessie Tura

      @clark: Damn, you beat me to it.

      Jun 2, 2010 at 8:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      It’s one thing to post a comment with a viable argument but to post most of the comments on this page is another thing. Shouldn’t you be trying to be the bigger people. These comments are something that would be heard in a fight between 13 year olds.

      Jul 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wilma Davis
      Wilma Davis

      I agree with John #16. These are the types of slures that children and narrow-minded individuals spew when they are too ignorant to understand that all people are entitled to their own opinion and as a representative of the people it is Mr. Bartz’s job to uphold what they want. I do know Mr. Bartz and before I am bashed myself, I support gay marraige! Lay off the childish remarks and grow up!

      Jul 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.