Kansas lawmakers pass adoption bill against gay couples

[bodecea]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

Which, I believe, we all agree with...AS LONG AS they get no government funds.

Nope. Government funds are used for a great many things that people of a variety of beliefs oppose. Nobody should be forced to violate their religious beliefs under this circumstance.

That's fine...just don't accept any government money for your religious beliefs. Easy rule of thumb....would you feel the same way if we were talking a muslim religious adoption agency receiving government money while basing adoptions on THEIR version of sharia law?

Sharia law is a competing political system, so it is not the same as religious doctrine. .

Rather convenient rationalization eh?

Any religious beliefs you don't believe in you, you declare isn't a religious belief but a political system.

LOL

Exactly.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

From what I recall, the laws quietly died off just like adultery laws (many are still on the books) have not been enforced...because the culture learned to accept things.

BTW: You got proof it was conservatives. The south was held by democrats who ran up the bigotry flag like nobody's business. But you won't claim them...it's not convenient.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

My point- and I will type slower for you this time- is that Obergefell was not the first Supreme Court Decision to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws- Loving v. Virginia was.

Your claim that a gay couple had equal rights to marry- because they could always just marry someone else of the 'correct' gender- was exactly the same as the argument made by the States that a biracial couple had equal rights because they could always choose to marry someone of the same race.

No- those are not equal rights.

The court recognized that in Loving and recognized that in Obergefell.

Actually they are equal rights because it was true. However, the courts decided to take that further. There is a difference from what you are claiming.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

What do parades have to do with anything?

The forbade blacks to marry whites and whites to marry blacks.

Nothing to do with parades at all.

I understand you have no context here.

Unless you want to read a ton of previous posts...you won't get it.

I certainly don't intend to repeat everything.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

Except uniquely, a gay marriage contract strips orphans from either a mother or father for life. Obergefell declared that kids are parties to the marriage contract. ..

Both of course are absolutely false.

Silhouette knows this but just lies in order to attack gays- and their children.

Uh oh....that sounds like leftspeak.

You know why others do things and have no problem claiming such...when in reality you have no idea why people do things.

Sad.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

Than don't believe it. I really don't give a rats hind parts. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you disagree with Obergefell. Do your imaginary gay friends know.?

How you go from my saying the 14th didn't say it.....and just about everything you read will tell you incorporation wasn't for 30 to 50 years following the14th (but why let facts get in the way) to an acknowledgement of what I agree with or disagree with is beyond me.

But you are a lefty.

 

[boedicca]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

And if a religious adoption agency says it will not let black parents adopt because that would be counter to their beliefs?

Name a reputable and recognized religion that is anti-black people.

I'm not talking about freaky cults, bub.

 

[boedicca]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

I could live with allowing them that religious exemption, although I think they are wrong. What I can't tolerate is their receiving public funds while discriminating against people.

Then you should support withdrawing public funds from virtually all educational institutions...especially those that discriminate against Asians and White People.

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against whites via "white privilege" indoctrination..

Yeah- the white supremacists keep saying that.........

Blah blah blah blah so sleepy.....zzzzzzz

You morons have so overplayed the race card that normal people no longer care.

 

[Dana7360]

If they don't receive tax payer money it's their house their rules.

Read the article. The state is allowing those organizations that receive public tax dollars the legal right to discriminate.

That's illegal and unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment requires the government to treat everyone equally under the law.

So either those organizations stop getting public tax dollars or they stop discriminating homosexual people.

It's as simple as that.

Missed "if" didn't ya?

So you didn't read the article before you posted.

It might have been a good idea to do that. Those of us who read the article did know it. There is no "if" about it.

 

[Dana7360]

Since the Lord created two kinds of parents, moms and dads that is, in my opinion, every child should have one of each.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The Lord created gays

Na, while there is no such thing as spiritual free will... there is free will.
They choice of “gay” while naïve Is one that made out of utter confusion.

You obviously show you know absolutely nothing about the gestation process of the human being.

There's a hormone wash that goes over the brain of the fetus twice in the gestation process. If the fetus is female the wash is estrogen. If the fetus is male the wash is testosterone. Or at least it's supposed to be.

It's been scientifically proven that the correct wash doesn't always happen and in some cases the wash doesn't happen at all.

What do you think will happen to a male brain if it gets an estrogen wash either both times or once? What do you think will happen to a female brain if it gets testosterone either both times or once?

Scientific studies have shown that males who got estrogen instead of testosterone have brains exactly the same as a female.

It's not a choice. They are born that way. They got the wrong hormone wash or didn't get enough of it.

Learn about the process of human gestation before you post such obviously uneducated beliefs.

LOL......

It's not funny.

It's scientific medical fact.

Google it and learn about it.

 

[Aba Incieni]

While you people argue the nuances involved with sexual perversions, I'm supporting heteros, who outnumber homos by hundreds of millions in the US alone.

#HeteroPride

#ThinkForYourself

 

[bodecea]

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

From what I recall, the laws quietly died off just like adultery laws (many are still on the books) have not been enforced...because the culture learned to accept things.

BTW: You got proof it was conservatives. The south was held by democrats who ran up the bigotry flag like nobody's business. But you won't claim them...it's not convenient.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

My point- and I will type slower for you this time- is that Obergefell was not the first Supreme Court Decision to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws- Loving v. Virginia was.

Your claim that a gay couple had equal rights to marry- because they could always just marry someone else of the 'correct' gender- was exactly the same as the argument made by the States that a biracial couple had equal rights because they could always choose to marry someone of the same race.

No- those are not equal rights.

The court recognized that in Loving and recognized that in Obergefell.

Actually they are equal rights because it was true. However, the courts decided to take that further. There is a difference from what you are claiming.

How is it "further"?

 

[bodecea]

While you people argue the nuances involved with sexual perversions, I'm supporting heteros, who outnumber homos by hundreds of millions in the US alone.

#HeteroPride

#ThinkForYourself

Good for you. I'm glad to see that you have something to be proud of.

 

[bodecea]

I could live with allowing them that religious exemption, although I think they are wrong. What I can't tolerate is their receiving public funds while discriminating against people.

Then you should support withdrawing public funds from virtually all educational institutions...especially those that discriminate against Asians and White People.

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against whites via "white privilege" indoctrination..

Yeah- the white supremacists keep saying that.........

Blah blah blah blah so sleepy.....zzzzzzz

You morons have so overplayed the race card that normal people no longer care.

Ah..the Race Card Card....never gets old.

 

[Aba Incieni]

While you people argue the nuances involved with sexual perversions, I'm supporting heteros, who outnumber homos by hundreds of millions in the US alone.

#HeteroPride

#ThinkForYourself

Good for you. I'm glad to see that you have something to be proud of.

We are the champions, my friend.

#HeteroPride

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

Than don't believe it. I really don't give a rats hind parts. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you disagree with Obergefell. Do your imaginary gay friends know.?

How you go from my saying the 14th didn't say it.....and just about everything you read will tell you incorporation wasn't for 30 to 50 years following the14th (but why let facts get in the way) to an acknowledgement of what I agree with or disagree with is beyond me.

But you are a lefty.

What the **** are you blathering about?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

Than don't believe it. I really don't give a rats hind parts. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you disagree with Obergefell. Do your imaginary gay friends know.?

How you go from my saying the 14th didn't say it.....and just about everything you read will tell you incorporation wasn't for 30 to 50 years following the14th (but why let facts get in the way) to an acknowledgement of what I agree with or disagree with is beyond me.

But you are a lefty.

What the **** are you blathering about?

How's that progressive train to nowhere in CA going for you, ******? Let's have a 2 years later update.

 

[boedicca]

Then you should support withdrawing public funds from virtually all educational institutions...especially those that discriminate against Asians and White People.

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against whites via "white privilege" indoctrination..

Yeah- the white supremacists keep saying that.........

Blah blah blah blah so sleepy.....zzzzzzz

You morons have so overplayed the race card that normal people no longer care.

Ah..the Race Card Card....never gets old.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In realityland, it's been so overused that it no longer has meaning.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

Than don't believe it. I really don't give a rats hind parts. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you disagree with Obergefell. Do your imaginary gay friends know.?

How you go from my saying the 14th didn't say it.....and just about everything you read will tell you incorporation wasn't for 30 to 50 years following the14th (but why let facts get in the way) to an acknowledgement of what I agree with or disagree with is beyond me.

But you are a lefty.

What the **** are you blathering about?

History....asswipe.

The 14th didn't extend the bill of rights to anyone.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, manufactured 50 years after the 14th was ratified is what supposedly extended them....

Even then, not all are incorporated....hence the term "selective incorporation".

Not explaining the basics to you anymore, shitstain.

That you can't keep your head out of your ass is not my problem.

 

[Syriusly]

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

From what I recall, the laws quietly died off just like adultery laws (many are still on the books) have not been enforced...because the culture learned to accept things.

BTW: You got proof it was conservatives. The south was held by democrats who ran up the bigotry flag like nobody's business. But you won't claim them...it's not convenient.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

My point- and I will type slower for you this time- is that Obergefell was not the first Supreme Court Decision to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws- Loving v. Virginia was.

Your claim that a gay couple had equal rights to marry- because they could always just marry someone else of the 'correct' gender- was exactly the same as the argument made by the States that a biracial couple had equal rights because they could always choose to marry someone of the same race.

No- those are not equal rights.

The court recognized that in Loving and recognized that in Obergefell.

Actually they are equal rights because it was true. However, the courts decided to take that further. There is a difference from what you are claiming.

'to take that further'- to actual equal rights.

Both Obergefell and Loving were decided on the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection

You believe the courts were wrong and that states should still be able to discriminate against mixed race couples and same gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

What do parades have to do with anything?

The forbade blacks to marry whites and whites to marry blacks.

Nothing to do with parades at all.

I understand you have no context here.

Unless you want to read a ton of previous posts...you won't get it.

I certainly don't intend to repeat everything.

I am still just chuckling at your equating gay freedom day parades with the bans on mixed race marriage.