Anti-Gay Amendments Gain Steam In 3 More States

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012805amend.htm

Constitutional amendments that would bar same-sex marriage are gaining momentum in three more states - South Dakota, Kansas, and Maryland.

In South Dakota, which already has a so-called Defense of Marriage law, the proposed amendment has 55 House sponsors and 23 Senate sponsors, virtually guaranteeing that it will clear South Dakota's 105-member Legislature.

Lawmakers say they will put the issue on the 2006 ballot.

[bbernardini]

1. Democrats across the country should introduce Anti-Repub amendments...

Then perhaps they would see how ridiculous they sound.

[Rowdyboy]

2. So, in 2006 Erlich will win re-election in Maryland, and Sebelius

will lose in Kansas. Thankfully, Tim Johnson doesn't come back up until 2008.

Republicans have us by the balls on gay marriage and they're going to use it everywhere in every election until they've completed the job. Get used to it.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Maryland is NOT Kansas. Erlich can be defeated.

However, I'm concerned about Seblius.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Sure he CAN be defeated....But if gay marriage is on the ballot there

conservative turnout will almost certainly be enough to re-elect him. Hell, I'm still amazed he was elected in the first place.

[Weeple]

16. Totally

He stole this election. Hes just awful.

[StuckinKS]

8. Sebelius may not be affected

The House is rushing this amendment through for an April election. The Phelps-like pastors Wright and Fox of Wichita have made it clear that they do not want this delayed until November when Sebelius is up for reelection. And they will get what they want.

I testified before the House committee hearing this on Wednesday. We (the opponents) had twice the number of speakers as the proponents of the day before. The hearing ran late into the evening but we changed no minds. Their side focused on Biblical quotes and our's focused on personal stories and legal and constitutional opinions.

This is a super-DOMA that wishes to take rights away from gay citizens. It possesses a "part B" which states that, "NO relationship except marriage (defined before as between man and woman) will be entitled to the rights and incidences of marriage." This endangers all contractual agreements between gay and straight un-married couples. It endangers our domestic partnership benefits from our employers. It may even endanger my three adopted children from California since they were jointly adopted and that does not exist in Kansas.

Needless to say, I will likely be depressed for quite a while as this plays out, unless it is unexpectedly stopped by the House.

[Rowdyboy]

13. Well, I'm glad they're not trying to hold it for November 2006

Still, living in Mississippi, I can understand how badly it sucks. Thanks for having the guts to testify and TRY to influence the close minded bastards.

I'm so glad my partner and I don't have or plan to have children. On top of all the other problems of childrearing, you have the additional pain of uncertainty over the legal standing of your relationship and strong societal disapproval.

[StuckinKS]

14. Well, we're Kansans but just moved back here from California

The in-laws are in bad health and since we practice morality and family values, we felt our place was here. At least for a while.

It really took no guts to testify (just a good babysitter for my three young sons) but I cannot imagine being out and gay in much of the Deep South, as are you and your partner. But many in California could not imagine the same of us in Kansas.

I will not allow others to define me. Our family is exactly what we say it is and no law will change that. It is those "rights and incidences" associated with marriage that are also important, though. So, I told the House committee that if they fucked up my domestic partner benefits, I would just go on Medicaid and they could pay for my healthcare. Fuckers.

If things look too dark and our family is at too much risk, it will be goodbye to Kansas and welcome back to California. I just don't like to cut and run because these asswipes deal in fear and I am not afraid of them.

[Neecy]

15. Yes, the bill is particularly gruesome...

What makes this bill so odious is that, as you said, it will also eliminate the benefits of civil unions. To go this far is simply mean-spirited and spiteful - I'd like to say they overreached, but sadly, in Kansas I doubt that the spirit of fair play will enter into the debate.

Personally, I think that they're just playing into a corporate agenda - they don't want to provide domestic partner benefits, only do (on occasion) for PR purposes, and oh, isn't is sad that the gub'mit says these expensive benefits are no longer recognized? More money for us, Medicaid for the rest.

(I'm a Californian who's been in Kansas for a year and a half now - it's truly another planet).

[StuckinKS]

17. Hi, Neecy!

I'm in Wichita. Where are you?

My partner and I lived in the SF Bay area for 11 years until last spring when we moved back. We weighed the pros and cons and it was definitely a close call. I like a good fight, but at times like these, my psyche takes a beating.

The Wichita Eagle is doing a "family piece" on our family next weekend and the writer seemed amazed to finally find a gay couple that would allow themselves to be featured openly with pictures and no pseudonyms. My hope is that this article will open some eyes, though I know it will have no effect on the amendment vote. That will pass with a majority of 70% or better. Another planet...that is an apt description. I dream of the progressive Kansas I was taught about in school.

[Neecy]

20. hiya!

I'm in Johnson County. It's not as red as I'd expected - most of my neighbors had Kerry signs up and we had a great turnout for a MoveOn bake sale over the summer. There really *are* liberals in Kansas, and good ones at that.

Still, I miss living in an area where being a Republican is a freakish occurance (I'm from SF as well). I miss the weather, the coffeehouses, hell - I even miss MUNI.

Congratulations on the piece in the Eagle, as well as your courage in testifying against this horrible, draconion legislation. Is it appearing in the Sunday edition? I should be able to find a copy of it here somewhere. I'd love to read about your family.

[StuckinKS]

21. I don't know yet

which day it will run. The writer is actually going to KC for the weekend and will continue her interviewing when she gets back. I was interviewed by the AP while in Topeka on Wednesday and that story was picked up by the KC Star. I'm the 44 year old Wichitan in the article.

In California, we lived in Berkeley, SF, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Oakley. We kept moving east until we could afford to buy a house.

Many repugs in CA are of the more moderate type. The judge who did the adoptions of my two youngest served as Asst. Atty. General with Edwin Meese under Ronald Reagan. Her husband is a past head of CA's Republican party. She always spoke quite highly of our care for the foster children and truly celebrated once we adopted.

[Hizzy]

3. fear as a governing principle

I simply can't understand the fear that drives people to even consider legislation like this.

[Dhalgren]

4. Can't we arrive at some acceptable plan to just go ahead

and divide the nation physically? Without bloodshed if possible? This is becoming unbearable. The fascists have completely mastered the art of demagoguery and the ill-educated, uninformed populace will follow along, swallowing hook, line, and sinker what ever it is being fed to them. "Democrats want to kill all unborn babies!" "Democrats want to force you to have sex with queers!" "Democrats want to take all of your money away from you and give it to murdering rag-heads!" And the faithful legions of frightened, ignorant, pretend Christians will dutifully march to the polls and vote how they are told. If they are told to kill us, they will - and I think everyone is coming to understand this.

[arwalden]

5. Wake Me Up When The Liberal-Christians Finally Grow A Pair...

... and start shouting-down their RW-Christian counterparts. If history is any indication of future performance, then it would seem that we're in for a very long wait.

There are many folks here to take issue with frequent harsh criticism of fundamental Christianity and fundamental Christians. We are often reminded that fundamental RW conservative Christians aren't "real" Christians... and that "real" Christians don't support faith-based anti-gay bigotry.

Well... okay... if that claim is true, then we should soon hear a deafening chorus of liberal-Christians who will speak out against these anti-gay laws and amendments.

I imagine that if these liberal-Christians joined forces with everyone else who opposes the initiatives, then the RW fundamentalists would be defeated.

Howerver... when someone or some group remains silent... if they don't speak out in opposition to these initiatives... then I see that as giving their tacit approval and consent. Some call it "stealth-bigotry."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Many will be watching to see who actually speaks out and who offers their silent consent.

[jdj]

6. so, it is that Gays ARE the WMDs?

this is confusing.

liberal and moderate christians are going to have to oppose these folks.

I think it's kind of like the oboe player in the band taking on the cheerleading squad.

But they have to do it.

[Weeple]

18. I agree totally

Real Christians dont hate. What would jesus do, I mean come on.

[arwalden]

22. Hi Weeple! Welcome To DU!

:hi:

[Technowitch]

9. And with each of these laws passed, my United States gets smaller...

[AlCzervik]

10. I'm so tired of them targeting a group, and i'm pissed at the gay bashing

All of those who think antii-gay is of better think about what group will be next.

[freestyle]

11. We stopped them in MD before, and we will again

We also could be, pending the outcome of a case making it through the courts, the second state to have marriage equality. Then the shit will hit the fan, but I think we can again beat back attempts to amend the constitution. A rally of 1,000 is not a lot. The rally for equal rights in 2002 before anti-discrimination legislation finally passed was much larger.

[donheld]

19. We seem to live in a land of hate values

Anyway Welcome to DU :hi: Weeple, :hi: StuckinKS, :hi: Hizzy