One of Sam Brownback’s talking points in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is that where same-sex unions are allowed, marriage rates “have plummeted” such that there are places “now in northern Europe where 80 percent of the first-born children are born out of wedlock,” as he said in a September GOP debate. The Washington Post’s FactChecker blog found enough reason to doubt Brownback’s correlation theory to give him a damning three of four possible Pinocchios on its truth scale: “In general, the rise in out-of-wedlock births in Europe predates changes in marriage legislation, according to the European commission.”
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
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
38 Comments
Well there it is then. Questioned and Answer.
My comments entered below this sentence.
http://www.TrueWorldHistory.info
Marriage should be a church thing and not a government thing. All the government should do is issue a “domestic partnership contract” to any persons that apply for it whether gay or regular. Then it should be up to each church whether or not it wishes to wed gay couples, interracial couples, Irish couples or a dog and a cat. Marriage is a religious thing and that is where it ought to be left.
That’s right Scott!Our government has no business picking and choosing who is worthy. Any consenting adults wishing to enter into this agreement should be given right…and let the church continue to discrimnate and judge like they have all throuought history (and do all the other things they preach you should not do)
The only institution that destroys marriages is the leftest welfare state. That has been proven.
Gays getting married doesn’t change anything, if not encourages more marriages. Not a single heterosexual couple who is or will get married feels threaten or will change their mind about marriage just because homosexual couples get married.
Gay marriage ban is a religious complaint, not a social one.
Leftist welfare state? How about phoney Christian preachers getting into everyone’s business and then spreading it like fire throughout his congregation?
Or how about the deacon that seduces another man’s wife, or the man himself?
Or how about the youth minister that gets your teenage daughter pregnant on a so-called retreat?
All of the above has happened to friends I have had over the years. So, let’s not put all the blame on to the Leftist welfare state.
Funny, though, the people crying the loudest about Leftist welfare state are the very same ones in their own government line for their own ‘entitlement’. Of course this is welfare also, they only choose to call it their entitlement – but it is still welfare.
Remember that cult that was headquartered at the old College of Emporia site several years ago? “The Way,” I think it was called. It practiced a theology it called “Divine Deception” to draw in new members. “Say anything, promise anything, just get people into the cult.”
Although I’ll concede some religious outfits provide some sort of benefit to their membership — fellowship, personal guidance based on their interpretation of the philosophies that shaped civilization, whatever — the structure of religion makes it far too easy for charlatans to infultrate and fleece their flocks for money and temporal power. (Cite, Richard Roberts at Oral Roberts University; Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker at PTL, Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and much of the 2000-year reign of Roman Catholism, et al.)
It’s all based on a divide-and-conquer mentality: *Us* vs. “Them.”
It’s encouraging to see that Brownback’s drawing a false corolation between same-gender unions and out-of-wedlock births doesn’t even ressonate with fundamentalist evangelicals anymore. Look where he is in the GOP presidential polls.
If your religious beliefs make you a better person, fine. If your theology cooks for you, solid. But just what part of a “personal relationship with God” do you not understand. If it’s supposed to be *personal,* it’s out of place with governmental decrees.
If your *personal* relationship with God tells you abortion is murder, get out there and evangelize. That’s what it’s for. Convinces us. Convert us. Show us the light. Don’t sully your “pure true” faith with the down-and-dirty that is politics.
If same-gender unions don’t jibe with your *personal* relationship with God, don’t corrupt your religiosity in smoke-filled rooms and vote-trading in legislatures.
When I was growing up we used to sing a song that ended, “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love….” We didn’t sing, “…by our political clout,” or “…by our campaign contributions.”
Gasp, gasp, I’m being overwhelmed by an abundance of common sense.
A rare commodity
Good ol’ Brownback, trying to force his religion upon everyone else. Thankfully problems of the deficit, two wars, increasing poverty, a bad health care system, etc. have all been solved so we can focus on the big problem of having a Constitutional ban on marriage.
Amen Monkeyhawk….
The only institution that destroys marriages is the leftest welfare state. That has been proven.Posted by: Joe Williams | October 08, 2007 at 07:07 AM
Only in your delusional mind, joe.
How many times has that tired ole line “Leftist Welfare state” been dragged out of the closet when the finger is pointed at some clown-like presidental candidate? Brownback is so into himself he has ONLY himself staring back at him as he tries to debate political issues! If he thinks he is going to garner a large amount of votes because of his idiotic stance on gay marriage, he’s completly out of his mind. I, personally don’t care if two adult males want to cohabitate legally. That is none of my business. We have two male couples who have been living in our neighborhood for 20 some years. They have peacefully lived among us, participate in neighborhood functions, take care of their property and are just plain neighborly! I’ve been married 26 years. Do I feel threatened by their existence? I feel more threatened by the clown across the street who houses three to four whores in his home and there is nothing we can do about it! Now that is a problem. In this day and age Gays are NOT the problem for America. It never was in the first place. The so-called “Christians” made it so!!!!
If you don’t think that the leftist welfare state causes harm to families and marriages, go visit the projects in Chicago.
I wonder what Brownback is implying by saying heterosexual marriage rates have fallen in places where homosexual marriage is allowed.
Do you think he is trying to imply if gay marriage is an option people will choose it to ’straight’ marriage?
Maybe he is trying to imply that the only thing keeping some people from being gay is the State’s laws on marriage?
So how are out of wedlock births and gay marrrige related ? Gay couples procrate?
The only institution that destroys marriages is the leftest welfare state. That has been proven.Posted by: Joe Williams | October 08, 2007 at 07:07 AM
Is this the same Joe who believes in using the “state” to fund economic ventures in the same vein as the old soviet system. Pot calling kettle black
The bigots seem to have forgotten the 11th commandment: Thou shaltkeep thy religion to thyself.
i am 15 and srongly believe that gay marriage is bull shi# it should not be aloudand abortion is basiclly murder you are killing another human being that is wrong the people tht run and own the abortion clinics should go to helli am a replubican with the right point of view
sure you are, stacy guy
Maybe he meant his IQ was 15?
Ok.
SO, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. Well not formally anyway.
Am I in danger of becoming suddenly gay? Does the Senator know who I should see about this? I’ve had enough difficulties with women. I don’t need to bring men into the mix!
I work in a law office that, among other things, handles divorces and other aspects of family law. Believe me, heterosexual couples have already thoroughly wrecked marriage with no help from the gay community.
Marriage is such a sacred institution that any fool who has an IQ high enough to sign his/her own name, can get married. You pay your money, you get your license. That includes people who are in prison, who cannot possibly honor the ‘duties’ of a married person. Such marriages are marriages in name and in legal terms only, but are performed by ordained persons (pastors) all the time. I’ve never heard a church squawk about them. How is it you can “love, honor, and cherish” somebody you don’t now and have never lived with?
As for out-of-wedlock births, they’ve been happening in huge numbers, well before anyone started talking seriously about gay marriage. I’m still having trouble finding a cause-and-effect relationship, or any correlation at all for that matter, between my married gay friends and the 18-year-olds who come into our office with a baby and a one-night history with someone whose name they barely knew. Will someone please spell out to me, explicitly, how those things are connected?
I recall seeing a study showing that divorce rates were higher in the ‘Bible belt’ than in more liberal states. Seems to me that would tend to fly in the face of both what the Religious Right says and also Joe!’s claims.
Those projects in Chicago are the same as the projects in every other city in America.
News flash – those projects were there before there was a Leftist Welfare State. There have been, and will always be, projects in America.
The only problem now is that the project mentality is being seen in the middle class and upper classes. It is now acceptable for out-of-wedlock babies and where are the churches in this dilemma? Most churches today are too busy counting their money to be bothered with the real social issues.
Too bad our so-called Christian Conservatives are more interested in their fitness club at their church than to vote for politicians that will put people first and not some insane war and making the rich even richer.
One of the things Brownback conveniently forgets is that Scandinavia has long had a tradition of trial marriage, sanctioned by the church, where wedding vows are often not exchanged until after the birth of the first child. This of course would skew the statistics for Brownback’s political agenda.
“”"Those projects in Chicago are the same as the projects in every other city in America.
News flash – those projects were there before there was a Leftist Welfare State. There have been, and will always be, projects in America. “”"”
Actually almost all the projects in Chicago have been imploded. There are very few of them left and those are scheduled for implosion soon.
The SINGLE study Brownback and those on the right continually quote conviently leaves out the fact that that northern European country had -ten years before legalizing gay marriage- passed a law giving the same rights to unmarried, STRAIGHT couples that married couples had enjoyed. There was no reason for straight people to get married, they received the same benefits without it.
Now, if I know this it’s a foregone conclusion that Brownback and his cadre on the right know it, too. They just choose to mislead the American people by repeating what they know is a flawed study. But, since it says what they want they continue to use it.
Unfortunately, the American people have spent the past ten years being told what it is they want to hear, and falling for it.
Gays will always be a small minority. Let them have their civil unions and be done with it.End them as any kind of political force.
I prefer to keep my sex private.Tired of reading about everyone elses.
Gay marriage is not marriage. Marriage requires the sexes to be complimentary. Sorry liberals but that is the way it is even though you may feel strongly otherwise. The difference between the sexes is what makes marriage complete. A man and a woman bring their uniqueness and complimentary expression of the different sexes together in marriage. This unique expression of love is also blessed with power to bear children which is not so in the case of homosexuals. And this is a neccesity for society to continue. Now this stable relationship is also the best to raise children which is neccesary for the well being of society.
A couple of homosexuals may want to emulate this but it doesn’t come intrinsically to them because they are not of different sexes. They may want to force society to recognize their relationship but if the relationship is intrinsically incorrect then any help from a liberal government cannot save or add value to the relationship. That is why a lot of homosexuals in countries that have legalized gay ‘marriage’ do not stay together for a long time because the relationship is inherently unstable. Maybe they are seeking meaning in their lives by looking at people who have benefitted from the institution of marriage. Many of you may look at bad marriages but this does not mean that gay ‘marriage’ is okay.
Look how sad it is that countries that have legalized gay ‘marriage’ have low marriage rates and low birth rates. If this were not the case, the liberal media would have been shouting from rooftops. It is like they have lost the collective will to procreate and they live only in the present. And remember these are atheistic countries.
Now that the WaPo tried to delink the decline in marriage in scandanavian countries and gay ‘marriage’ they are ready to trumpet it. But look at their findings: gay ‘marriage’ was a result of low marriage rates and weak family bonds.
Speaking of Chicago’s projects and religion, Obama’s spiritual mentor is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., the racist, separatist, black liberation theologian who pastors the leftist, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (The United Church of Christ is an apostate cult that intends to “marry” sodomites and ordain witches and abortionist quacks.)We may shudder to think what kind of spiritual “kingdom” Obama wants to usher into the USofA.
“We may shudder to think what kind of spiritual “kingdom” Obama wants to usher into the USofA.”
Since one of the things the Rev. Wright has been very outspoken about is the need for faith not to be imposed by a government, I am not too worried about him.
On the other hand, I do shudder to think about what kind of spiritual kingdom a religious bigot like you would try to impose on others.
All these comments about how marriage should be a church thing, not a state thing, are missing the big picture. It IS a state thing, and social benefits (estate provisions, social security, et al) are written to give special priviliges (not rights) to the spouse.
We’re not talking about Baptisms, Confirmations, or other ceremonies. We’re talking about a ceremony that over hundreds of years has had many laws establishing this union as being worthy of encouraging, and granting the aformentioned priviliges.Social Security is going broke. Medicare will too. Do we want to accelerate the demise of these programs by adding gay “wives” to the list of beneficiaries?Don’t even start with that “they paid in to the system” malarkey. All single people do. We have given these priviliges to those who meet the criteria. Changing the criteria would undermine the system.
All these comments about how marriage should be a church thing, not a state thing, are missing the big picture. It IS a state thing, and social benefits (estate provisions, social security, et al) are written to give special priviliges (not rights) to the spouse.We’re not talking about Baptisms, Confirmations, or other ceremonies. We’re talking about a ceremony that over hundreds of years has had many laws establishing this union as being worthy of encouraging, and granting the aformentioned priviliges.Social Security is going broke. Medicare will too. Do we want to accelerate the demise of these programs by adding INTERRACIAL COUPLES to the list of beneficiaries?Don’t even start with that “they paid in to the system” malarkey. All single people do. We have given these priviliges to those who meet the criteria. [and if you meet the criteria by marrying someone of your own race, you get these privileges]. Changing the criteria would undermine the system.***********
Yeah, Harold…that’s not really a good argument. I assume you say that everyone already has opportunities to get these marriage benefits by marrying someone of the opposite sex. But if the person you love is of the same gender, then you can’t get those privileges unless you marry someone you don’t, and will never, love.
How is this different from telling me (a woman of color) that I have equal rights to marriage, but only if I marry within my own race? What if I’m only attracted to white guys?
“All these comments about how marriage should be a church thing, not a state thing, are missing the big picture. It IS a state thing, and social benefits (estate provisions, social security, et al) are written to give special priviliges (not rights) to the spouse.
We’re not talking about Baptisms, Confirmations, or other ceremonies. We’re talking about a ceremony that over hundreds of years has had many laws establishing this union as being worthy of encouraging, and granting the aformentioned priviliges.”
I agree with the first sentence, at least. Marriage is actually a civil institution that has become a religious institution. In fact, to be perfectly vulger about it, in the past in the west it was a civil arrangement between families where a bride was “purchased” from her family by a groom and his family. In many parts of the world, that is still the case. Marriage, however, has morphed over the years to become a union between two people who love each other. It has become a partnership where when it works, people stay together in sickness and health, until death do them part. The end of “happily ever after” in most cases is one spouse being left after the other dies. I am a widower who was widowed young, and I have since remarried. Marriage is a tough committment based on love. To have a successful marriage is hard work, and the “privileges” that people get from that are earned.
“Social Security is going broke. Medicare will too. Do we want to accelerate the demise of these programs by adding gay “wives” to the list of beneficiaries?”
Don’t be absurd. People who are ROMANTICALLY as well as sexually attracted to someone of the same gender are not so large a proportion of the population to create such a situation. Furthermore, if you are going to try to apply that criteria, as was pointed out above, the same logic could be applied to interracial marriages, or marriages between people who are past child bearing age. [sarcasm]Hey, maybe we can establish those limitations to extend the life of the system! [/sarcasm] More to the point, when I was in a support group for widows and widowers, I met some gay widows and widowers. These are people who did the sickness and in health thing, till death do them part. The difference was, their union was not legally recognized. It allowed in some cases estranged family of the deceased partner to claim property that the couple had purchased together, and even allowed those same estranged family members to be excluded from the funeral arrangements. It is hard enough to deal with the arrangements when your union WAS recognized by the state. It is horrible when it is not.
“Don’t even start with that “they paid in to the system” malarkey.”
This is an invalid form of argument from pre-emption. So what if everyone pays into the system, like I said above, marriage is work. Single people have the opportunity to become married. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to be married to a person that they are romantically and sexually attracted to. But, you are proposing that one proportion of the population not be able to do so, to protect the system.
Bullocks!
john stone, you are insane and a bigot. But dont worry, jesus loves you anyway….
say hey to aaron for me.
Tara – “How is this different from telling me (a woman of color) that I have equal rights to marriage, but only if I marry within my own race? What if I’m only attracted to white guys?”
How about middle-aged bald ‘part-white’ guys? ;^)
I agree with your points; that is why I would separate the ‘God’ part of marriage (the sacrament) from the ‘Caeser’ part (union).
As for Social Security that is mostly a specious arguement. Most gay couples are two-earner couples so they will collect based on their own rather than a partner’s income history.
I agree with Scott.
john s,” Marriage requires the sexes to be complimentary.”
You obviously haven’t lived next door to some of the married couples I have!
Yes Jed I am not your neighbor and the definition of marriage doesn’t depend on you feelings.