Neutering Legislation
by Aaron Margolis, July 23rd, 2008 at 06:46pm
Once again, I have found myself wondering why our legislators are taking time away from important issues to focus on neutering the language of legislation.
The House has given initial approval to a bill that would require all future legislation be written in language that is gender neutral.
The one-paragraph bill says legislation should contain non-gendered phrases such as “he/she” or “his/her.”
A law professor says that’s part of a trend in the business and legal professions. It’s been propelled, in part, by the rise of female executives.
The Massachusetts law is being co-sponsored by Reps. Cory Atkins, Christine Canavan, Kay Kahn and John Rodgers.
It was sent to the Committee on Bills in the Third Reading today, meaning it could come back for a vote before the full chamber at any time.
Seriously?
Entry Filed under: Beacon Hill, Legislation, Uncategorized
Similar Posts
- Deval Patrick Meets With Travaglini and DiMasi… Again!
- See Spot Run, See Spot Buckle Up.
- ABC News: Majority Of Americans Want Massachusetts-Style Socialized Health Care
- Romney Wants Control Of Big Dig Inspections
- Rep. Reinstein Introduces Legislation To Make The Fluffernutter The Official Sandwich of The Commonwealth
5 Comments Add your own
1. Cap'n Spackle | July 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Oh, boy.
2. V | July 24th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Just wait until they want to go back and re-do every document ever produced to cleanse them………
3. Mr. X | July 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
V, you would probably like to leave the language of the Mass Constitution which states:
“The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.”
4. V | July 29th, 2008 at 6:32 am
There are amendments Mr. X. And there are amendment procedures (that John Adams was a great writer, wasn’t he?)
Lets just eradicate history, shall we.
5. V | August 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Late in his life, Adams expressed some regret regarding his anti-catholic stances.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but most, if not all of America was pretty much anti-catholic in 1776 (with the exception of Maryland).
From a poster on another site I visit regularly:
“The reality is that John Adams, while certainly a great man for his vigorous championing of independence from Britain, was the stereotypical New Englander of his day — uncomfortable and disdainful of everything out of the everyday experience of Massachusetts life: Protestant, Boston-centered. At the Continental Congress, he found everything about Philadelphia unbearable. When he had the opportunity to go to Europe, a situation in which Franklin and Jefferson drank deeply of the culture and were nearly universally loved and admired, Adams did nothing but complain. His inability to get along with other Americans not from New England was so extreme that, as second President of the US, he lost control of his own political party to Alexander Hamilton (and had as a result a mediocre, if not failed, one-term Presidency). It is in this context that his anti-Catholic remarks should be viewed (one should remember the treatment that Irish immigrants fleeing the Great Hunger received in Boston a few decades later).”
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed