Posted on 10/27/2009 3:37:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said she would support amending the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gays and lesbians.
Though no such amendment has been offered in Congress, Gillibrand said such a measure would be "transformational" and is "certainly worth fighting for."
"I would [be supportive of that]. I truly believe that this gay rights agenda is the civil rights march of our generation. I think marriage equality, I think repealing DOMA, 'Don't ask, don't tell.' All of that work we're doing is part of equal rights in America and it is something that is so important to this generation," she told Towleroad.com, a gay website.
"I think that kind of bill would be transformational ... Whether we have the votes for that kind of bill today, I don't know. But it's something certainly worth fighting for," she added. She spoke with the site during an appearance with LGBT activists in New York City.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I wonder what the African-American ministers and others who made many sacrifices and risked their safety to end racial segregation and discrimination think about this.
Gigglebritches - anything for attention.
I’m surprised she hasn’t yelled FIRE! in a theater yet.
This is ridiculous!
Homosexuality is a behavior - there is no biological basis for homosexual behavior.
I believe MLK’s family members embraced it, with the exception of his conservative niece, of course. I may be wrong, though...
The civil rights act was another legislative attempt to make blacks equal to whites in the eyes of the law, something most Republicans supported and most Democrats resisted at the time.
This legislation is a backdoor attempt (pun intended) to make gay marriage legal without having to vote for gay marriage.
I’ve got a lesbian cousin who blogs about the “oppression” she faces in her daily life. Its nothing but pure fantasy.
She claims to have been ostracized by the family and that’s total BS. She nor her “girlfriend” have ever been unwelcome at family gatherings. She claims her father treats her like a second class citizen which is also crap. My uncle paid for her to go to UofM without any taxpayer money involved, then paid for her to live in Australia for some 3 years. She claims she can’t walk down the street without fear of attack from the evil Christians.
The one that was passed by REPUBLICANS, despite bitter DEMOCRAT objections - that landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act?
I am so sorely tempted to hand out a "question game" at family Christmas to the Dems in the family. For instance: The American military was not originally segregated. Name the President who segregated them and his party.
Bull Connor, who stood in the door ways of schools and blocked black children from entering, was a member of which party? It could be great fun. I have about ten more just like those, and I'd finish by showing them points 9 through 25 of the Nazi Party Platform of 1924, asking who's party platform was this? And of course it looks just like the Democrat Party platform, and they would reflexively answer Democrat after all the other answers were Democrats. Wouldn't that be a hoot? Of course, I could never go to Christmas again.
Remember she is OWNED by ACORN’s political arm: Working Families Party. That explains this.
I’m not sure that additional “hate crime” and anti-discrimination laws, same-sex “marriage,” or even a personal letter of congratulations from the President will give some member of the gay community whatever it is they are searching for.
In my opinion there are two kinds of homosexuals. There are the angry militant type who live a fantasy world of oppression like my cousin. And there are the quiet type who don’t feel a need to wave their sexuality around like a flag.
It will be interesting to see what Rangel, Barron, Sharpton and the rest say.
(... after I email this to them. Meh, time to implement Rahm’s Law on crisis and Alinsky’s rule on holding them to their own standards)
You are 100% correct and that fact has been lost sight of by the intentional obscuring of the issue by that for a number of reasons. One is their running from that word and adopting the term"Gay" in it's place. Just look how many people use that term even on this sight. They've brainwashed the public.
I for one refuse to use the term "Gay" to define their perverted conduct. It's intentional conduct that had at common law been illegal and also statutorily in most states. To here them say it's in their genes and can't help it is the same as an Arsonist saying he can't help starting fires and shouldn't be held accountable.
America better wake up and smell the coffee before it's to late, if it isn't already!
I’m sure Cass Sunstein should have a talk with them. /s
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802
Sure he wants to abolish marriage, except for himself and Samantha Power I guess.
He also referred to an unborn child as a ‘third-party’ and burden re: abortion, except for his child born in April I guess.
Meh.
It’s all in her mind. Besides the 1964 act was about voting and I’ve never seen a Gay person be turned away at the Polls. Of course I may not know they’re Gay because unless they’re dressed like they’re running for Queen of Provincetown how would I know. The bottom line is that they aren’t so much rejected by their families as they have rejected their families.
What about pederasts?
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.