A Senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., recently held a hearing on the proposed “Marriage Protection Amendment” and likely will take up the legislation again this week. “The threat to marriage is imminent and the time to act is now,” Brownback has said. “The will of the American people is in danger of being thwarted by the will of an unaccountable, activist federal judiciary.” But the effort by Brownback and others to amend the Constitution to redundantly ban gay marriage seemingly contradicts the goal that many of them have of overturning Roe v. Wade. Consider what conservative guru Robert Bork told The Washington Post last week: “It is difficult to get across to many Americans that overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it merely returns it to the state legislatures and ultimately to the people.” Actually, what’s difficult for many Americans to comprehend is why states can be trusted to decide when life begins but not which lovers can wed.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
27 Comments
This whole protecting marriage thing is beyond rediculious. It is gay bashing without the fear of being arrested. The same arguement stated were used to ban interracial marriage decades ago.
There are real threats to marriage, but two gay men or women marrying are not even realistic.No more then a black and a white marrying or a Jew and a Christian.
I have been married for twenty nine years. A pretty woman maybe a threat to my marriage. But two men swearing their love is not.
The ammendment here in Kansas did nothing to change the state. Gays are still gay, there was a law that has stood several challenges. Making gay marriage illegal in Kansas. The Feds could in reality do nothing to change that. A federal law can be less restrictive, but a state law can only be more restrictive.
Brownback needs to get back to doing his job and leave the morality to the people. He is doing a disserves to the people of Kansas and of America.
I’ll say this again,
Can someone explain why we need the government (at any level) to license marriage?
The government { which I have little to no use for } in this case is not making a judgment but rather functioning in record keeping as with property ownership.
Legal matters need some sort of reference.
That is one of the few things that I don’t have a problem with.
Let me guess, tax source? licensing fees? ability to enforce child-support legally?
Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder, which it is, but was removed from that list for political reasons { creating a voting block }. It is still is a mental disorder, and hopefully someday we’ll find a cure.
Pedophilia is closely related to homosexuality as demonstrated by the number of homosexual Catholic Priests, which have a disproportionate number of Pedophiles in their midst.
Should homosexuals be allowed to get married? Of course not, anymore than Schizophrenics should be allowed marry other Schizophrenics.—–
Let’s see, do we have any lesbian Catholic priests? No, because women are not aloowed to be consecrated. Paedophilia preys on the innocent, the powerless, the impressionable, i.e., children. Often because they’re the easiest targets. Homosexuality is being sexually attracted to another member of the same gender. These sets can overlap, but I’d say there’re more heterosexual paedophiles than there are homosexuals one.
Ed, I’d say you’re either homophobic, a closet gay, Catholic basher, or simply a stupid, ignorant and irrational oaf.
Well Ed I grew up hearing that gays do not have long lasting relationships. I am a normal male, I just can not understand why a man would choose another man as a lover. Two women is just….best left in my minds eye.
As for it being a mental illness, I remember hearing that too. But that was prior to the discover of a gene. Which means there could be a phyical aspect to it.
But it is not about homosexually, it is about rights and reasonablity. BTW, there is not law that state two people that have a mental illness can not get married.The guardians can go to court and request a judge rule that the marriage be stopped. Unless that happens they can be married.
As for privlages and benefits, the same arguement can be made against marriage in general.
I was against the ammendment not because I agree with gays and marriage. But by setting the definition of a legally recognized union as being one man and one woman. It can effect child support, common law and domestic abuse laws. These were brought up during the debate over the ammendment. The R.R. said that it was a scare tactic. But by setting the definition in the constitution.It being the supreme law of the state. It could be a vald arguememnt in court for a defendant being free from responsibility for their actions.
If there was no legally recognized contract, then the party can not be held to the responsibility as if there was one.
When you’re a conservative that can read God’s mind, you don’t have to worry about small matters like logical consistency.
Truth is whatever we say God says it is.
Long story short, problem solved.
Can you imagine anything scarier than Ayatollah Sam Brownback as president? Maybe he can apoint Kansas’ other self-appointed, self-righteous wacko Connie Morris education secretary or the functionally nuts and the equally intrusive blue-nose Jim Ryun to till the new post of federal marriage administrator.
I’ve heard that the government and its representatives have a public health interest in licensing marriage. It also helps insure that people too biologically close can’t marry. These would be in addition to the property issues raised above.
The government is sometimes evil, it is also sometimes a necessary evil, and at times it does what it is intended to do.
With the high instance of Pedophiles within Homosexuality and marriage qualifying the adoption of children, it’s certain kids will be targeted to be molested.
It does matter if a gene or chemical imbalance is threatening children, their safety trumps this “backdoor attempt” to grab children through homosexual marriage.
Ed,I am going to have to disagree with you on the homosexuality and pedophilia question. I am pretty sure that the incidence of pedophilia is not significantly different in hetero or homo- sexual populations. I will try to look this up to see if I can find some reasonable sources on the web about this.
And if I am right on this, then we would, using your logic, be better advised to outlaw heterosexual couples from adopting children. With the proportions not significantly different, there are more heterosexual couples and they would pose a greater danger because of sheer numbers.
Roo
You said: ” Ed, I’d say you’re either homophobic, a closet gay, Catholic basher, or simply a stupid, ignorant and irrational oaf.”
But I think you forgot a name in your name calling: “Zionist basher”
Next time you “go-off” on me try to include: “Zionist basher”
Don’t forget now.
Roo
Jusy trying to help. You might find some more name calling stuff here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Friedemann&btnG=Google+Search
Steven
Homosexuality is a mental disorder by its nature. And off-shoots,{ or “transference” as Freud referred } are commonplace once the mind begins to dysfunction. Labeling, while seemingly satisfying, has little to do with an accurate determination of the idiosyncrasies of expected behavior.
Sexual deviation is crux of the illness.
Example: If you find yourself sexually attracted to your shoes, then you have a problem.
Ed,I did a Google scholar search with the terms: pedophilia, homexuality, incidence just a bit ago and after looking at the first 5 pages of results returned, I could not find a study that clearly supported your position or mine (equal proportions of pedophilia in gay and straight populations), either. There seems to be from the studies I looked at, disagreements about when to call someone gay, straight, pedophile, etc. — some authors preferring a dimensional view (shades of gray) vs. categorical definitions (you are or you ain’t). The next time I am at WSU, I will see what a PsychInfo data base search will turn up on the question. Thanks.
Ed, homosexuality is not a mental illness. That was decided years ago by experts in the field of mental health. You declaring it a mental illness is just an opinion, and not based on anything scientific. I aggre with Roo, you’re either just homophobic or else a closet queen.Being a homosexual doesn’t predispose one to pedophilia. I have no idea where you get your info (fred phelps.com?) but it’s not accurate.
Steven
The problem with the ” study ” you’re suggesting is how data could be accurately gathered.
It can’t.
Heterosexual is the absence of a sexual mental disorder. Homosexual is the presence of a sexual mental disorder.
Once the ” libido ” { sex drive } becomes confused or malfunctions, all sorts of deviate sexual behaviors begin to appear. The Libido is now pliable and can easily be directed or be redirected to other objects or behaviors for gratification.
Homosexuality is not a single instance of malfunction, but contains multiple or a conglomerate of psychological drivers or pressures.
Example: Once a tire on you car has a blow-out, the car is all over the road, difficult to steer or predict what direction it might take. The same is true with mental illness.
Homosexuality also effects other areas of the minds ability to reason properly. Often deviate sexual conduct is present among psychopaths.
Needless to say, the subject is very complicated.
Especially now that it has been politicized.
Best, Ed
So the government should license marriage because:
It’s prevents inbreedingCourts need recordsChild Support Cases
Yea, those are real great reasons.
People who are intent on ‘inbreeding’ aren’t going to stop just because they couldn’t get a license.
For records and child support there are many avenues used with single folk. You don’t need a marriage license for either of those.
So can anyone give a solid reason for government marriage licenses?
Inheritance, including property ownership.
Wills and birth certificates.
Single people must live in some kind of purgatory since they don’t have a marriage license.
For me this comes down to a freedom of association issue. You don’t need the government’s permission to pick a partner.
OK, “Zionist basher,”
What is your definition of sexual mental disorder anyway? Does it strictly concern itself with which orifices one’s protuberance, or lack thereof, may go? How about secondary sexual attraction? Do you like your sex partner with short/long hair, completely naked or with elaborate lingerie, the list goes on and on. I strongly take issue with your refusal to recognize homosexuality for what it is, sexual attraction toward members of the same gender. Sexual deviants do exist, but homosexuality does NOT automatically qualifies. Try something along the lines of pedophilia, necrophilia, snuff, bestiality. You, Sir, are nothing more than a closet queen, I’m afraid, who’s in denial and angrily lashes out to those who wish you no harm.
On another note, I agree in principle with ProudMan assertion that one does NOT need government permission to pick a partner, with some provisions, e.g., that parties involved are of consenting nature, and are fully aware of the consequences of such partnership. The government’s role is only to guarantee this liberty, and lend it legal protection, especially should minors be involved, e.g., children being born or brought along with the parents.
Proudman,Should the state be able to license drivers? Does it have a compelling interest in doing so? I am trying to understand the boundries of your anti-government beliefs.
#1 – It’s not anti-government, it’s limited government.
I’m not against licensing of drivers. There is no constitutional prohibition against it and hence if we all agree then issue the driver’s license.
By the same logic, since there is no constitutional prohibition against marriage licenses then government can issue them. However in this case there is no solid argument for marriage licenses.
Proudman,Since this thread has been diverted pretty seriously, I don’t feel bad about asking this next question. I think saying that marriage should not be licensed is a fairly uncommon, dare I say radical, viewpoint.
In your “limited”-government view, what is the most you’re willing to allow the government to do? I have not kept a formal tally on your views, but I am thinking that you are against the government having investment in public education, against it having a role in marriage licensing, but for the state having power to license drivers. Is that fair? And, please enlighten us about how far government can reasobably go, in your view? Thank you.
Steve E.,
I’m a Libertarian. I don’t approach life with “what’s the most you’re willing to allow the government to do?” philosophy. I look at government with a “what do we need government to do?” philosophy. I believe in free-market solutions and a ‘live and let live’ co-existence in society.
In short, I won’t try to define “how far government can go” since I take it on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you Proudman. It does seem to me that you would have a general idea about what utility a government has. For example, most Libertarians I have talked to think that the government needs to supply a military and highways — but nothing else. It seems like the “case-by-case” approach would not be very efficient. But, it would have the advantage of being more open- minded; which I am usually in favor of.
I have read all of your posts on this subject and find the injustices amazing. First, I am a lesbian, second, I have never and will never hurt a child. As a matter of fact my partner and I have been together almost 5 years, longer than many marriages. Also, we have been chosen to adopt a child from a “normal” couple because they know they can provide the child a safe home because of the mental illness they suffer from. Oh, and by the way, we have been approved by the State of Kansas to be adoptive parents. After going through all of the backgroud checks, criminal records search and so forth, we have been deemed worthy. So before any of you make rash judgements about a subject you appear to really know very little about, I suggest you do some research. The real problem in the is country is that people do not take the time to get to know their neighbors, because they are to blinded by hatred. Just remember, I may the person who teaches your children, sings in your church’s choir, cuts your hair, cooks your food, or even still I could be your son or daughter, brother, sister, mother or father.