I still think that Kansas’ gay-marriage amendment was unnecessary, as we already have a long-standing, court-tested state law limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. I also still think that the amendment’s part B provision restricting benefits likely will be tossed out as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. But the approval of gay marriages by the California State Legislature, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he will veto, is more evidence of the threat that many supporters of the amendment felt. It is clear that there is movement in the courts and the political process to expand rights to gays. So while there wasn’t any immediate challenge to Kansas’ law, it was not unreasonable to conclude that one would eventually come.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
37 Comments
Anyone without personal prejudice should realize gays deserve the same basic rights as anyone else. I’d like to hear or see the Terry Fox reaction to civil unions where marriage is not used but the same benefits are used. If anyone is against benefits or unions, they are simply prejudiced and close minded
Gayness is like cooties, JB, remember? That’s why we don’t want gay parents to adopt either. We need to keep the kids safe from the gay disease by stuffing them into children’s homes.I have no problem with the decision being left up to the churches. I couldn’t see the Catholic church marrying gays anytime soon. But I don’t understand the objections agains civil unions…
Thousands of people dead in New Orleans, and wack-o right wingers are still worried that Adam going to marry Steve instead of Eve.
Some things just aren’t that important in the great scheme of things. Let the gay folks get married if they want to.
Death and destruction comes soon enough, gay or straight, white or black, man or woman . . .
How about making any marriage, gay or straight, not conducted by a minister a “civil marriage,” with exactly the same benefits and recognitions as a “religious marriage.” That way, religions who want to discriminate against gays can continue to do so, with no actual loss of rights to gays. Any church that wishes to perform gay weddings would be able to, those who don’t can remain just as small-minded as they wish. Judges are employees of the state, and would be required to perform the ceremony for anyone entitled under the law.
Well said, Galahad!
I’ve read Phil Brownlee’s post four or five times. I’m sure there is a point, I just can’t figure out what it is.
Sal–You show up here b*tching and moaning about the posts and the blogs.
If you hate everything so much, why don’t you hang out somewhere else, dude?
Your self-righteousness was tiresome the first time you posted and this is like your third post . . .
Gay marriage, civil unions whatever you need to call it….is a fundamental right we shall one day enjoy. It’s a shame Arnold refuses sign what the CA legislature has passed; the reason is because he is a coward.
Sal, you had to read the post 4-5 times? It’s really pretty simple, dude, unless you’re trying to read something into it that isn’t there.Stick around. Even a troll might learn something here.
Never mind…who am I kidding?
Tara:”But I don’t understand the objections agains civil unions…”
It’s really pretty simple, but it’s a guy thing. Civil Unions = Gay lifestyle. Gay scares the bejeebus out of a lot of guys, mostly because they’re not real sure of their own sexuallity. You see this a lot in conservative males. Think about it for a minute…why would anybody who’s sure which way they “swing” be afraid of gays?
I searched and searched http://gdbwww.gdb.org/ for the Genomic segment of a gay human. This is the message that was returned; Nothing found.There are no GenomicSegments in the database which satisfy this query. Someone tell remind me why homosexuals should be considered a separate class and receive special treatment.
“Someone tell remind me why homosexuals should be considered a separate class and receive special treatment.”ID, I don’t think you should recieve special treatment at all. I just think you should recieve fair treatment.
Ah yes, the typical buzz words:
rights, discrimination, fair treatment… etc etc
How is marriage a right?
Marriage should be a right to gays, look at all the so called christians who get married 4 different times and then dont want the gays having the same benefits.
Nathan, how is marriage NOT a right?
Jed has the right idea. In fact, I would take it a step further and remove the term “marriage” from the legal system altogether. Simply replace that term with “union”.
For many people marriage is a sacrament and is loaded with religious meaning. So, I would separate the secular from the religious.
“Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s and unti God that which is God’s”
Let’s take this a step further.
Too many divorces?
Let’s make our marriages easily renewable, just like our auto tags.Your relationship went to hell this year? DON’T RENEW IT! ALLOW YOUR LICENSE TO EXPIRE!
What a concept.
Ben,You Wrote:”In fact, I would take it a step further and remove the term “marriage” from the legal system altogether. Simply replace that term with “union”.”That would be a good way to divorce marriage from religion, but I’d choose a less socially loaded term. Do we really want our spouses organizing and going on a collective strike for higher wages and more sex or whatever?How ’bout we keep “marriage” as the secular term, and they can have ” United in the eyes of God, Elohim, Allah, Buddha etc.” as the case may be. That would give them the illusion of superiority that they so desperately crave, without the need to hurt someone else to prove it!Tracy, we already have such an arrangement; it’s called “Living Together.” If that term is too unwieldy, how ’bout “we’re Snuggled!”
I tried the snuggled arrangement.When your snuggly partner becomes ill, unemployed etc. do you just shoot them and move on?My point is the economic advantages of marriage. If she’s already driving your car shouldn’t she be insured as your (renewable) legal partner?
In the March 2000 Primary Election, 61.4% of California voters passed Proposition 22, which stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” 101 out of 120 legislative districts voted in favor of Prop 22.
“Forty-one Democrats in the Assembly and twenty-one Democrats in the Senate underhandedly tried to implement their twisted, out-of-step, out-of-mainstream notion of family and marriage upon the very people they claim to represent,” Lopez added. “They arrogantly ignored the will of their constituents and instead catered to the radical demands of homosexual activists. They fell on their swords to appease the most extreme faction of their party and it was all for not. They are to be ashamed.
“Finally, someone in the legislative process got it! It is the people that spoke back in March 2000 and it was the people that sent a political earthquake today with the thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes and letters to the Governor demanding he respect them, their vote, and the institution of the family…and he did!”
Tracy,If any two (or more) people are driving the same car, assuming they both have reasonable driving records, shouldn’t it all fall under one policy, at one rate, since it’s assumed that won’t be all driving it at once? What possible difference should marriage make in car insurance rates, except as a dodge for insurance companies to make more money?
BUD,that’s what we have a constitution for- to keep the majority from stomping on whatever minority is their victim du jour.NO ONE has been able to expain adequately why allowing gays to marry is going to hurt anyone! Yet you bigots are squealing like a shoat under a gate every time the subject comes up. Just because YOU don’t like ‘em doesn’t deprive them of the rights you enjoy, and allowing them those rights doesn’t deprive you of anything other than your so-called righteous indignation!
Maybe that’s a bad example, I don’t know. What I do know is that there are economic advantages in some areas like income tax.
Is a “shoat” a castrated pig? I’m thinking that is what it is; apt comparison, too.
Actually, my Webster’s says that it is “a young hog; usually less than one year old.” Should have looked it up first.
Jed
The reason I give the term ‘marriage’ to the sacred is that it is referred to in their Scriptures. I want to avoid any friction with the various religions. So, I then would use a secular term for the secular institution.
When my son was born I did not take him to the Court House to be baptized. You don’t take a teenager to the State for a Bar Mitzvah. But, you DO record a birth and get a Soc Sec number.
Why are there lots of stories of people who have climbed out of poverty, but none of successful people who fell into poverty and can’t find their way out?
poverty is a behaviorial disease.
The problem with our welfare system is that it does not make the poor admit that their way of life doesn’t work. It just says here, here is some money and a vision card now go and make no changes to your life whatsoever and expect your life to change. It dosen’t force them to look in the mirror and say to themselves “you know, life is kicking my tail, my plans don’t work, so im going to start to listen to people who have this thing figured out. I am going to do the things that make that guy over there successful”.
The only thing that makes you diffrent than you are today is the books you read and the people you hang around with.
Changing those two things doesn’t cost hardly a thing but can drastically alter your course in life.
Why do gay people want to get married as opposed to have a civil union? Look at the tax code (for just one set of examples). The benefits there are for married couples – not those in civil union. While a state may grant the same rights it gives married couples to a couple in a civil union, the federal government does not.
I think gay Americans would be happy with a civil union or about anything else you want to call it if it comes with the same rights, privileges, and obligations as marriage.
Agreed JB. I’m still trying to figure out how the marriage of two people of the same gender destorys the institution of marriage but Britney Spears can have a 55 hour Las Vegas marriage and that has no ill effect.
With 50% of all marriages ending in divorice I’m not sure it can really be called a sacred institution any way.
“It’s really pretty simple, but it’s a guy thing. Civil Unions = Gay lifestyle. Gay scares the bejeebus out of a lot of guys, mostly because they’re not real sure of their own sexuallity. You see this a lot in conservative males. Think about it for a minute…why would anybody who’s sure which way they “swing” be afraid of gays?”Snidley, snidley, snidley…with a name like “Whiplash” I’m thinkin’ a bit o’ “swinging” resides in your yard? Degenerate minds want to know, ya know what I mean?Oh, excuse me…wrong blog. Never mind.
Sorry T-Rex, I’m strictly Liberal. And you can forget about hitting on me, I don’t swing that way, either. Does that satisfy your degenerate little mind? Probably not. You can call me gay if you like. Unlike you, I don’t worry about my sexuallity. Don’t be ashamed of it, T-Rex, as I said earlier, a lot of conservative guys aren’t very secure. You don’t need to fear gays. If we lived in a perfect world, you wouldn’t have to hide your “proclivities”.
Snidedude,What proclivities? Are you saying there are no liberal gays? Why would I want to call you gay? The “whipster” sounds way better. And why would I want to hit on you? Do you, like, have implants or something? And why in the world would I fear gays? Are they joining gangs? Like, maybe, the gay crips? I’ve heard of the gay rodeo, but riding a cowboy is definetly not my style. That, and the fact that I am an admirer of the udder gender rules that out.Shoot, snide, you ain’t no fun atall! Who cares whose gay? T-REX sure don’t.
Oh Rexy…or should I say, JM (I see you got busted on one of the other threads), If you’re name confused, why not Gender confused?Did I say there were no Gay Liberals? Show me where. As a matter of fact, I figure any gay with half an ounce of gray matter would be liberal. I never figured out the Log Cabin Republicans…kind of torpedo their own interests, what?
“And why would I want to hit on you?”
Don’t know, Rexy/JM, why do you carry on about hitting on me? I told you I don’t swing that way, but you just keep coming back. Really guy/whatever, I’m just not interested.
“I’ve heard of the gay rodeo, but riding a cowboy is definetly not my style.”
So you prefer to be ridden?
“That, and the fact that I am an admirer of the udder gender rules that out.”
Udder? Cows too?!?!?
Man, you is just too kinky!
Snidester,I’ll bet you’re side-slippin my questions for personal reasons. But libs are experts at that. Conservatives can’t understand the questions.Cows? You’re assuming again…pigs got udders. So do dogs, goats, but chickens don’t. Now THAT would be kinky. Might be better than tree-hugging, though, but I’ll pass on both.One thing I would never do, snide, or should I use the many monikers you go by, is ferret out who is who. Takes all the fun out of things. Much more fun to just go with the flow. Such as: Where o where did I call you a gay? The reader might infer that from the suggestive question, but calling you gay was never uddered, opps, uttered.(Dang, got them cows on the brain again. kinky me!)And I STILL can’t for the life of me figure out why you think I would want to hit on you. Unless, of course you’re really a hot, blond babe who likes old fat guys, which, heh heh heh, I doubt (the hot, blond babe part at least. For all I know, you might like old fat guys).”So you prefer to be ridden?” Nahhh, at my age, the horse would break my back, and when I was younger, they could never catch me.
No No Rex! Bad Rex!
Stop it…you’re starting to scare me.
Ben,A lot of things are referred to in scripture; that doesn’t mean we have to sanctify asses, etc.!Marriage is the term that’s used when two people love each other and wish to cement that relationship. Anything less is to relegate that relationship to some second-class status. Would you want that for your relationship?Marriage has enjoyed a dual status as both a religious and secular institution. You can get married in a church, in front of a judge, ship’s captain etc. It’s not the exclusive property of the church; therefore, the churches can’t dictate who gets married and who doesn’t!If the various religions want something more, such as covenant marriage or something similar, they’re welcome to do that, as long as it’s not given force of law. That’s still secular.
Jed:
On substance I don’t think we disagree. Since I would remove the term ‘marriage’ from civil/secular use entirely there would be no 2nd-class status.
When I got married many years ago I actually got married twice in the same day. Once when we filled out the paperwork and again when we stood in front of the Church. My idea is to totally replace the civil paperwork with “union” for both hetersexual and homosexual couples. NO DIFFERENCE.
The idea is to avoid using any such religiously and emotionally charged term that is so tied with church doctrine. This would apply across the board; that way if catholics don’t want to marry divorced people that is fine with me. Similarly with other concerns from the churches. They don’t need to deal with Unions if they don’t want to.
For legal purposes the only thing that would exist would be Union.