I saw today that Santorum bought his three daughter a life time membership to the NRA! What the... There aren't words to describe the type of person that in some way thought their three year old daughter would love something like that.
In the USA Today iPad app I read a story of the genealogy of Romney and Obama. Both have polygamists on their past. How hysterical is that! Obama's ancestors from Africa had a number of wires, in fact I think it said his great grandfather married a pair of sisters, among the many wives. Nine in total I think.
So as we are almost ready to stare down the barrel of a two man race to the White House, both have polygamists in their past, one is filthy rich, the other is doing ok, one is white, one is blackish, one is a conservative LDS member, the other is a more mainstream Christian.
Besides all these differences, which I really don't care about, it's their view on discrimination in the workplace that bothers me today. Tomorrow it will be something else, but today I read how Obama look like he's not going to sign the Executive Order Banning LGBT Workplace Discrimination.
What sort of a message does this send to young gay people, it's outrageous. It's like saying:
"You've been picked on at school and no one protected you, welcome to the workplace. Someone can pick on you and you still won't have any protection, you're gay, you don't matter to society"
OUTRAGEOUS!
In Australia when I feel things are not as they should be, I write to my local member of parliament. For those in the US, I suppose this means writing to your congressman. I'd encourage you to do so.
You're post doesn't make clear the distinction, so I'll say it here just for clarity, the executive order to which you refer would only apply to federal jobs; the president can't just legislate for the whole country by executive order. That doesn't change the validity of your argument, of course, but I would hope it lightens the culpability a bit for the decision which you disfavor.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Administration gave as a reason for it's not supporting such an order was because they thought it more appropriate that the issue be addressed in broader and more effective actual legislation, which the administration does in fact wholeheartedly and unambiguously support.
I just happened to hear the panelists addressing this very question on the Friday news roundup on the Diane Rehm Show (National Public Radio) yesterday and thought I'd pitch in with the nuance.
Thanks Trev, I'm an observer of US politics so I appreciate your clarification. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post.
ReplyDelete