Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[Seawytch]

Sorry, girls, but please do continue with your anti-breeder legislation!

Kansas anti-gay bill: Republican senators admit it?s discrimination, kill it.

I am pleased to report that the Republican-led Kansas Senate decided this would not fly. Senate President Susan Wagle said on Thursday that a majority of the state senators in her party would not vote for the bill. They support “traditional marriage,” Wagle noted, “however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” Thank you for that line in the sand. It should be obvious, but somehow that was lost on the Kansas House. Instead of passing, as everyone predicted, the Kansas anti-gay bill will now, in all likelihood, quietly die without hearings or a vote. I give credit to the hue and cry raised by Stern and other critics, and to the rapid pace of progress on gay rights. Even in the remaining pockets of backlash, conservatives can see that there are lengths to which they can no longer safely go. I’ve been thinking a lot about this quote from Adam Liptak’s New York Times piece on the series of federal court decisions striking down state gay-marriage bans: “It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots,” Andrew M. Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern, told Liptak. The legislators in Kansas who stopped short of passing this bill still think it’s OK to oppose same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, though their definition of prejudice differs, the point stands: They don’t want to be seen as bigots, either. That’s how progress begins.

I bet you cannot tell me precisely what problem you had with the proposed law.

I can...or more so this author from Slate can.

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination


In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

Hell, the Republican Senators in the state can tell you why they didn't vote for the ******* bill.

“however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.

 

[GreenBean]

Does that mean the people of Kansas now accept homosexuality as normal?

No - it means the people have no real say in their Government.
What do you think this is ? A Democracy or something !?

Neither.

We’re a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the Kansas law that will thankfully now die is proof of that.

And the people indeed have a real say in their government, provided the people act in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that are un-Constitutional, the courts will appropriately invalidate those measures in accordance with the rule of law.

Your disappointment that this Kansas law will be allowed to die has nothing to do with your ‘concern’ for the ‘will of the people,’ and everything to do with your hatred of gay Americans.

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

 

[Seawytch]

No - it means the people have no real say in their Government.
What do you think this is ? A Democracy or something !?

Neither.

We’re a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the Kansas law that will thankfully now die is proof of that.

And the people indeed have a real say in their government, provided the people act in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that are un-Constitutional, the courts will appropriately invalidate those measures in accordance with the rule of law.

Your disappointment that this Kansas law will be allowed to die has nothing to do with your ‘concern’ for the ‘will of the people,’ and everything to do with your hatred of gay Americans.

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

 

[GreenBean]

Neither.

We’re a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the Kansas law that will thankfully now die is proof of that.

And the people indeed have a real say in their government, provided the people act in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that are un-Constitutional, the courts will appropriately invalidate those measures in accordance with the rule of law.

Your disappointment that this Kansas law will be allowed to die has nothing to do with your ‘concern’ for the ‘will of the people,’ and everything to do with your hatred of gay Americans.

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

Since the discrimination and even the words used are eerily familiar, I have every "right" to compare them.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a law against Sodomy, Polygamy and rape. He didn't differentiate between the gay or the straight kind. "Tommy" would have put anyone getting their knob slobbed to the knife.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least

"Tommy" also owned human beings, a practice we today find an abomination.

 

[martybegan]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this quote from Adam Liptak’s New York Times piece on the series of federal court decisions striking down state gay-marriage bans: “It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots,” Andrew M. Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern, told Liptak.

Perhaps.

But Federal judges invalidating laws that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are motivated primarily by the fact that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence compels them to do so, that the Constitution is clear that the states may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, including marriage law.

Otherwise, it’s refreshing to see state lawmakers obey the Constitution, and refrain from enacting a measure undoubtedly offensive to the Founding Document.

So basically 50 people can marry each other because "equal protection"

 

[Manchester]

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

As you have previously said to me: That is all just your opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Neither.

We’re a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the Kansas law that will thankfully now die is proof of that.

And the people indeed have a real say in their government, provided the people act in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that are un-Constitutional, the courts will appropriately invalidate those measures in accordance with the rule of law.

Your disappointment that this Kansas law will be allowed to die has nothing to do with your ‘concern’ for the ‘will of the people,’ and everything to do with your hatred of gay Americans.

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

They wrote a constitution that requires amending to progress with the populace, not a document that can be added to or ignored by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers and their underlings.

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

They wrote a constitution that requires amending to progress with the populace, not a document that can be added to or ignored by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers and their underlings.

Wrong. They wrote it so that those "unelected lawyers" could protect the people against laws that violate that same document. Anti gay laws, just like anti miscegenation laws violate the US Constitution.

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia?

 

[Seawytch]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this quote from Adam Liptak’s New York Times piece on the series of federal court decisions striking down state gay-marriage bans: “It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots,” Andrew M. Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern, told Liptak.

Perhaps.

But Federal judges invalidating laws that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are motivated primarily by the fact that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence compels them to do so, that the Constitution is clear that the states may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, including marriage law.

Otherwise, it’s refreshing to see state lawmakers obey the Constitution, and refrain from enacting a measure undoubtedly offensive to the Founding Document.

So basically 50 people can marry each other because "equal protection"

If striking down anti miscegenation laws did not lead to polygamy, why does same sex marriage have to? Oh, right...because it's a ludicrous strawman. I keep forgetting.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

They wrote a constitution that requires amending to progress with the populace, not a document that can be added to or ignored by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers and their underlings.

Wrong. They wrote it so that those "unelected lawyers" could protect the people against laws that violate that same document. Anti gay laws, just like anti miscegenation laws violate the US Constitution.

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia?

No that one was right, because race does not matter in a marriage contract. The sex of people does matter in a marriage contract, because the contract was designed to be between a man and a woman. Anti-miscogenation statutes were added after, and were clearly a violation of equal protection.

Its simply not the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Perhaps.

But Federal judges invalidating laws that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are motivated primarily by the fact that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence compels them to do so, that the Constitution is clear that the states may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, including marriage law.

Otherwise, it’s refreshing to see state lawmakers obey the Constitution, and refrain from enacting a measure undoubtedly offensive to the Founding Document.

So basically 50 people can marry each other because "equal protection"

If striking down anti miscegenation laws did not lead to polygamy, why does same sex marriage have to? Oh, right...because it's a ludicrous strawman. I keep forgetting.

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

 

[GreenBean]

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

Since the discrimination and even the words used are eerily familiar, I have every "right" to compare them.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a law against Sodomy, Polygamy and rape. He didn't differentiate between the gay or the straight kind. "Tommy" would have put anyone getting their knob slobbed to the knife.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least

"Tommy" also owned human beings, a practice we today find an abomination.

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

"Tommy" also owned human beings, a practice we today find an abomination.

Yup and he also had Children with one of them -

 

[Seawytch]

So basically 50 people can marry each other because "equal protection"

If striking down anti miscegenation laws did not lead to polygamy, why does same sex marriage have to? Oh, right...because it's a ludicrous strawman. I keep forgetting.

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

If the law eventually allows 50 people to marry, then it won't be because the gays got to. Blame those interracial marriages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So basically 50 people can marry each other because "equal protection"

If striking down anti miscegenation laws did not lead to polygamy, why does same sex marriage have to? Oh, right...because it's a ludicrous strawman. I keep forgetting.

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

 

[GISMYS]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

 

[Manchester]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

Oh dear. You're leaps of logic have entire continents between them. Just bad garbage.

I support your right to argue against same sex marrage but at least come out with something better than that. Try reading Green Bean's posts. I couldn't disagree with them more but at least the arguments have more validity than "well if that happens then I say that this will be next so it must be true!"

 

[GISMYS]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

Oh dear. You're leaps of logic have entire continents between them. Just bad garbage.

I support your right to argue against same sex marrage but at least come out with something better than that. Try reading Green Bean's posts. I couldn't disagree with them more but at least the arguments have more validity than "well if that happens then I say that this will be next so it must be true!"[/QUOT ===============Truth does seem to hurt some. and you? We already see multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals as "just another life style" in many parts of this world,do we really want that sick perversion here in river city?

 

[martybegan]

If striking down anti miscegenation laws did not lead to polygamy, why does same sex marriage have to? Oh, right...because it's a ludicrous strawman. I keep forgetting.

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

 

[Manchester]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

Oh dear. You're leaps of logic have entire continents between them. Just bad garbage.

I support your right to argue against same sex marrage but at least come out with something better than that. Try reading Green Bean's posts. I couldn't disagree with them more but at least the arguments have more validity than "well if that happens then I say that this will be next so it must be true!"

===============Truth does seem to hurt some. and you? We already see multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals as "just another life style" in many parts of this world,do we really want that sick perversion here in river city?

If you had included just one nugget of truth in your hysterical gibber I'd tell you if the truth hurt or not.

I'm not going to pass judgement on what primative cultures deem right as I was brought up Christian and was taught not to judge people as that's God's job. I realised as an adult that whilst that notion might not be true, it was probably just.

I do however know that bestiality, poligamy and paedophillia laws WILL NOT change because of same sex marriage and anyone claiming they will do does so because they have not bothered to learn any of the better arguements against same sex marriage.

PS I fixed your post for you. You're welcome.