Tuesday, March 04, 2008

I support anti-discrimination legislation - but only up to the point where I'm precluded from discriminating.

Silly.


So, if after all the votes are taken, and career politicians face another controversy over the ERA wording as Rep. Lang proposes, it still won't be enough to satisfy the old girls. You see, the ERA is not about equality between the sexes. The U.S. Constitution is sex neutral as is.

The ERA is about embedding abortion and sexual orientation rights as well as sexual preferences and affirmative action into our nation's foundational document, giving Congress unprecedented power over states and individual businesses.


Obviously judging by the fact that the best arguments Eaton has against the ERA are the usual "but...but...them queers could end up getting married and my marriage will be destroyed" and....I'm not kidding......"equal rights don't really help in Illinois", you can safely bet that the ERA is good clean common sense.

Although, just for giggles. If the Constitution is "gender neutral" (which, I'm firmly of the belief than it is intended to be) and the ERA merely reinforces the application of said gender neutrality, exactly what are the wingers afraid of?

1 comments:

Anonymous,  11:43 AM  

I am pro ERA. But you DanL are INSANE. Your rantings on the internet (nobody reads your blog according to your own blog log in records--2 weeks ago last post) are dangerous--mostly to yourself.
You do a dissersive with your hate and vile to people who sincerely support a LGBT agenda. Stop the hate. Stop the swearing. Stop the insults. Write coherently and logically. Don't hurt Illinoize which generally has civil discourse.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP