Connect With Us


NH Rep Ulery Mistakes Satire For News In ‘Slippery Slope’ Argument

new-hampshire-ringsRepublicans love their slippery slope arguments, and New Hampshire Representative Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) is no exception. In responding to an email from Representative Jan Schmidt (D-Nashua) about gun regulation laws, Ulery sent two links showing how the legalization of same-sex marriage was leading to pushes in other states to legalize “multiple partner” marriages and “animal interactions”. That is, bestiality.

Now, bestiality is illegal in New Hampshire, but that’s besides the point. The point that Ulery was trying to make is that “a small infringement” like same-sex marriage will “always, Always, ALWAYS lead to a greater infringement.”

Ulery goes on to say
“And when we were discussing same-sex marriage people said talking about multiple partners, animal interactions made those who define marriage as a relationship between man and woman as silly and foolish. Today, however, in several states multiple partners and even bestiality have been proposed or floated as extensions.”


The guy who looks silly and foolish is the one who managed to miss the notices that the Daily Currant is a satirical news site akin to The Onion and that the article on Smash Mouth Politics specifically stated that the article was “a parody of what I [the author] believe will be happening in a few years.”

Representative Tim Smith (D-Manchester) replied back saying “Wow, where to start here.” He went on to explain that the sites were satirical in nature and that “So … yes … talking about multiple partners and bestiality does indeed make folks look foolish.”

Perhaps Ulery’s best explanation would be that ‘We in the GOP do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.’



Share This Post

2 Responses to NH Rep Ulery Mistakes Satire For News In ‘Slippery Slope’ Argument

  1. Jordan Ulery

    July 31, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    The discussion was not about same-sex marriage, it was about talking about calling something “silly” and then having a serious discussion. Please bother to do a little research before publishing not even half of the story, only a fraction of the entire exchange.
    It is absolutely correct that during the same-sex marriage debate people called the logical extension (i.e. multiple partners) of using “love” as the definer of marriage “silly.” However, the logical extension of multiple partners is already being serious floated in nearby Vermont. Indeed, nationally there is a developing discussion for multiple partners. That discussion, is not what was being presented and only part of the larger discussion ever made it into the so-called ‘liberal’ press. Indeed, only a fraction of the discussion was publish by a political adversary. At any rate, Thank you.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      July 31, 2013 at 9:51 pm

      Representative Ulery,

      While you and your colleagues were discussing gun regulation, we are discussing the decision by you to make as part of your counter argument two piece of evidence from satirical sites. Now, if you are claiming that this was intentional and you wanted to use them full knowing that they were satirical in nature, that would be one thing, but unintentionally using them is another.

      Additionally, while there may be some discussion about multi-partner marriages going on, there have not been any serious discussions that we have heard of even here in Vermont. I should know, I happen to be sitting here in Vermont at this very moment. This is where I live. I have not heard of any serious attempts to lobby our legislature for consensual multi-partner marriages.

      Now, admittedly, I happen to be of the opinion that mutli-partner marriages should be legal so long as the people involved in the marriage are adults and do so without coercion. Perhaps it is to my opinions on the subject you are referring.

      Incidentally, the only people in the debate who tended to talk about multi-partner marriages being a logical extension of same-sex marriage are those who are oppose to same-sex marriage. I have not met a single LGBT activist who seriously makes that argument outside of myself.

      However, thank you for posting on our humble little site.

      Have a nice evening.