I don’t believe BrainGlutton’s remark had anything to do with the sex of the fetus. His comment about pro-life = sexist is because supporting the pro-life view takes away a woman’s right to decide what shall happen in and to her body.
That’s a pretty damn big difference.
Boxer and Bush’s positions on gay rights are NOT equal. Boxer is a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discimination Act. Bush opposes it. Boxer is a co-sponsor of Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. Bush opposes. Shall I go on?
Agreed. Many years ago, I had the misfortune of selecting a hairstylist whose salon was in the same building as an abortion clinic. Pro-life activists would come out every Saturday to pray (mainly the rosary) and hand out literature, and pro-choice counterprotestors would line the opposite side of the street to yell at them. And even though the pro-life group was mixed race, mostly women, mostly Catholic and pro-life activities have nothing to do with sexual orientation, the chant was “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, born-again bigots go away.”
My response was “2, 4, 6, 8, originality would be really super great!”
Cudos to the group for using the term “anti-gay” instead of “homophobic”. Though chosen for the ryme, the word homophobic implies that someones opinion is a disorder.
I’m a Hispanic person that opposes affirmative action. What do you get when you scratch me?
capsium burns?
A lighter version of Clarence Thomas?
OK, that was mean, but BrainGlutton is right–a large proportion of white folks who oppose affirmative action do so not from ideology but from distaste at people of color getting a fair shot at good jobs and education. I have never heard or read commentary from white conservatives decrying legacy preference that favors white elites at private universities or or the informal system of connections that governs hiring at the upper tier of law firms and investment houses that also favors the white upper-class. But let one black guy get a leg up in the system, and the op-ed pages of the WSJ and Washington Times are crammed with oh-so-pious editorials in favor of color-blind hiring.
Hypocrites.
That’s not to say there’s not racism in the ranks of the left, either. The spate of left-of-center articles and op-ed pieces calling Condi Rice an “Aunt Jemima” as detailed in Colbert King’s piece in the Post yesterday is repulsive.
There are good, sound arguments for the eradication of AA, but color me skeptical that Trent Lott, Tom DeLay,and their cohorts are motivated by the spirit of racial egalitarianism in their opposition to AA.
When come back, bring scansion.
Fun! 
I know, but I was peeved. I’m generally pro-life and all of the rosary ladies would weep and wail at me going in and shove literature at me, presuming that I was going to get an abortion when I was really going for a wash and set. I’d think that they’d eventually figure out that there were other businesses in the building and not every female was there to get her uterus sucked out. And since they saw me every week (to the point that I knew some of their names from hearing them talk to one another) I eventually got more than offended at what kind of a slut they must’ve thought I was.
Worse yet, maybe they thought you worked at the clinic part-time. After all, nobody, however sluttish, would need an abortion every week.
But if a woman did, Jay & Silent Bob would be there to pick her up! G
I said their positions on gay marriage are identical. And they are. They both believe that states should recognize civil unions and that they should not recognize marriage. A person who would lable someone “anti-gay” and someone else not based on the tiny nits of how to codify that belief (which belief is wrong in both cases, BTW – states should recognize gay marriages) is exactly as stupid as I described the protestors.
But their positions on marriage rights don’t exist in a vaccuum. The anti-gay label applies based on positions on several issues. And a Constitutional Amendment is emphatically not a “tiny” nit. By itself it is a substantial difference in their positions; but in context with positions on other issues, it’s completely false to suggest they have similar outlooks. And that’s not even touching on Bush’s disingenuous “support” for civil unions in relation to the amendment he supports that would ban even those.