We know Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., is positioning himself for a run for president. But does he really need to renew the push to amend the federal Constitution to ban gay marriage? Marriage is and always has been a state issue, not a federal one. And if states want to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriages, they can — as Kansas did earlier this year. Besides, there is not enough political support in Congress to pass the amendment. A Senate panel headed by Brownback narrowly approved the measure Wednesday, but it couldn’t even get a simple majority during a full Senate vote last year, far short of the two-thirds majority required. That makes this new push look like what it probably is — pandering to social conservatives.
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
- situveux1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
28 Comments
Brownback is once again pandering to the Religious Right and wants their support in his bid for President. You may get it Sen. Brownback, but you have lost the moderates in doing so. Once again, is the R.R. the majority?
Has anyone noticed that Tiehart is trying to buy votes? I expect to see a lot more “Programs” and pork coming from the Republicans for their home districts.
Sam can serve as the poster boy for intolerance and culture war.
He had a truly great cause going when he spoke up about genocide in Sudan, but saving poor foriegn black families must not be very high on the conservative Republican’s list of priorities!
He can keep on posturing and pandering all he wants…it will likely get him as many votes as Pat Robertson got in his run for the presidency.
The extreme religious right seems to confuse headlines and noise with widespread acceptance.
If he wants to win the primaries, he has to position himself to the Religous Right.
He is trying to play the same game that was played in the 2004 elections, and it won’t work.Too many people have figured out that there is more than one way to get screwed.
Besides, marriage is only as sacred as the two people involved make it. On the state level, marriage is simply a legal contract. They can’t legislate “the sanctity of marriage”, between a man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man.
With all the serious problems that need to be addressed, it just pisses me off to see politicians wasting time and energy on trying to ban something that has no negative impact on anyone. Gay marriage is a non-issue that’s used to distract from mess the right wing has gotten our country into.
Fifty years ago, these same people would be looking for votes by campaigning against blacks and commies. It’s simply a way of avoiding any real issues. Those would get any republican in trouble!
So true Jed, it’s so much easier to destract all the gullible and ignorant Americans than to be accountable to them.
Why is it that these republikans think that it’s their business who gets married to whom? As long as it’s consenting adults, why on earth should anyone care? Nobody’s saying they have to marry someone of their own gender, and most gays wouldn’t marry them anyway! I can’t see why any straight person would either- their shorts have been in such a bunch over this issue for so long, they probably haven’t changed them since ‘04!
If he wants to win the primaries, he has to position himself to the Religous Right.
Posted by: Joe Williams | November 11, 2005 at 06:02 AM
That is if the R.R. is still in power. They will not give up with out a fight. And they are still a powerful force, but only if the rest of America is still dazed and asleep. Hopefully the day is coming when the sureist way to lose an election is to be backed by the R.R. They will go down with the American Nazi party candidate and the green party.
That is an interesting comment Jed. I would expand it though. I ask, “Why is it any of the government’s business whom I marry?”
PM,OK, if the government (ie. the people) wishes to protect women and children, then marriage, as a binding contract between adults, is recorded, and the rights of the parties involved are delineated. That much is needed. Other than that, it is not the government’s business to determine who we get to marry. We have had, in the past, laws forbidding marriage of people of different racial groups to white people, religiously mixed marriages, marriages of physically or mentally disabled people, etc.These laws have now been overturned or repealed. We still have laws making marriage to foreign citizens difficult, and are busy passing laws forbidding same-sex marriages.Unfortunately, marriage has traditionally had religious as well as legal aspects, so some churches feel that they have the right to dictate the terms, and have been working hard to gain the political power to do that, as well as other things.We are, according to our constitution, a secular government, with a mandate to stay out of things religious. Therefore, it’s not the state’s job to enforce religious doctrine.As long as the people involved are of age to commit to a contract, and are not otherwise coerced, the government’s job is to record that contract and set the terms, and set the conditions and means to fairly end it, if necessary. Beyond that, it’s not for the government to say who may fall in love with whom, or how they choose to formalize their relationship. That get you there?
Well said, Jed.
Not so well said Jed.
Adults enter into contracts all the time without asking permission from government. The government should not be involved unless there is a dispute between the parties that cannot be resolved. Then those parties can go into the civil court system.
Also, I especially like the part where you remark that we need to have special protection for the women. It got really funny when Damoon agreed with you. So much for equal rights and equal protection under the law.
Do you really believe women are second-rate citizens in need of special handling?
PM,Try reading it again.
Actually doesn’t this just show brownbacks lack of creativity? He isn’t intelligent enough to think of another subject to get the RR on their war path so he beats a dead horse. Some other republikans are a little more creative in their manipulation of the RR (with help I’m sure). For example Senator Patricia Miller from Indiana wants to introduce legislation on assisted reproduction. I think this is a test to see if this subject will be able to motivate the RR in 2008 like gay marriage did in 2004. It’s easy to manipulate idiots, especially if they have an overly high opinion of themselves.
Proudman, you bet I think women and children (and men) need protection when a marriage contract dissolves. Think about how it used to be, a middle aged man finds someone else to feed his ego and make him feel young again, so his wife of 40 yrs who has stayed home and dedicated herself to raising children and providing a home is left out in the cold along with the kids. Meanwhile, the breadwinner takes off with his new lifestyle and no responsibility to the family he helped create. The same goes for any man who finds himself on the other end, with the cheating wife who takes him through the wringer and he ends up automatically losing his kids, eating beans everynight for dinner and working two jobs just so he can pay his child support.It’s BECAUSE of equal rights that these scenerios don’t play out as much as they used to.Now, can we get back on subject?
Both of you keep talking about the ‘rights’ of the parties when the marriage dissolves. Marriage licenses are issued before the marriage takes place and do nothing to prevent any of the issues both of you are concerned about.
There are plenty of laws and legal machinations to cover all of the issues identified. I still hold that marriage licenses are not needed. All the government involvement is for naught today. Unless you want to get some voters worked up over something you don’t need to regulate in the first place, then you’ve struck gold.
Also, if some of my words have seemed ill-tempered that is not my intention.
So are you saying that marriage doesn’t need to be legally validated? Then what should a marriage contract consist of? I’m not sure I understand your point.
I’m not saying it should not be a legally binding contract. What I am saying is that contracts don’t need a license from the government from the outset.
Licenses are the OK from the government to do something that is regulated. Driving a tractor-trailers would need a license. Marriage is a private contract and does not require a license.
Suppose I didn’t recognize such private contracts to be valid and legally binding, at least in my part, would it be okay for me then to sleep with your spouse at will?
Well Roo, since you are not part of the contract it doesn’t apply to you. However there would be implications for my spouse if our contract forbid adultery. Notice how it’s her choice and really has nothing to do with you. Adultery is only a crime in the US Military.
Now suppose you asked Kanga these kinds of questions before you bother the rest of the adults.
So would a lawyer draw up the marriage contract if a couple didn’t want to have a religious ceremony, like a prenuptial agreement? If so, wouldn’t that be pretty expensive?
Only if you wanted a contract in writing. In the end the expense would depend on the lawyer.
I suspect if marriage licenses were abolished then the government would write laws defining when it considered people to be married (i.e. common law marriages).
Coomon law marriages are defined by law. When one breaks up, the rules are the same and the couple still has to have the “marriage” legally dissolved.
I still think having the government define what costitutes marriage is in the best interest of everyone involved, especially children that come from the union. Otherwise, there would be too many gray areas that could be exploited. Trusting only lawyers to draw up legally binding marriage contracts would make me a little nervous about my rights being protected. Those kinds of contracts can always be challenged in court, which means the party with the best lawyer often comes out on top.
Damoon,
Where we disagree is not whether a contract is necessary but rather if the government should give permission for a marriage to begin. Remember a marriage license grants to the government the ability to say who can and who cannot be wed. That is very different than protecting parental rights or property rights in a dispute.
Wow, that could open a can of worms!! Can you imagine if gay people could get married and the government had no power to stop them? I doubt that the right wing neocons would ever let that happen!