"Awomen"

what in the world??

Yeah, they shouldn’t do that again.

It's almost as ridiculous as being outraged by "Happy Holidays"

*shrieks of rage* 

BRING BACK CHRISTMAS AND AMEN! Periodt. 

Seems ancillary to me.

im not outraged, i just think its silly and stupid and unnecessarily

Maybe he was making a joke about offensive language?

I bet Oro and huffy think it was a great and sensible idea. These are the people now in charge of our govt.

May God have mercy on us. 

The "Amen" thing is stupid, but I don't have a problem with removing gendered language from official documents. 

You'd be surprised how many issues and subsequent lawsuits arise from having words like "mother" instead of "parent" or "guardian." 

lol yup

lawsuits?

Yes. For example there was a federal lawsuit a few years ago in Indiana when a lesbian married coupled sued to have both their names listed on their child's birth certificate. The Iowa Department of Public Health refused to allow the non-birth mother to be listed, saying she was not the biological parent. However Iowa law states that if a mother is married, her husband must be recorded as the father on the birth certificate -- even if it was physically impossible for him to have been the biological father.

IOWs the law allowed non-biological parents to be listed on the birth certificate if the couple was married and straight, but not married and gay. This was therefore ruled unconstitutional so the law had to be changed and therefore the verbiage of legal documents and statues could be changed to reflect that. Under some antiquated wording or interpretations, the couple's daughter would not have been recognized as having the same legal status and protection from both parents that other children have. And the non-biological mother's parental rights were not being recognized. So language like mother vs. guardian in official documents can be important.

In 2016 several lesbian couples in Mississippi won their legal challenge against the state's ban on gay adoption. So now documents that reference a child's "father" or "parent" may not apply to those families, because technically there is no father or parent. In a lot of cases children are being raised by grandparents or other guardians. A lot of time insurance companies don't want to provide coverage based on technicalities of things like that. I could look up  more or better, specific examples if I weren't busy at work atm. But yes a lot of these things have been challenged in court.

interesting, ill have to do more reaserch on that