The Kansas government's brave stand for non-non-non-non-discrimination (original) (raw)
footpad 😊cheerful
February 14 2014, 08:36
That vicious nest of liberal vipers, slate.com, has published a typical left-wing-hysteria article decrying Kansas's nobly egalitarian House Bill No. 2453 as an institutionalisation of "anti-gay segregation" and "explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples", even in the most essential state services.
Nothing in this argument hangs together.
For a start, the Bill itself states quite clearly that it's not about same-gender unions. Section (3)(c): Nothing in [this Bill], shall [...] authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against any[body] based on [their ...] support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships. There it is, folks, in black and white: this isn't about the gays. Okay, sure, the Bill could be used to discriminate against gays, but that's only because it's exquisitely careful not to discriminate in who it can be used to discriminate against; this is real, genuine, civil-rights, equal-opportunity discrimination. In section (3)(c), the State of Kansas wants you to be absolutely clear that it is not opposed to not opposing _non_-discrimination, as long as it's non-discrimination against gays. Got that? It's practically affirmative action for faggots.
As a side note, let's take a look at section (3)(b), which immediately precedes (3)(c) and is therefore presumably more fundamental. Section (3)(b) says that the Bill does not countermand any state law forbidding marriage in cases of polygamy, incest or paedophilia. Now, I'm not a legal expert, but the lawmakers of Kansas presumably are. If they consider this section to be necessary, then it must be the case that not forbidding people to not support gay marriage will immediately lead to the legalisation of infant brothels and family orgies. However, to my delight, I see that Kansas has neglected to include any reference to marriage with animals, which is the other well-known corollary of gay marriage. Clearly the State of Kansas is not not in favour of not opposing _non-_discrimination against bestiality. This frees me up to marry my dog, a thing which, as a gay man, I have always wanted to do.
Still with me? Well done: we have now identified all the things that the Kansas Government is not opposed to (discrimination), not not opposed to (specific discrimination), or not not not opposed to (people marrying buffalo). Now comes the difficult bit: figuring out what on earth Kansas is opposed to.
And that's where I have to disappoint you. I'm sorry, but, after reading the Bill three times, I'm none the wiser. Once I got up to _non-non-non-non-_discrimination, I kinda lost track. They're definitely opposed to something, but for the life of me I couldn't say what.
All I can do is praise Kansas for its generous warm-heartedness towards gays and llama-molesters, and leave you with this gem, taken verbatim from Section (2)(b) of the Kansas House Bill No. 2453:
The district court shall not permit any additional discovery or fact-finding prior to making its decision.
Kansas, folks.