Pelosi, Who Pushed Through 'Non-Gendered Language' Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

Pelosi

this is about bills, who they apply too, they should apply to all Americans equally, they should be gender-neutral and race-neutral

 

I've been reliably informed that men can ALREADY have babies!

 

Can you think of any laws which are not gender neutral?

 

marriage law, now can you answer my question of any laws you think would need to include genders as could not be gender-nuetral

also voting rights laws used to be men only

 

I know they were making progress, but not sure it's been done yet

so do you agree abortion laws should be gender-neutral then?

 

Well no I cannot, but I can't think of any which are on the books currently -- except marriage.

Well what exactly is the relevance of that ancient patriarchal law?

 

so if you can't think of even one law that could not be gender-neutral, then seems this is a non-issue

had voting rights laws been gender-neutral from the get go, we would not of had to fight for women to have the right to vote

 

I guess that's the as far as you'll go so you get credit for accepting that.

But we don't know what all the different alternatives might be and the simple point is that they're not necessary. Gender is totally irrelevant to the rule in question, it's about the familial relationship with a government official. I don't really understand why that had things like "father or mother" rather than "parent" in the first place, regardless of any gender identity aspects. The whole thing is short and simpler without all the gender variations split out.

But you didn't know because it should be blatantly obvious that was could never have been the case in any way what-so-ever. Even couched in the "if", you were promoting an obvious political lie. You're clearly smart enough to know better which can't help create suspicion you're doing it intentionally. You certainly have no excuse not to unconditionally drop that line entirely now and given it was the entire basis of the thread, there is nothing on topic to say further (discussions on any actually rules that exist being entirely different).

 

What if the law said that men and women could vote?

 

As far as I'll go on what?

 

Yes, like changing the date of Australia Day.

 

And if we made Australia Day 1st Jan or 30th June then within a generation
there would be a demand to change it, or more likely, replace it with some
thing else, like say a Sorry Day.
You cannot appease this mentality - there will always be a new demand. A
race to the bottom if you like.

 

You already know. I'm done playing that game.

 

If you're referring to my error, then I already acknowledged it. Again, I acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the language which people use in the House!

 

Yes, because one could then use that to say non-binaries cannot be legally married. Besides is it not simpler to say marriage is between two individuals?

 

Actually there is a need. If you don't remove a restriction from the current law, then the restriction remains. Under Oberfell, such gender referencing was effectively removed from all marriage laws since it was deemed unconstitutional to have them. Even after that ruling there were still people who tried to go by the actual written as opposed to what was ruled.

 

Nope. Having a right to something is irrelevant to the need for it. As a man I still have a right to an abortion. I have as much need for it as a woman who is not pregnant. But think of it this way. A man who through a genetic mutation or intersexed condition ends up getting pregnant, but doesn't want to keep it, especially since the doctor say it would probably kill him to take it to term. If the law only states that women can get abortions, then he could be legally banned from getting one. Mind you, RvW covered a lot more ground than just abortion, but the example still works as an example.

 

it did not, it said men, and people used that to deny women the right to vote, so best to be gender-neutral

 

Buy a dictionary. embracing diversity is not pandering. An extreme nationalist party trying to entice minority support with false claims and stolen credit, is pandering.

Blood and soil baby .

I guess you haven't been following both the wanted list and the indicted list. And no, not all trump supporters are fascist nazi racist white nationalist pin heads. The majority of them are simply Gullible white folks full of angst. Course there is the added spice of QAnon bat **** crazies. I consider the hard core fascist supremacists to be the MAGA auxillery much like the brownshirts and just like the brownshirts their Dear Leader threw them directly under the bus.

Your leaps of logics are impressive, must be because they are so lightweight.

Well at least you can admit Donnie Peachs was nothing more than what the rest of the world has been saying about him. A spiteful hateful bullying con man and textbook narcissistic sociopath.

 

I'll be quite surprised if you can find a dictionary definition saying that "embracing diversity is not pandering!"

"False claims?" "Stolen credit?" What the hell are you referring to exactly?

What the hell do you mean blood and soil? This must be some sort of admission that Politifact was CORRECT and that you are WRONG!

Do you mean the rioters are fascist nazi white nationalists, or the people at the Capitol protest are fascist nazi white nationalists?

Either way, if that's your name for them, what's your name for the left wing human waste who tore through cities for months during the summer rioting and looting? I don't expect much of an answer, but you may well surprise me with some rare leftist consistency! I certainly always love to see it!

"Hateful?" Oh right, because we all know that Biden just LOVES his political opponents and doesn't hate them at all! Saying that Republicans will re-enslave black people! Just so much LOVE!

 

No, because if the law said, "men and women can vote", which is NOT gender-neutral, then there would have been no issue!

 

How would the person be a MAN according to the law in that case?

RvW covered men with a genetic mutation or intersexed condition?

 

Well that's never happened has it? And I'm sure that MANY 'non-binary' people have gotten married.

 

So then why doesn't the Obergefel Wikipedia page include any instances of "gender?" And why does "obergefell v. hodges gender" return zero relevant results on Google? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

 

Is there no politics in your supposed claimed country?
Or do you just like flaming issues in other countries?