RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant » Video: Ohio should be so lucky to have married couples as adorable as George Henry » GLAAD: Q&A with former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider: 'I’ve never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men' » Head of Virginia's anti-equality org: 'open season to discriminate against anyone who believes that children deserve a mom and a dad' » Force behind Virginia's marriage ban ably demonstrates animus behind it » NOM to show rest of world its impressive ability to exacerbate loss » Bryan Fischer: Marriage equality supporters are like baseball's legendarily winning team  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/31/2005

'Concerned Woman' Robert Knight recalls 'Perturbed Schoolgirl' past

by Jeremy Hooper

  Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight sat down for another of his little bitchfests with fellow 'Concerned Woman' Martha Kleder today, with this 'plain, no Equal' coffee klatch focusing on a gay rights proposal currently being debated in an itty bitty guest room in the U.S. House of Reps. The proposal -- Sponsored by NY Rep. Edolphus Towns -- would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to "prohibit discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation," an idea that puts Knight & Co. in a full-fledged 'concerned tizzy.'

In an attempt to exemplify why this discrimination-preventing measure would damn the nation to an irreversible state of moral decay, Roberto waxes nostalgically on his "Distressed Underclassmen' days of yesteryear, saying:

"When I was a college student in the District of Columbia, we were renting out a house and we had to fill up all the room so we could make the rent. And I remember one day when two guys answered the ad we had put up in the campus newspaper, and they came in and they were flagrantly homosexual...I mean they made no attempt to hide it, and they acted in such a manner that was guaranteed to annoy everybody in the house. If a law like this was on the books, we could have been hauled into court for not renting a room to them, even though that's pretty intimate, living in the same house with people sharing the same bathroom, but we would have been forced to if this law had been on the books"

HOLY SH*T, they didn't even hide their flagrant case of homo-gay?!? Is that even legal?!?!? Isn't it odd how their attempts to negate the validity of gay-friendly policies and legislation often read exactly like reasons for the proposals' necessity?

To hear Knight expound on the societal ills that would result from nondiscrimination at both the collegiate and post-collegiate levels, follow the link below:

Homosexual ‘Civil Rights’ Bill in House Committe [CWFA]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails