Posted on 08/10/2015 4:53:00 PM PDT by markomalley
This week we learned Target is now eliminating any gender classification from its toys and children’s clothing aisles. We’ve already reported here about a California city mandating gender-neutral restrooms.
I have to ask, if liberals are so hell-bent on promoting diversity, why are they so doggedly determined to eliminate it?
Fresh off the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Democrats in California (where else?) have introduced a bill that would ban the words “husband” and “wife” from being used in federal law because they are “gendered terms” and discriminate against gay people (and presumably trans-gendered or in-between?)
The words husband and wife were deleted from California state law last year. Under new legislation proposed by over two dozen Democrats, that same rule would be applied federally. The bill, introduced by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif, would introduce new “gender-neutral” terms such as “spouse” or “married couple” and eliminate “husband” and “wife.”
Early in his first term the Barack Obama administration already has removed “mother” and “father” from federal birth certificates and replaces them with “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2.” Why we stop at two is currently unknown.
HR 2976 “The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”
The Supreme Court ruled in June that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means all states have to license same-sex marriages, a ruling that effectively ended the same-sex marriage debate in America. Capps said her bill was aimed at taking the next step, which is to ensure the United States Code “reflects the equality of all marriages.”
She said her bill would also have other benefits if it became law. In one example, she noted that U.S. law says it’s illegal to threaten the president’s wife, but says nothing about the president’s husband. “Capps’ bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the president’s “spouse,” her office said.
Capps might also be thinking of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who still seems like a lock to win the Democratic nomination. If she were to win the White House, former President Bill Clinton would become what some have suggested might be called the “first spouse.”
I’m sure there quite a few other descriptors that might be more apt, but we’ll leave it at that for now.
Some folks enjoy the fact that there are gender differences and some of us enjoy being the gender we were born and some believe it is our God given right to express support for gender difference, Adam and Eve. Trying to make us all the same, genderless is insensitive to human differences, and seems akin to tyranny. The folks who hate gender differences and hate gender need to get over it, settle down and stop interfering in other people’s lives.
On men’s/boys shirts the buttons are on the right and the holes are on the left. Women’s shirts are the opposite. _____________________________________________________
These were T-shirts. No Buttons. We were looking at a size 6 that looked to be too small for our grandson. Clerk said we had wandered into the girl’s dept. A boy’s size 6 was perfect.
o.O
LOL
Knew a mom that showed her teenage son how to put on a condom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.