Local newspaper stands up to state rep's anti-gay amendment push!

[bbernardini]

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16042409&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17785&rfi=6

This is in response to the knuckle-dragger I wrote about earlier this week. He wants to amend Pennsylvania's constitution to basically give gay folks no rights whatsoever.

[northzax]

1. I'm a big fan of the Virginia one

overturns centuries of common law and doesn't give straight unmarried couples any rights either. I smell backlash...

[sui generis]

2. hah - good article. I would add:

Since there is no legal test for "gayness" other than one's word or presumption of gayness, if you WANTED to discriminate against anyone at all for any reason whatsoever all you have to do is claim that you presume them to be gay.

Oddly, there isn't really a test for "straightness" either, so nobody technically could prove they weren't gay.

It's like saying we want to discriminate against catholics. Were you born catholic or did you choose to be a catholic, were you just catholic once with another catholic in college but you were both drunk, etc.

What a dumb fucking thing to want to base your "right" to discriminate upon.

[zbdent]

3. That would be comical - since the "test" for straightness

has been trumped by the "Nipple of Doom" - how do you publicly display that you're hetero if you're arrested for f*cking someone in public?

:silly:

[sui generis]

4. all that would prove is that you know how to reproduce

everything else is just a state of mind. Plus, I would say that women have a big advantage over men in this area, of public proof. Just close your eyes and think of England . . .

Nipple of Doom :rofl:

[bbernardini]

5. Kick!