Iowa Republican: Feminists should oppose gay marriage to ensure women and men married in equal numbers
A Republican Party official in Iowa committed acts of atrocity against logic to explain why gender equality advocates should oppose same-sex marriage.
Tamara Scott, a state Republican National Committeewoman and talk radio broadcaster, hosted an RNC member from Oklahoma who signed onto an amicus brief sent to the U.S. Supreme Court as it hears arguments on gay marriage, reported Right Wing Watch.
Guest Carolyn McClarty explained the points made by RNC members who signed the brief, and Scott mused that feminists should oppose marriage equality to remain consistent with their views on gender equality.
“By 2020, they want 50/50 in the statehouses and the U.S. House and Senate,” Scott said. “They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality.”
Scott said banning same-sex marriage ensured an equal number of men and women were married.
“So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage?” she continued. “Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents.”
McClarty warned that “the extreme feminist movement and the gay liberation movement” were hoping to destroy marriage as institution by allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Scott said she couldn’t even support civil unions because that would lend state support of “the act” that “God has not condoned” and violate her religious freedom to remain unaware of gay couple having sex.
“The whole point of our concern with the same-sex marriage is that the act, that God has not condoned it,” Scott said. “I can’t condone what he’s condemned, I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.”
Watch the segment posted online by RWW Blog: