From Washington state:
Tim Eyman, who can spot a hot issue from 100 paces, hopes to force a public vote. He also has a broader initiative, loosely modeled on his successful anti-affirmative action measure, forbidding any quotas or preferential treatment for gays. Opposition already is organizing.
There are actually two issues affecting gays roiling Washington state politics. One is a new civil rights measure adding “sexual orientation” to the state civil rights act, which Eyman also opposes, and the other is his proposed measure barring preferences to gays.
But Rep. Ed Murray, sponsor of the gay civil rights bill and one of four openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, said that affirmative action and laws banning discrimination are not the same thing.
Eyman’s “confusing two issues that are not related,” he said.
That may be true — one could certainly favor civil rights protection but not preferences — but Rep. Murray did not say — or at least wasn’t quoted here as saying — why he opposes a measure that would ban preferences to gays.
“That may be true — one could certainly favor civil rights protection but not preferences — but Rep. Murray did not say — or at least wasn’t quoted here as saying — why he opposes a measure that would ban preferences to gays.”
My guess is because there are idiots out there that think forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or recognizing gay relationships, are ‘special rights.’ I know, we shouldn’t give in to those idiotic bigots, but sometimes they end up on the supreme court.
Would those be the same “idiots” who think that banning discrimination based on race is racist?
actus, actus, actus…
I oppose gay marriage. It’s not just a special right. It’s an absurdity.
Once again, you’ve collapsed into the favorite liberal mind game of the past 20 years. Disagree with me… and you’re a bigot. As I’ve already told you umpteen million times, I could care less if you think I’m a bigot. When you pull out that one, I just (once again) write you off as a clueless man with atrociously bad manners.
The opposition of traditional religions to homosexuality is not bigotry. In fact, it’s based on the justifiable concerns of ancient societies over the need to reproduce. Also, in case you haven’t notice, the AIDs epidemic confirmed the moral and health fears of religious communities about gay male sexuality. I don’t know what to call this nonsense game you play, but it’s pretty ugly.
No, gays are not victims of discrimination, violence, or anything. It’s all made up by people who enjoy cooking up grievance.
Who’s the “we” to which you refer?
“Would those be the same “idiots” who think that banning discrimination based on race is racist?”
Especially if they think ‘affirmative action’ means just enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
Especially if they think ‘affirmative action’ means just enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
Well, it’s surprising to see you label Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as “idiots.” True, they didn’t describe affirmative action in their executive orders as “just” enforcement of anti-discrimination; they mean “affirmative action” to see that anti-discrimination laws were enforced. However, they most emphatically did NOT mean racial preferences.
“No, gays are not victims of discrimination, violence, or anything.”
I’m sorry. Did I call you an idiot before reading this? I should have waited till you had your say.
“True, they didn’t describe affirmative action in their executive orders as “just” enforcement of anti-discrimination;”
I know. I said idiots are the ones who think that. The ‘just’ part. Anymore its meaning isn’t just that.
Anymore its meaning isn’t just that.
Oh, really? In that case could you cite the subsequent executive order that amended or removed the language from the ones issued by both Kennedy and Johnson providing that employers must take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” I obviously missed it.
In that case could you cite the subsequent executive order that amended or removed the language from the ones issued by both Kennedy and Johnson providing that employers must take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
I don’t know about executive orders. I think that nowadays people equate affirmative action with more than just race-blindness. I think they equate it with general efforts to increase the presence of women, african americans, and other traditionally under-represented people.
actus,
Just as a general matter, would you say that people should get preferences in higher education if they belong to groups against which there is documented animus?
Think carefully, now.
“Just as a general matter, would you say that people should get preferences in higher education if they belong to groups against which there is documented animus?”
I think it should be corrective of earlier miseducation. Like kids who had the misfortune of undergoing creationist educations should get preferences so that they can attend universities and then learn science correctly. Its not fair to punish these kids for hteir parents incorrect views.
“Its not fair to punish these kids for hteir parents incorrect views.”
What about the incorrect views of their teachers?
Let’s see, in actus’ short life on this earth he’s discovered that all of the collective wisdom of mankind in regard to religion is just a sham, and he knows that traditional marriage is a form of discrimination against him.
Hubris, anyone?
I don’t think I can actually comment on actus’s latest, except to note the utter lameness of the humor.
“I don’t think I can actually comment on actus’s latest, except to note the utter lameness of the humor.”
There is documented animus towards the ignorant in the academy. And this should be overcome by allowing the ignorant the benefit of what the academy can provide.
Michelle:
“I don’t think I can actually comment on actus’s latest, except to note the utter lameness of the humor.”
actus:
There is documented animus towards the ignorant in the academy. And this should be overcome by allowing the ignorant the benefit of what the academy can provide.
The thing about actus, I think, is that either his humor or his serious analysis is so subtle and refined (or maybe both are) that it is often impossible to distinguish his humorous from his serious comments.
“The thing about actus, I think, is that either his humor or his serious analysis is so subtle and refined (or maybe both are) that it is often impossible to distinguish his humorous from his serious comments.
Do you really have a problem of seeing the seriousness of people that are ignorant towards science seeking admission to schools that teach science?
actus,
Do you really have a problem of seeing the seriousness of people that are ignorant towards science seeking admission to schools that teach science?
Well, we could turn this around, could we not? Don’t you see the seriousness of people who are “ignorant towards” “the humanities” seeking admission to schools that teach the humanities?
What, you don’t? Why ever not?
Guys (and ladies), I think Actus is on our side now.
To quote:
I think it should be corrective of earlier miseducation. Like kids who had the misfortune of undergoing creationist educations should get preferences so that they can attend universities and then learn science correctly. Its not fair to punish these kids for hteir parents incorrect views.
So it sounds like Actus supports all socio-economic preferences now, which eliminate the need for race -based preference. For why would it be fair to punish the white child of a single-mother waitress in a trailer park making $17K to give preference to a child’s whose parents were lawyers but just happened to be black?
QED, by Actus.
“Well, we could turn this around, could we not? Don’t you see the seriousness of people who are “ignorant towards” “the humanities” seeking admission to schools that teach the humanities?”
I do. And I think the solution is to find ways to educate these people.
“So it sounds like Actus supports all socio-economic preferences now, which eliminate the need for race -based preference.”
Absolutely. For me hte best part of affirmative action is that it gets right wingers to support class-based treatment and other levelling of our unequal distribution in our society. Onwards brother!
“and he knows that traditional marriage is a form of discrimination against him”
Why is it discrimination against me?
“There is documented animus towards the ignorant in the academy.”
LOL! You need to spend some time in the academy, man.
“LOL! You need to spend some time in the academy, man.”
I’m in it right now.
He’s doing it so he can enrich himself later through all the policies he seemingly opposes. Now, when those government-backed student loans start coming in, let’s talk.