TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law

Not a shocker, really:

quote:

AMENDMENT PASSES GAY MARRIAGE BAN WINS 70% OF VOTE BY SUZANNE PEREZ TOBIAS, JOE RODRIGUEZ AND STEVE PAINTER The Wichita Eagle GAY MARRIAGE BAN WINS 70% OF VOTE Kansans voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, a result supporters hailed as a rousing endorsement of traditional marriage. More than 550,000 people approved the measure by more than a 2-1 ratio, making Kansas the 18th state to ban gay marriage in its constitution. "We felt all along that Kansans would do the right thing, so we're not surprised how they voted," said the Rev. Joe Wright, senior pastor at Wichita's Central Christian Church and a leading proponent of the amendment. "We are just thrilled with the overwhelming numbers." Opponents, meanwhile, called the election "merely the beginning of the fight for fairness in this state," pledging to challenge the measure in courts. "One thing I can promise you is that the voices of fairness in this state will not be silenced," said Bruce Ney, chairman of Kansans for Fairness, a Topeka-based coalition of gay and civil-rights groups. "We will not stand by and let thousands of our neighbors, friends and relatives live as second-class citizens." Wright, part of a Christian conservative movement that began pushing for the amendment last year, said amendment supporters may now turn their attention to other issues such as gambling, evolution and abortion. He said he expects the marriage amendment to face court challenges, but isn't too concerned. He said the amendment bolsters a state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and is the most sure-fire way to prevent courts from granting marital rights to gay and lesbian couples. "In no other state has it been overturned when it has been a constitutional change like this," he said. The Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church and another leading supporter of the amendment, said the amendment has "taken it out of the hands of some liberal activist judge in the state of Kansas. "It has... put teeth in the law. It has strengthened the law," he said. Local opponents were disappointed but not surprised by the results. Patrick Hutchison, chairman of Equality Kansas, a gay-rights group based in Wichita, said the group plans to use Tuesday's vote as a call to unite and work harder on other issues, including anti-discrimination policies, hate-crimes legislation and adoption laws. "There's a whole slew of things" the group plans to fight for, Hutchison said. So far, every state that has put a gay-marriage ban to voters has seen it pass by a wide margin. Mississippi's amendment garnered 86 percent of the vote last year; Oklahoma's, 76 percent; and Missouri's, 71 percent. In Kansas, 70 percent of voters cast their ballots for the amendment, passing it by 170,000 votes. The majority of voters in only one county -- Douglas County, home to Lawrence and the University of Kansas -- appeared to vote no in unofficial results. The Kansas amendment has two parts. One defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. The other explains that no other relationship is entitled to the "rights or incidents of marriage." Throughout the campaign, opponents of the amendment said it goes beyond banning gay marriage and could call into question legal contracts that recreate rights reserved for married couples. Thomas Witt, field organizer for Equality Kansas, said it will be up to the courts to interpret that second part of the amendment. "The people who push this complain about activist un-elected judges, but the only people who are going to be able to figure this out now are un-elected judges," Witt said. "We don't know what's going to happen to Paragraph B, but we do know that it's basically going to give license to any petty official who doesn't like gay families to discriminate." Potential repercussions of the amendment, which will likely take effect April 29, are hard to gauge. But both sides say the Kansas amendment will likely face court challenges. Ney, of Kansans for Fairness, said litigation may take a while to play out, as businesses and government agencies decide how to react. He noted a lawsuit filed Monday in Michigan that challenges the termination of domestic-partner benefits. Ney said lawsuits could be filed if a hospital questions an unmarried couple's medical power of attorney, for example. Or, a gay couple could seek a marriage license and force the issue into the courts. "It will happen," Ney said. Voters in 13 states approved constitutional gay marriage bans last year, joining four others. Similar proposals will be on the ballot next year in Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee. Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Bill Gale said the ballot measure drew more people to the polls. He said about 38 percent of registered voters voted Tuesday, significantly more than normally vote during an off-year spring election. Some local voters, like Nancy Campbell of Wichita, saw the amendment as a way to protect the traditional definition of marriage. "I believe that God has created marriage," said Campbell, 41, a teacher and mother of three. "We are believers and go by how the Bible says things should be done." Among the amendment's opponents is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who said she supports the existing state law and views it as sufficient. Billy Williams, a retired postal worker from Wichita, agreed. He voted against the amendment. "I voted no because it is so discriminating," Williams said. "Everyone needs companionship every once in a while. As you get older, you don't want to be by yourself." About 30 amendment supporters gathered Tuesday night at a northeast Wichita hotel to watch the results. "What it (the election) has done is it shows what can happen when all denominations, when the entire body of Christ comes together for a cause," Fox said. http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11321672.htm

What I am extremely grateful about, however, is my lone county of Douglas Co. which overwhelmingly voted "No" on this ban:

quote:

State Constitutional Amendment on Same-Sex Marriages Yes 414,235 71% No 178,167 29% Douglas County results Yes 9,388 37.0% No 15,840 62.4% http://www.ljworld.com/specials/ele...al/results.html

This is among many other reasons why I live in this loner city of Lawrence, KS amongst the surrounding Bible Belt bigots.

And part B of this bill WILL DEFINITELY open up a can of worms like it has done in Ohio - where their attempts to also ban civil unions have effectively wiped out their domestic violence laws for non-married heterosexuals.

I'm also confident that this will eventually get struck down in the courts. Despite the "people's voice", withholding legal benefits from 2 consenting adults as a consequence of both being the same sex couldn't be any more discriminatory.

Let the legal battles commence.

Well, looks like it needs to be introduced as a Bill in Congress.
Certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings on the topic.


[[[smoke]]]

Oh no I am shocked!


I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with your "significant other" Opus

I forgot "freedom" in the U.S. is only about getting the highest tax bracket free from progressive taxation, everyone should still submit to specific Evangelical Christian beliefs as part of the law. ^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

Still not sure what negative effect would be suffered by allowing a very minute portion of the population to have equal opportunity to give inheritance to certain individuals and hospital visitation rights, etc. would have on the rest of us. This and the Ohio law deny that right altogether, not just using the term "marriage." These people are still going to live the lifestyle they live regardless and it will continue to have no relation as to why the majority of marriages fail. Why is it so important to keep a girl from vistitation rights another girl in the hospital if she wants to grant that access?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I forgot "freedom" in the U.S. is only about getting the highest tax bracket free from progressive taxation, everyone should still submit to specific Evangelical Christian beliefs as part of the law. ^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so.

Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded.

Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day.

The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women.

There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it. I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it.

I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Oh no I am shocked! I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with your "significant other" Opus

Well perhaps this is a bit of a difference between you and I. I am not always out to see what just benefits me, my wife, and my family. I also have a vested interest in what benefits my society as a whole.

Now I don't think you necessarily disagree with that sentiment too much despite our differences in politics, but I can't help but take a little swipe at your "me-generation" response.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so. Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Wedge Strategy by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a.k.a. Discovery Institute) -attempting to undermine or "wedge" out evolutionary theory and replace it with a more "Christian"-type doctrine:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...2437/wedge.html

Coupla excerpts with my own emphasis:

quote:

Part of PhaseI: "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Excerpt from Phase II:

quote:

Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."

So I'd say Wolverine isn't too far off here. Let's get real here - if we were to be truly honest and hypothetically give the fundies in power everything they possibly could ask for in the public school system, you honestly think their "Christian educational values" would merely halt at just school prayer and creationism?

Who's really being naive here?

quote:

Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day.

And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc.

And that makes it legally and/or rationally correct how?

Times change, thank God. And I must disagree with your point about cultural acceptance:

quote:

In fact, many religious groups in Europe had special marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians. Also, a recent book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: *Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece. *Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. *The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic. *Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. *An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic. *Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/I...arioconsultanA/ http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/great.html Politicians and ministers are fond of referring to the "5000 year history" of one man-one woman marriage. In fact, in some societies [including ancient Israel] there were many forms of legitimate, recognized relationships: *A tomb of a same sex gay couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!: http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/niankh.html *Some marriages were and/or were polygamous. In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) Abraham, David, Solomon, and others had multiple wives. One version of the Creation story mentioned Lilith as Adam's first wife; Eve was his second. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints frequently entered polygamous marriages prior to 1890. Some excommunicated splinter Mormon groups still do. * Some marriages were considered an exchange of property in which total control of the woman was formally transferred from her father to her husband. *Leverite Marriages existed in Biblical times in which a man had an obligation to marry his brother's wife and produce an heir if his brother died. This usually meant that he would be married to at least two women. *Men engaged in sexual relations with one or more concubines. Concubines were women who had a lower marital status than a wife. *Men engaged in sexual relations with their female slaves. Again, in the Hebrew Scriptures, Abraham raped his wife's slave, Hagar. She conceived and bore a son Ishmael. * In all, the Bible mentions eight different family types. Only one of them is the "standard" one-man one-woman in a mutual committed relationship. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar7.htm

quote:

The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women.

Well we would never accuse those darn Alabamans from using a neuron or two upstairs now would we?

Oh, in addition to what I've given above, here's another juicy "historical" tidbit that those darn Alabamans likely overlooked:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html

quote:

There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it.

Precisely why it will be deemed unconstitutional to allow one couple to enjoy full benefits that happen to be the opposite sex while denying those same benefits completely to a couple who happens to be the same sex.

quote:

I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it.

Just because the states decide a matter does not make it any more "right" or constitutionally admissible.

quote:

I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

How exactly could that hope up constitutionally without running into discrimination?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Wedge Strategy by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a.k.a. Discovery Institute) -attempting to undermine or "wedge" out evolutionary theory and replace it with a more "Christian"-type doctrine: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...2437/wedge.html Coupla excerpts with my own emphasis: Excerpt from Phase II: So I'd say Wolverine isn't too far off here. Let's get real here - if we were to be truly honest and hypothetically give the fundies in power everything they possibly could ask for in the public school system, you honestly think their "Christian educational values" would merely halt at just school prayer and creationism? Who's really being naive here?

I believe you are for a couple reason:

1) You believe the Christian fundamentals are behind all moral-leaning law in the USA.
2) You have just proveed it is interest groups that push these agendas, not a wide-ranging mass of "Christian fundamentals" with your Discovery Insitute example above.
3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference.
4) You believe that Christian fundamentals if in power would really change all laws in their favor. I think many of them just like you are ingrained in the traditions of this country, they realize the role of religion, and they realize the role of its seperation from government.

quote:

And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc.

What, you're trying to tell me you are FOR WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE?
But they're women!

quote:

And that makes it legally and/or rationally correct how?

"It" doesn't make it legal. "It" does make it rational, based upon the historical argument whereby gays didn't marry and Kansas operated socially as it has done for most part without incident... whereby if you change that component the future of social tranquality (although it might stay the same) is unknown.
What does make it legal however is the US Constitution and the right it affords to states.

quote:

Times change, thank God. And I must disagree with your point about cultural acceptance:

Your point only brings up the fact that Greeks are gay. We all know this. You have not demonstrated that in American history (pre-USA or post) that homosexuality has been acceptable (in fact you made the argument that it doesn't matter what happened in the past because it might have been wrong, i.e. blacks and... women.)

Therefore using your same argument, I will say. The past doesn't matter, we made mistakes about blacks and... women then, lets not make the same mistake about gays (which were obvisouly according to your history well treated and allowed to marry). Afterall, look what befall those societies!

quote:

Precisely why it will be deemed unconstitutional to allow one couple to enjoy full benefits that happen to be the opposite sex while denying those same benefits completely to a couple who happens to be the same sex.

The constitution only protects certain inalienable rights. The right/privilege to marriage is not a consitutional right. It is one granted by the State to its citizens, therefore as it stands right now on the books it is no more unconsitutional to grant same-sex marriage as it to taketh away. So stop being a couter.

quote:

Just because the states decide a matter does not make it any more "right" or constitutionally admissible.

E pluribus unam.

quote:

How exactly could that hope up constitutionally without running into discrimination?

What are you on about consitutionally this, constitutionally that?
Like I said. There is no "right" to marriage. Just like there is no "right" to drive. Some states make it a right and give it to their citizens, others make it a privilege. I don't understand why you are up on the consitution on this one, as on this matter it is silent. Its not like Kanasas voted to deny gays from their right to fair and speedy trial.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so. Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded. Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day. The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women. There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it. I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it. I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

I honestly don't care all that much about the term "marriage" being applied so much as the same rights are granted to individuals. This action in Kansas also threatens that.

I'm really amazed at how all of a sudden, not just on this issue but many, the right wing is becoming increasingly against states rights. You're not just arguing that Kansas should be able to prevent civil unions in addition to marriage, you're arguing that no state can pass laws to the contrary if you want a federal amendment. If CT, not through the courts, but through the legislature passes it's gay marriage legislation, considering other states do not have recognize the marriage, why can't they will for themselves to allow that?

On religion, I was not saying that other religions would be banned, but Kansas, like most states, has a majority Christian population and many people, particularly in that state are pushing for their religious view to be taught in public schools and other aspects of the public sector. That's really not far fetched to think that
relgious favoritism is desired there, considering a number of recent stories out of Kansas, such as the actions of the Attorney General and teaching of "intelligent design."

The Constitution is a living document. If it is not, why aren't there still African-American slaves who constitute 3/5 of a person without voting rights? Why aren't women still prevented from voting as well? For thousands of years women have been by many cultures and religions as 2nd class citizens, so we should have continued that?

All I can say about Alabama is happy Confederate Pride Month! 23 days left!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference.

Eating babies?

quote:

^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

My point was that they do want to teach Christianity in public schools. Teaching New Testament principles as fact in public schools would concern most people of other religions. Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments incident, the recent events in Kansas and the poll numbers on teaching creationism in both those states, it's not just a few lobbying groups wanting that.

Quick question: What happens if a gay couple gets married in one state and moves to a state where gays cannot be married?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Eating babies?

Oh my bad. A blood-libel must of slipped in there.

quote:

My point was that they do want to teach Christianity in public schools. Teaching New Testament principles as fact in public schools would concern most people of other religions. Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments incident, the recent events in Kansas and the poll numbers on teaching creationism in both those states, it's not just a few lobbying groups wanting that.

Again who is they?

I'm hoping that if you asked most Alabama's if they wanted to have the New Testament taught as fact in your child's school? They'd say, no thank you. If I wanted that, I'd send my kid to some private-chuch school.

What I do think you are seeing with the South however is a bit of resurggence against the left's succesful athiestation of the State.

Taking the 10 commandments out of a court house is evidence of the success of this left-wing atheistic movement that exist in the nation.

The south is pissed that you are turing this tradtionally secular country into an atheist country.

When you look at it objectively and with in the spirit of the tradition of the USA, there was no justified reason to remove the 10 commandments out of the court house.

I mean the Roman's weren't even that cruel, and thats saying something:
Emporer Constantine proclaims that "Christiantiy" as the Empire's official religion (which he did). He does not issue an edict for all and anything polytheistic on state-land to be removed. In turn the statue of a she-wolf suckling the infants Romulus and Remus is not removed from the heart of Rome and there is no public uproar.

Imagine how short that emprorer would have lived if he says, move Romulus and Remus' (who were gods, sons of Mars) out of Rome! Put it somewhere polytheistic!





Thats all I'm saying. The USA is a secular country and thats a good thing. I don't mind if they would teach the old, new testmeant, etc in school so long as they do it in the fashion they teach other literature such as Dante's inferno.

They're is a scare in the USA against religion. And in turn there is a counter-insurgence for religion. I think both sides need to shut up and embrace that a little religion is a good thing. Its when people want too much religion (whether that religion is the religion of no religion or not) that it becomes ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so. Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded. Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day. The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women. There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it. I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it. I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

You say that the State of Alabama does not discriminate against homosexual individuals....but obviously this law intends to do just that particularily part B of the proposed bill...the second part of the amendment explains that no other relationship is entitled to "the rights or incidents of marriage".....now presumably this refers to all legal rights that married people are entitled to...inheritance...tax...etc....so even if they dont allow gay marraiges this obviously leaves a lot of people (gay people in long term relationships)in a legal quagmire as regards their status in the eyes of the law in that particular State,because they do not enjoy the benifits that hetrosexual married couples do...simply because they are not allowed a legal union in that state...so although they are in long term relationships they are treated as unmarried "individuals" particularily in the case of the death of one partner and the legal issues that surround inheritance...

So my question to you is.....this seems like obvious discrimination....where does the "not discriminate against homosexuals" come into play in situations like the one i outlined.............????

If you have a class where you teach about various religions of the world in an objective sort of way and were to say include creationism as part of the learning about the Jewish or Christian religions, I'm all for it. Something like promoting the 10 Commandments, which I personally believe in, I don't understand how that is the same scenario:

quote:

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

Granted there's different translations which vary slightly, but while 5 through 10 have many universal concepts, 1 through 4 seems to be state endorsement of a certain religious view if government is in the business of posting it in public places.

The concepts of civil unions and civil marriage do not relate to relgious institutions, they relate to rights and recognization under the law. If a religion does not want to recognize them, they have every right not to. If the U.S. is truly a Judeo-Christian based country, differing from what is stated in documents such as the Treaty of Tripoli, then why would this only extend to preventing abortion and gay marriage? While radio and cable news has attempted to make Pope John Paul II a card carrying GOP member in the wake of his death, they fail to see that many Christians, including the late Pope believe that society should do much more to fight poverty and hunger and not start wars like the one in Iraq, from a religious standpoint.

quote:

I believe you are for a couple reason: 1) You believe the Christian fundamentals are behind all moral-leaning law in the USA.

Certainly not, but their influence is quite undeniable. You asked for an example of that influence, I gave you one. You now counter with the straw man that I conclude that ALL moral-leaning law is the result of fundies?

Sorry, not biting at that one.

quote:

2) You have just proveed it is interest groups that push these agendas, not a wide-ranging mass of "Christian fundamentals" with your Discovery Insitute example above.

My goodness, what exactly is the difference between fundamentalist interest groups and �Christian fundamentals�? They intertwine quite easily.

And perhaps you haven�t noticed just how strong the Discovery Institute and their Wedge Doctrine influence have been on the State schools and BOE�s?

Regardless, that is just one example. I noticed that Wolverine also brought up the 10 Commandments as another.

quote:

3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference.

Well perhaps you overlooked my emphasis � it�s not just that they want to completely wipe out evolution, but they want to incorporate �Christian convictions�.

quote:

4) You believe that Christian fundamentals if in power would really change all laws in their favor. I think many of them just like you are ingrained in the traditions of this country, they realize the role of religion, and they realize the role of its seperation from government.

Well call me a bit skeptical and downright a little afraid of religious fundamentalism and power. It certainly stands to reason that historically, religion and power have seemingly gone hand in hand. Of course most of that predates our own Constitution, admittedly, but please do not dismiss those fanatics for trying and in a good number of instances, succeeding. Some, of course, did not. What is it that I mean by that exactly?:

-Continual attempts to wipe out evolution because it does not adhere to Christian principles
-Promoting abstinence education only while withholding and/or distorting known facts about abstinence programs and their results
-Continuing attempts to incorporate school prayer, undermining separation of church and state
-Keeping �Under God� into the Pledge, even though its origin was the reaction against Communist, atheist Russia back in the 50�s
-Moving a 10 Commandments statue into a secular government building in the middle of the night, claiming it is a part of our founding principles of law (last I checked only 2, maybe 3 Commandments are actually used in our law), without consideration of any other religion�s notable monuments as well
-Texas anti-sodomy laws which thankfully got struck down
-Anti-abortion laws are slowly but surely creeping into our government, even at the behest of a woman�s health (which thankfully a number of courts have recently struck down). This is not to say that such laws are the result of Christian fundamentalists, but their role and influence also cannot be denied by any stretch.
-And, of course, pushing Congress both on the federal and state level to define marriage for heterosexual relationships only

What else? Well here�s some more:

-Directly undermining the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion:

quote:

By a 217-216 vote on July 25, the House passed a bill (H.R.2210,) that permits religious groups operating Head Start centers to discriminate in hiring. http://www.theocracywatch.org/head_start_discrim.html

-Rick Santorum�s Workplace Religious Freedom Act can also effectively potentially undermine civil rights laws and employer nondiscrimination policies:
http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_...alertid=6007941

-The Jones Bill (from Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC) which strongly resembles the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act that got shot down in 2002 is being introduced, once again effectively wiping out the separation of church and state:
http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_...alertid=2527776

Take note that the former bill that got shot down in a 178-239 vote. Who voted which way?:
Yeas - Republicans, 168. Democrats, 10
Nays - Republicans, 46. Democrats, 192

Interesting on which majority of the party went where on this, ain�t it?

-As for Bush himself, I think there�s a healthy number of examples out there that demonstrate the Christian Right influence on him, like this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1

As well as his Faith-Based initiatives via Executive Order which have also undermined the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as undermine separation church and state:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

But let�s not leave out one of the major Republican leaders either:

quote:

He (God) is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me. -Tom Delay at the �Worldview Weekend� conference in the First Babtist Church, Pearland, TX June 2002

Oh and Justice Scalia is certainly one of my favorites as well:

quote:

The "consensus" (that government is the minister of God) "has been upset, I think by the emergence of democracy...It is much more difficult to see the hand of God...behind the fools and rogues...we ourselves elect of our own free will." ... "the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure divine authority...should [be] the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible." http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues...les/scalia.html

So there�s a few more instances to add.

quote:

What, you're trying to tell me you are FOR WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE? But they're women!

Blimey. Foiled again!

quote:

"It" doesn't make it legal. "It" does make it rational, based upon the historical argument whereby gays didn't marry and Kansas operated socially as it has done for most part without incident... whereby if you change that component the future of social tranquality (although it might stay the same) is unknown.

I reiterate:

quote:

And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc.

This same historical rationale was surely used by those who objected to such changes for civil rights. And your statement about Kansas operating socially without incident tends to adhere to that old � �if it ain�t broken why fix it� analogy, which again was certainly used against slavery, voting rights, women�s rights, minority rights, etc. in the past.

And what�s more, how much do you know about the history of marriage? I previously mentioned how our own concept of marriage and the relationship between man and woman have evolved over time with the advent of women�s rights. Here�s another excerpt:

quote:

Right-wing moralizing to the contrary, "marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the 1st wife. For its first 500 � 1000 years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women didn�t have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each other�s divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class. (Submitted to Marriage Equality by E.J. Graff, author of �What Is Marriage For?�)

So the concept of heterosexual marriage has surely changed over time, even within the past coupla centuries. And what�s more, I also posted information about historical formal recognition of homosexual relationships. The difference between then and now is BENEFITS given to heterosexual couples vs. homosexual couples. This is the crux of my argument.

quote:

What does make it legal however is the US Constitution and the right it affords to states.

Not if it undermines other Constitutional Amendments or other laws such as the Civil Rights Act. I believe such cases like the one that took place in California have been citing the 14th Amendment:

quote:

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer found that "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before." Judge Kramer also ruled that "the idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal." http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...age31405opn.pdf

quote:

A NY Supreme Court ruled that basic freedoms are violated when gay couples are not allowed to marry. Justice Ling-Cohen said "same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing." http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-d...PDF/pdf/378.pdf

quote:

Your point only brings up the fact that Greeks are gay. We all know this. You have not demonstrated that in American history (pre-USA or post) that homosexuality has been acceptable (in fact you made the argument that it doesn't matter what happened in the past because it might have been wrong, i.e. blacks and... women.)

Umm, I believe you�re not reading my argument very well at all.
First, quite the contrary to your point about me stating that it doesn�t matter what happened in the past. The point I�m making here is that fundies and those who use such arguments for the �sanctity and history of marriage� tend to overlook just how acceptable homosexual relationships were in the past, as well as just how much heterosexual marriage has truly evolved as a DIRECT result of civil rights issues.

Second, I believe I expounded quite a bit further than just the Greeks accepting homosexual relationships over the past 2 thousand years. I fail to understand how you merely hand-wave the rest away.
But in regards to post-USA history, I do not deny that homosexual relationships have not been considered acceptable � but this is exactly what I am arguing, however, when the benefits of those homosexual relationships are denied versus heterosexual marriages. The basis of such denials are unacceptable and unexplainable, and you have not explained in any way why we should continue to deny such discrimination other than merely state that it has always been that way.

That is not rational nor acceptable, especially when we take other similar examples of discrimination into historical context and how we have evolved to incorporate minority groups as a result.

quote:

Therefore using your same argument, I will say. The past doesn't matter, we made mistakes about blacks and... women then, lets not make the same mistake about gays (which were obvisouly according to your history well treated and allowed to marry). Afterall, look what befall those societies!

Again I fail to understand how we could be making the same mistake here on anything. When we allowed over 1,000 benefits to heterosexual couples simply as a result of their legal marriage, there is no rational reason why we should not allow the same to same-sex couples who wish to be acknowledged by the State that they are married.

And I�m hoping you�re jesting at this point about societies falling either as a direct or indirect consequence to homosexual behavior. We can get further into exactly how homosexual marriages/civil unions have affected society if you wish, but for the sake of brevity I�ll leave that out for now.

quote:

The constitution only protects certain inalienable rights. The right/privilege to marriage is not a consitutional right. It is one granted by the State to its citizens, therefore as it stands right now on the books it is no more unconsitutional to grant same-sex marriage as it to taketh away. So stop being a couter.

As I mentioned previously, both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of �64 have been utilized fairly successfully to grant same-sex legal rights, i.e. BENEFITS obtained from legal heterosexual marriage that are not given to same-sex couples.

quote:

E pluribus unam.

Nil satis nisi optimum

quote:

What are you on about consitutionally this, constitutionally that? Like I said. There is no "right" to marriage. Just like there is no "right" to drive. Some states make it a right and give it to their citizens, others make it a privilege. I don't understand why you are up on the consitution on this one, as on this matter it is silent. Its not like Kanasas voted to deny gays from their right to fair and speedy trial

See above.

quote:

What I do think you are seeing with the South however is a bit of resurggence against the left's succesful athiestation of the State.

Well what I see is the Conservatives has successfully stroked the social wedge issues of the Christian fundies and have made them feel like �victims� of atheism when, in fact they are anything but that, but we�re just opining a bit here.

quote:

Taking the 10 commandments out of a court house is evidence of the success of this left-wing atheistic movement that exist in the nation.

Oh please.

When that fundie fuck Justice Moore SNUCK the monument in the dead of night, and his actions have been successfully struck down not just by the Republican-led Alabama SC, but the Republican-led U.S. Supreme Court as well, HE is anything BUT a victim of left-wingers for fuck�s sake. Rather, he is a victim of his own irresponsibility and self-martyrdom.

quote:

The south is pissed that you are turing this tradtionally secular country into an atheist country.

Oh fucking please again.

Name me ONE fucking time when Christian rights have been successfully taken away when there has been an irrational means to do so. Just one will do.

quote:

When you look at it objectively and with in the spirit of the tradition of the USA, there was no justified reason to remove the 10 commandments out of the court house.

I look quite objectively at such actions and I see absolutely no reason why this fundie fuck felt compelled to sneak it in his courtroom in the first place.

quote:

They're is a scare in the USA against religion. And in turn there is a counter-insurgence for religion.

Self-created by the fundies. Self-promoted by the fundie apologist politicians. Both groups win in the end.

quote:

I think both sides need to shut up and embrace that a little religion is a good thing.

Not in a SECULAR society it certainly isn�t, and you haven�t made a very compelling argument so far that it is a �good thing� in any manner.

quote:

Its when people want too much religion (whether that religion is the religion of no religion or not) that it becomes ugly.

Well to that we can certainly agree, but the slippery slope of how much is too much is too easy to slide down.

Re: Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Not a shocker, really

Ah, but this is!




Sorry, I need the weekend to get here. Going to the Masters. Call me an elitist.

Re: Re: Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sorry, I need the weekend to get here. Going to the Masters. Call me an elitist.

You bastard. Now I really have a reason to loathe you out of my pure envy!!!

quote:

Originally posted by zig You say that the State of Alabama does not discriminate against homosexual individuals....but obviously this law intends to do just that particularily part B of the proposed bill...the second part of the amendment explains that no other relationship is entitled to "the rights or incidents of marriage".... [snip] So my question to you is.....this seems like obvious discrimination....where does the "not discriminate against homosexuals" come into play in situations like the one i outlined.............????

Bah so much postage, so little time. I'll start with this one because: A) Its the first one B) Its the shortest (most important consideration!)

Homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are not being deprived rights other people are. They still are entitled to every right under the Bill of Rights, and all those most likely granted to citizens of Alabama if Alabam has a bill of rights in its constitution.

Homosexuals are not the only ones that are deprived a right to marriage because of this law, so are polygimists, and PETA people (you need to see South Park to get that reference).

Homosexuals, like hetrosexuals, and polygmists are denied marriage depending on circumtance.

Polygmists will not be allowed to marry if they are already married, the same goes for hetrosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals will not be allowed to marry unless they marry a women, the same is true for polygimsts and hetrosexuals. Hetrosexuals will not be able to marry their brothers/sisters/moms/dads, the same is true for homosexuals and polygimists.

Its equivlant to saying Alabama discriminates against stupid people because stupid people can't drive (because they fail the drive test).

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 If you have a class where you teach about various religions of the world in an objective sort of way and were to say include creationism as part of the learning about the Jewish or Christian religions.

The odd thing is that such a class only becomes "acceptable" at the university or college level. Fear be it on us if high scholars would be taught such things! Relgion would be up'on us! AHH

quote:

Granted there's different translations which vary slightly, but while 5 through 10 have many universal concepts, 1 through 4 seems to be state endorsement of a certain religious view if government is in the business of posting it in public places.

Ya and a statue of Zeus is a statue of a God, yet you don't see making anyone do a fuss about it. Looks basically I can't see a statue of any thing like this offending anybody but the most radically, fanatically, sensitive of people. And by all means we should not let the radical fanatics stop us from enjoy, art, philosophy, and culture should we now?

quote:

The concepts of civil unions and civil marriage do not relate to relgious institutions, they relate to rights and recognization under the law.

No argument here. However it is under STATE law. In the state of Alabama they decide what marriage and a union whether religious or civil is in the law.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

Geez Opus your crazy.
I'm not gonna reply to all that.
If your strategy is to win an debate by typing so much your opponent gives up, then by-God (yes big-G himself), you are winning!

Really try and keep your posts to say, 2, 3 pages max and just several topics. That way I can reply in turn and we might actually get somwhere

I mean you already got 2 others helping you out. Then you write 3 times as much as both of them combined. Despite the fact that I support religion, I am merely a mere mortal.

So skimming through your postage, I'll pick a couple things that stood out to me.

First, I didn't equate INTEREST GROUP to FUNDIE INTEREST GROUP. If you are saying that all interest groups are indeed fanatics, well, damn...


You say you are scared of the "christian fundies in power", well they already are, and they still seem to be losing historical privileges they would have enjoyed.

You have a list of what different interest groups have tried to do to preserve/enchange many of these historical privileges, I'll add commentary on whether they indeed were successful or not

quote:

-Continual attempts to wipe out evolution because it does not adhere to Christian principles failed -Promoting abstinence education only while withholding and/or distorting known facts about abstinence programs and their resultsfailed -Continuing attempts to incorporate school prayer, undermining separation of church and statefailed -Keeping �Under God� into the Pledge, even though its origin was the reaction against Communist, atheist Russia back in the 50�sfailed

Is that not worth remembering?

quote:

-Moving a 10 Commandments statue into a secular government building in the middle of the night, claiming it is a part of our founding principles of law (last I checked only 2, maybe 3 Commandments are actually used in our law), without consideration of any other religion�s notable monuments as well failed -Texas anti-sodomy laws which thankfully got struck down failed -Anti-abortion laws are slowly but surely creeping into our government, even at the behest of a woman�s health (which thankfully a number of courts have recently struck down). This is not to say that such laws are the result of Christian fundamentalists, but their role and influence also cannot be denied by any stretch. failed

You can get morning after pills at your local pharmacy, I fail to see the triump for the fundies.

quote:

-And, of course, pushing Congress both on the federal and state level to define marriage for heterosexual relationships only up in the air

But taking in their previous track record... I wouldn't but my bets too high the fundies will triump, you think they'll get lucky this time Opus?

quote:

Name me ONE fucking time when Christian rights have been successfully taken away when there has been an irrational means to do so. Just one will do.

I don't have to, you've just named 8 above.
No prayer in school or near school, no commandments, etc. etc.



I don't know the specifics about the commandment case. All I know is that a statue of the commandments were removed from the State Supreme Court, not on some technicality but because of their religious significance. All I know is that if it was 1500-1990, no one would have gave a shit if their was a statue of the ten commandments in a church. So there you have it, the Chrisitans are giving up more and more of the symbols of their religion and the philosophy of the culture of this nation to a new religion and a new culture, one that divereges from the founding fathers.

Re: Re: Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Ah, but this is! Sorry, I need the weekend to get here. Going to the Masters. Call me an elitist.

Finally a post I can relate to

Are you taking her with you Shakka?

Re: Re: Re: Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Finally a post I can relate to Are you taking her with you Shakka?

Actually, I'm taking my father-in-law

Long story how I got the tickets, but the circumstances are what they are and I've got to be scoring some big points for this!

She got golf clubs for her birthday, now I have nowhere to hide!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez Opus your crazy. I'm not gonna reply to all that. If your strategy is to win an debate by typing so much your opponent gives up, then by-God (yes big-G himself), you are winning! Really try and keep your posts to say, 2, 3 pages max and just several topics. That way I can reply in turn and we might actually get somwhere I mean you already got 2 others helping you out. Then you write 3 times as much as both of them combined. Despite the fact that I support religion, I am merely a mere mortal.

I have to admit, Opus, the man has a point. I often avoid responding to you for that reason alone. You are hereby being given 5 demerits for exceeding the standard time constraints of debate! I mean shit, if my boss saw me reading novellas all day, he'd probably ask me what the fuck I was doing.

quote:

So skimming through your postage, I'll pick a couple things that stood out to me. First, I didn't equate INTEREST GROUP to FUNDIE INTEREST GROUP. If you are saying that all interest groups are indeed fanatics, well, damn... You say you are scared of the "christian fundies in power", well they already are, and they still seem to be losing historical privileges they would have enjoyed. You have a list of what different interest groups have tried to do to preserve/enchange many of these historical privileges, I'll add commentary on whether they indeed were successful or not Is that not worth remembering? You can get morning after pills at your local pharmacy, I fail to see the triump for the fundies. But taking in their previous track record... I wouldn't but my bets too high the fundies will triump, you think they'll get lucky this time Opus? I don't have to, you've just named 8 above. No prayer in school or near school, no commandments, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics about the commandment case. All I know is that a statue of the commandments were removed from the State Supreme Court, not on some technicality but because of their religious significance. All I know is that if it was 1500-1990, no one would have gave a shit if their was a statue of the ten commandments in a church. So there you have it, the Chrisitans are giving up more and more of the symbols of their religion and the philosophy of the culture of this nation to a new religion and a new culture, one that divereges from the founding fathers.

^^^What he said.^^^

Too much info to handle for you conservatives eh

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Bah so much postage, so little time. I'll start with this one because: A) Its the first one B) Its the shortest (most important consideration!) Homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are not being deprived rights other people are. They still are entitled to every right under the Bill of Rights, and all those most likely granted to citizens of Alabama if Alabam has a bill of rights in its constitution. Homosexuals are not the only ones that are deprived a right to marriage because of this law, so are polygimists, and PETA people (you need to see South Park to get that reference). Homosexuals, like hetrosexuals, and polygmists are denied marriage depending on circumtance. Polygmists will not be allowed to marry if they are already married, the same goes for hetrosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals will not be allowed to marry unless they marry a women, the same is true for polygimsts and hetrosexuals. Hetrosexuals will not be able to marry their brothers/sisters/moms/dads, the same is true for homosexuals and polygimists. Its equivlant to saying Alabama discriminates against stupid people because stupid people can't drive (because they fail the drive test).

Well why are they introduceing new laws against this particular group of people if the powers that be feel they are not being descriminated against allready...why do they feel the need for new laws to stop these people marrying.....and who are these people to define what marraige is in the first place....and on what moral grounds can they make such judgements...is it to support the idea that marraige is strictly a hetrosexual institution.

And yes i know polygmists hetrosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry if allready married....that part of your arguement is irrelevant...nobody is argueing for that to be allowed.

And yes if people cant pass the driving test...they shouldnt be allowed to drive...but it doesnt make them stupid or discriminated against...because that test applies to everyone gay or straight....unlike the right to marraige which only applies to the 90% of people that consider themselves hetrosexual.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.