Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thatguyyouhatealot t1_jbc8gjf wrote

Ann Kelley is a clown. A right wing religious kook the type the Founding Fathers worried about when writing the Constitution. She should go back to her Bible study and leave state policy to people with brains and a respect for all people.

69

nofretting t1_jbdoqz8 wrote

Clown? That's accurate. I was thinking of another word that begins with that letter, but maybe that's just me.

13

Mysteroo t1_jbejxtq wrote

"To me that isn't sexual orientation..."

To be fair, she just admitted that she has no idea what that word means. She just thought that it referred to non-straight, non-cis orientations. So she literally doesn't understand why my guy is bringing up Martha Washington.

That's why when he asks if they could theoretically talk about Martha Washington, she says "I don't know." She is STUMPED as to what Martha Washington has to do with this

Her bill is POSITIVELY nonsensical but most of this conversation is too. Just explain to her what it word means, lol

25

BataMahn3 t1_jbh2082 wrote

Are you saying there's never been a gay person who's married the opposite sex? Or were they straight when they married their wife and now they're gay? And if that's the case, were they born gay? And if so, how would marrying a woman suddenly make the gay man straight? Or were you assuming someone was straight simply because they're married to the opposite sex? Do you know that marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

1

Mysteroo t1_jbhr1d4 wrote

Just to clarify... Are you siding with Ann Kelley on this?

If you think he's wrong for referencing Martha Washington because "marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation," then I gotta say- you have a very unpopular opinion. Like - I GUESS it technically doesn't have to reflect your orientation, but the VAST majority of people would prefer to be married to someone that they are sexually attracted to.

There is a reason why people all throughout history would frequently try to hide their homosexuality by getting heterosexual marriages - BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO MARRY THE PEOPLE THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

If it had nothing to do with sexual orientation, then it wouldn't be a very effective way of pretending your not gay, would it?

3

feralfantastic t1_jbf915k wrote

This is what happens when you elect actual lawyers. That’s Phil Christofanelli, a Republican Representative out of St. Charles, curb stomping a stupid bigot over a poorly drafted law.

Per his bio, he does estate planning and small business law. Seems like a pretty competent guy to have in your corner, honestly.

19

garcia_later t1_jbfvnxe wrote

Based on this video alone I’d vote for him for governor (until/unless he does some anti choice shit).

−1

mrd247 t1_jbcvpg3 wrote

OMG were all doomed.

12

EngryEngineer t1_jbf2dvh wrote

"You can believe something without putting that on someone else" -the person trying to force a state to comply with her beliefs

Gotta love how her beliefs are well founded and defendable "I don't know"

11

brainkandy87 t1_jbd5mus wrote

Ah yes, the reason why I’ve got an exit strategy.

9

BataMahn3 t1_jbh14wt wrote

I don't like his example because Martha being his wife has nothing to do with teachers teaching sexual orientation\gender... are they saying that gay people dont\haven't married someone of the opposite gender? Martha being his wife is a verifiable fact with legal documentation (marriage license). He's pretending the teacher is saying, "George Washington was straight, identified as a male, and married Martha because of that" (an assumption) when in reality all the teachers would be saying is, "George Washington was married to Martha" which is a historical fact. Pretending teachers couldn't teach something like who's married to who because that somehow implies sexual orientation is not a good faith argument and is obviously miles away from what this silly lady was intending with her silly bill, which appears to aim to keep that stuff out of the classroom.

2

No-Preference592 t1_jbewlv5 wrote

"What is she famous for?"

1

garcia_later t1_jbfvy0o wrote

Says a lot about thinking that being a historical figure is synonymous with “fame”.

2

Poppinfloss t1_jbcsykr wrote

LOL wtf?! This sounds like me and my wife arguing about shit.

−2

HomsarWasRight t1_jbcvoxe wrote

It’s rude to insult your wife so heinously by comparing her to this woman.

37

Poppinfloss t1_jbdjhid wrote

Its a low key jab at my wife and myself living here thinking damn they sound like us where the divide in opinions vary so greatly. Just like in here where different tones of humor can affect different type of people.

−3