Good rule of thumb here is to never trust a liberal.
Originally Posted by Sababa
Ted Kennedy, one of the main sponsors of the 1965 Immigration Reform spoke the following:
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
Senator Hubert Humphrey speaking in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
". . . declared that if anyone could find in the law 'any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota . . ., I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.'"
Back in 1989 the backers of a Mass. anti-discrimination law specifically noted that it "does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights." However, it was the very existence of these reforms which the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on to justify their ruling in favor of homosexual "marriage"
In addressing plaintiffs' claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.
And now, knowing the love that liberals have for pushing the legal notion of foreign precedent to be applicable to US jurisprudence, we see the following:
Britainís most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding.
Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.
So when you see a liberal promising you something, run the other way, because like the Terminator, they will never stop, promises are just stalling tactics to get you to drop your guard so that they can further strip you of your human rights.