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.
[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]