Sunday, November 19, 2006


On Saturday there was an international leadership conference meeting for a particular group with attendance a modest 200. Normally a group of 200 isn't all that impressive except in this case the 200 are all public officials....ok, so that means they work at some level of government (city, county, state or federal) and so could influence things to some degree. Then add that they got chief Dem moonbat Howard Dean to talk to them....and he showed them some support in what he said.

This group, the International Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference, was I'm sure thrilled to hear Dean say the Democratic Party needs to look beyond its dated goal of getting gays and minorities a place at the table and instead work toward getting them on the ballot. Really? Why? Ignoring the "minority" part, lets just look at the gay part. Are people with gender independent sexual orientation or preferences outside of whatever definition of normal man-women relations are a group that requires representation by one of their own? We already have a constitution and laws that give equal footing to every unless you're inhuman please shut your "I'm special and need special treatment" pie-hole.

I have no idea if Dean is truly just pandering to the crowd before him or if he believes that only someone that engages in a lifestyle that on it's own cannot propagate a species can represent such a group. If that was the case, and you have any intellectual honesty, you must therefore provide member representation for all groups (however you define them) of a similar size within our population. Why should gays only have such status?

It's truly baffling to me that liberals who believe in quotas, affirmative action and calling out any group based on a physical or mental characteristic don't see the conflict with the notion of a society that is blind of color, religion and every other differentiation one can imagine.

What we should do is find those who truly love our country, it's founding principles and laws, to enter public service. We should encourage those to serve only under that distinction. By definition their love of what it means to be American, if true, will guide them to represent all of our citizens equally.

You cannot have it both ways! If you say at least 12% of our federal legislators need to be black because 12% of our population is black, you must therefore believe blacks are different from those who are not. I thought such difference was racist? The idea of picking and choosing things that distinguish various groups creates a divide and continues to highlight the very difference many claim they want to no longer to be the issue.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I see what you're saying - you're pretty much saying that they're hypocrits, right? They want to be equal, but want special treatment at the same time.

They're frustrating.