GOP lawmaker's BONKERS take on gay marriage: cousins can marry too

Filibustering for the right to marry your first cousin is a weird hill to die on, but you do you, Gino Bulso. https://t.co/yUnqhqWwxg pic.twitter.com/Fb7bateXXh

— Eric Welch (@EricWelchWCS) April 11, 2024

This a wild and hypocritical argument is coming from someone who is so vehemently anti-LGBTQ+ that he sponsored the bill that banned Pride flags in public school classrooms earlier this year, the Associated Press reports.

"My grandparents came over to this country through Ellis Island in Italy back in the 1920s," Bulso said. "And they were first cousins... So, back in 1924, they actually came down to Tennessee to get married... But for the existence of the current law, I would not be here."

But before twisting the Supreme Court ruling to his own purposes, he had to make it clear how much he hates gay marriage. Like a political version of "no homo!"

"Obviously, in my view, Obergefell was a grievously wrong decision," he explained, LGBTQ Nation reports. "It was an example of the U.S. Supreme Court working as a super-legislature, but as we stand here today, Obergefell is the law of the land."

Bulso then shocked the Republican-led legislature when he argued that there wouldn't be a risk of congenital disabilities — one of the main arguments against first cousins marrying — in same-sex cousin relationships because they can't reproduce and that the health issues stemming from opposite-sex first cousins having procreating were "not as significant" as people think.

I don't know man, if you've got the hots for your cousin that badly, just say that instead of dragging gay people into it.

Rep. Gino Bulso: *taps mic* ‘The woke left is trying to take away your god-given right to Cousin fucking.

*’Deliverance’ banjo strumming in background* https://t.co/HMeHOTifks

— Hadley Sheley (@HadleySheley) April 11, 2024

"So, we go back to Obergefell," he continued. "Obergefell said very clearly, that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, which means that in order for us to pass a law that restricts same-sex marriage, we have to show a compelling state interest."

This wack argument deserves serious side-eye. Does this guy want us to believe he thinks the Supreme Court was talking about gay cousins marrying?

"So unless somehow the sponsor or anyone else can demonstrate a public health issue with a male and male first cousin marriage, this bill violates Obergefell."

So let us get this straight: because outlawing first cousins marrying would also make it illegal for two male cousins to marry, it violates Obergefell? Does he think everyone is dumb?

How about you leave queer people out of your gross incest-obsessed legal arguments.

Luckily, no one fell for his bogus speech, and Bulso and fellow Republican Rep. Monty Fritts ended up being the only two lawmakers who voted against the bill.

Imagine being a Republican who loves cousin-marrying so much he's willing to support gay marriage to get it. If it weren't so disturbing, it would almost be comical watching Republicans tie themselves in knots trying to argue their causes!