House approves same-sex marriage ban ballot issue (KS)

[StuckinKS]

TOPEKA — Kansas voters will decide whether to put a same-sex marriage ban in the state Constitution.

The House today approved the proposal 86-37, sending the constitutional question to the April 5 ballot.

The amendment would define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman and state that no other relationship would be recognized for the rights of marriage.

State law already bans same-sex marriage, but supporters of the amendment said placing the prohibition in the Kansas Constitution would provide further protection of heterosexual marriage.

http://6news.ljworld.com/section/breaking/story/195096


Asswipes!!!!

[VegasWolf]

1. Gotta keep those preverts out of the good ole states. n/t

[Scout1071]

16. The Good Ol' States would be about 1,000 miles south and east of here.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Well, I'm so happy that they're finally

focusing on the "important" issues that directly impact our daily lives and that we desperate need them to focus on.

Sarcasm off.

[BOSSHOG]

3. "Further Protection of Heterosexual Marriage???"

Banning people who love each other from getting married is going to "protect" marriage? Such a ban is going to result in less divorce, less spousal abuse, less incest, all of which are very prevalent in red states? When will they start constructing the ovens?

[sui generis]

4. exactly HOW

does denying same-sex marriage protect heterosexual marriage? I want it spelled out, because I don't get it. In their own words.

I'd submit that same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage. Where do the twain meet?

Still not getting it . . .

[Occulus]

22. because

1. We "choose" to be "perverts"
2. We're "after their children"
3. The Bible calls it 'abomination'.

The Bible is the root cause of all hatred toward homosexuals, by the way. It always comes back to that.

Explain to me again why I shoudn't paint with a broad brush.

[soupkitchen]

5. A triumph for Freedumb lovers everywhere

[Maat]

6. There has to be a way to effectively fight this ignorance.

Luckily, I've never been to Kansas, and have no plans to go there.

[MuseRider]

8. We are working on it

but we have to defeat the Phelps petiton in Topeka first, it comes up for a vote a month earlier than this will and we just got started, it was just put up to a vote and we only have until the 2nd of March. The marriage ammendment did not pass before, this has to do with the outsiders who have invaded and pushed this issue to the front of everything else.

Kansas is a neat place, you should stop by if you ever go through, I would be happy to show you around.

[Maat]

18. Thanks!

n/t

[GoddessOfGuinness]

27. How about a march to Topeka

ala the civil rights marches to Washington of the 60s?

[Scout1071]

15. Sorry, but don't exactly think that is fair or nice

There are alot of people, like myself, in Kansas that are blue through and through. Don't be fooled by the RED map....makes it look like we all voted one way. If you take a closer look, you'd see that Eastern Kansas is actually quite blue....or a dark purple at the least.

What else have you not tried that you know you don't like?

[Maat]

19. Sorry, didn't mean to offend progressive Kansans.

But I have some religious right fundamentalist evangelical relatives out there who frustrate me greatly.

[StuckinKS]

20. Heck, I live in Wichita

and I have some religious right fundamentalist evangelical relatives here too.

I testified before the House committee that heard arguments on this issue. The Rev. Asswipe Terry Fox had spread his hate the day before and had been welcomed with open arms by many House members including Wichita Rep. Bonnie Huy. After testimony, I tried to reason with Rep. Huy because she had exposed her ignorance with a number of questions and comments, such as:

1. "Where does the Constitution mention separation of church and state?"

2. "Name two instances where gays have been mistreated in Kansas?"

3. "I have some gay friends and they aren't bothered by this."

I asked her to consult her gay friends further about the effect of this legislation and she said, "Well, it's not like I have a hundred of them." I told her about the unfathomable number of times gays had been called "faggot" and she said that everyone was called names and it just made a person stronger. I told her I would have to raise my sons with thick skins, especially my African-Ammerican son so he might be ready to hear the "n" word. She said, "No one says that word in Wichita!" So I told her that my uncle, a member of Terry Fox's congragation, used the word all the time.

That shut her stupid trap.

[Maat]

21. Good for you for speaking up!

I've given up on INFORMED relatives. When I confront them with the facts, all I get is a rambling rant back.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Proof that direct democracy is breeding ground for tyranny of the majority

....against the minority.

[teakee]

9. Hey, fellow wheat-head!

What is next for Kansas? Phelpsville?

I know 2 teenage boys that are blessed to be adopted by same sex parents, they had man/woman parents---drugs, drunks, and the kids actually seen mom prostitute herself. Foster care-- they got to do nothing, own nothing.

One of these boys is my son's best friend and is one of the most compassionate, 'wise beyond his years', honest young men I have ever met.

Hypocrites are plentiful in Kansas.

[StuckinKS]

14. I'm a Wichitan

who just moved back with my partner and three kids after eleven years in California. I testified against the amendment before the House committee last week...to no avail. My only hope is that we can at least keep it from being approved by fewer than 80% of the electorate. Our local paper (Wichita Eagle) is doing a human interest story on our family this weekend and I will do my best to convince all the fence sitters and liberal allies to get off their duffs and vote against this on April 5.

[teakee]

25. Bless you and I will be voting.

Those bozos in Topeka made me want to throw up. I'm between Wichita and Topeka, in a small town and I hope the people in this town remember the two boys that have flourished since being adopted by this wonderful women.

Wow, I will try and get a copy of the 'Eagle'; good for your family....show the misinformed that you, your partner and children are,indeed just a family like everyone else. (Probably healthier too, LOL)

Good Luck.

[Occulus]

10. A contract, huh?

I see. We really aren't equal under the law. They're rubbing it in our faces.

Hey, bigots out there who might read this- you do realize this puts us on a slow boil, right? We're not exactly all 'limp-wristed dress-wearing girly-man fagboys' or whatever it is you call us in private. My guess is you could talk that kind of trash around me and never, ever know I was gay.

We blend right in, many of us, so fuck off, ok? Get in my face about how bad or 'evil' homosexuals are and you just might get a faceful of fist. I'm tired of just sitting there and taking it and there are a lot of people who just simply don't even want to listen to why we should even be 'allowed to exist' (yup, I've heard that one before too).

If that makes me seem dangerous to those who don't like gay people, good. I want them to think I'm dangerous. It's my single best defense, don't you know; it'll help just keep 'em away from me. I'm done taking it, and if I'm feeling threatened, I'm done trying to reason as well.

I won't go looking for trouble, but I'll just deal with it from now on if trouble comes to me. I'm done playing 'nice'.

[BR_Parkway]

11. I noticed the "contract" - so, if I could enter into that contract as a

women, but not as a man - isn't that discrimination based on my sex? Not saying my sexual orientation, just my sex. Some of these "shoot first, think about what we're doing later" groups are going to wind up providing a very fertile legal ground.

[sui generis]

13. and what next

so if I adopt my partner and he adopts me and we have sex is that an incestuous relationship? If I'm queer am I prevented from legally adopting an adult?

They're going to have to write all kinds of arcane legislation, including a standard "test" for homosexuality. That's really going to be fun. Prove you're NOT queer. Or rather, prove you ARE straight? WTF? Are they going to put it on our driver's licenses or something?

[dubyaD40web]

12. I hate this damn state!

I can't wait to vote NO on this one!

[msongs]

17. Jesus equates divorce to adultery against GOD...is that in their

constitution too? Hell no, they would have to honor Jesus to do that.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[bushisanidiot]

23. FUCK YOU KANSAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHEN DO I GET TO VOTE TO LIMIT HETEROSEXUALS RIGHTS?!!!!!

WHEN??!!!

[teakee]

26. Not all Kansans are idiots......

Freakin Phelps must be having a happy fit.



:hurts: I'm sorry for the fools in this state.

[tx_dem41]

24. What do you expect from a Southern state!

;-)

[daleo]

28. A constitutional amendment must require a large majority

Doesn't something like this usually require 2/3 or more? I wouldn't think this is a done deal yet.

It seems to me that if same sex marriage contract rights can be denied by an amendment, any political or civil right could be in danger of denial. I just don't get the legal reasoning behind any of this.

[StuckinKS]

29. It needed 2\3 from the House and Senate

which was obtained. Now it needs a simple majority of the electorate for it to fuck up our constitution.

It will definitely pass on April 5. I just want it to pass by less than 80%...as a moral victory.

[daleo]

30. Can it be appealed to the federal supreme court?

Here in Canada, the federal Supreme Court has essentially said that the federal parliament had better pass a law to permit same sex marriage, or they would rule in its favor judicially. So, that is what the Liberal government is preparing now. There is some debate, with the Conservative Party grandstanding against the change, but most people assume that the Supreme Court would strike down any law that didn't pave the way for same sex marriage, on grounds of the equal rights provisions of the Charter of Rights.

I don't see how the Supreme Court in the U.S. could avoid a similar ruling, but then I am no expert on constitutional law. It just seems so obvious that equal rights demands it. But after 2000, it is hard to have much faith in the independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suppose you can still vote with your feet, out of Kansas. Although I guess that's not always so easy.

[StuckinKS]

31. It could be overturned by the US Supreme Court

under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It seems the only way to overturn a state constitutional amendment (other than repealing same amendment) is through the U.S. Constitution. Our House committee heard this same argument by a well regarded Constitutional scholar but they ignored it. They also ignored the Kansas Bar Association calling it one of the worst written pieces of legislation ever. Bigotry and ideology always trumps common sense and adherence to the law, at least in the current Kansas legislature.

Getting a hearing by the SCOTUS could take a while and the outcome is not certain. The ACLU is recommending a cautious and methodical approach to filing court cases on same-sex marriage so we don't lose and set a bad legal precedent that is more difficult to overcome.

I just moved back to Kansas from California to take care of sick in-laws so I will stay for now. If my family's well-being gets threatened, I will say goodbye and kiss my ass. Part of me likes staying here to piss off the fundies who would be only too happy for all the fags to either leave or go back in the closet. THAT is their agenda, along with "special rights" for married heterosexuals.

[daleo]

32. Very interesting response.

I guess you would want to make sure that a federal Supreme Court challenge has every i dotted and every t crossed. Good luck. I know if rights can be taken away from one group they can be taken away from any other.

It's ironic that you are there to help your family, when these people would claim you are a threat to families.

I tend to agree that the real agenda is back to the closet. I keep hearing (even here in Canada) that opponents don't mind civil unions, just marriage. It may be true in some cases, but I have come to suspect that is just a tactical position on their part. They would quickly renege on that too. Lots would like to go all the way back to the days when homosexuality was against the law. Slippery slope arguments work in both directions. Surrender on this, and who knows where it ends.