Great LTTE on KS marriage amendment

[proud2BlibKansan]

Marriage amendment

The proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution will have no effect on same-sex marriage (which is already illegal). Instead, the amendment is about employment benefits, and it will affect many more heterosexual than gay couples.

Section B of the proposed amendment states that “no relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.” Many employers will see this as state sanction for denying benefits to unmarried partners of their employees, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Are you or anyone you know in a long-term unmarried heterosexual partnership? Perhaps the choice not to marry is based on hard economic choices involving health insurance, pensions, etc. These people, in greater numbers than the gay and lesbian couples in the state of Kansas, will be affected by this amendment.

I am Catholic, married, and a mother of two, and I will be voting against it to protect the employment benefits of all Kansans.

Rachel Hile Bassett

Lawrence

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/local1/11252269.htm

[sui generis]

1. She hit it right on the mark:

When you make a law that allows discrimination against a group of people who by appearance are no different from any other group of people, you open the door to discrimination against anyone.

So it's not that you can fire someone for being gay - it's that you can fire someone for presuming they are gay. Furthermore, if you don't like someone, just accuse them of being gay and fire them - poof, you're not required to pay unemployment.

It's time to shove this back down their throats. The ONLY people who really want this are insurance companies. They have a deeply vested financial interest and fiduciary obligation to their wall street investors to sell coverage to as many "single" people as possible at single premium risk rates.

In fact if they could get away with not insuring anyone at all except as individuals you can bet they would do it in a heartbeat.

[atommom]

2. There are also reports from states that have banned gay marriage...

Unmarried men who commit domestic violence are using the new law to argue that "domestic" only applies to married couples. At least one sentence has been reduced as a result.

And of course, many unmarried couples are losing the benefits they used to have.

http://ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/200262

[beyurslf]

9. This doesn't affect KS because our DV laws clearly state any people

who co-habitate regardless of their relationship or gender.

[Slyder]

3. Is it possible

that the amendment requires that any "incident of marriage", like inheriting property and holding medical power of attorney, would be available ONLY to married couples? For instance, could a child or friend still inherit through a will?

And I think I know who the RW will go after with the next amendment. All couples who have divorced and remarried are going to be required to return to their original spouses. Doesn't Mark 10:11 require this? Jesus did not denounce gay people, but he sure had a bee in his bonnet about divorced folks!

[ComerPerro]

4. Didn't you know that the Bible is meant to be taken literally

but you can pick and choose which parts you like and those that you don't want to follow?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Cool

Does that mean I can start smiting people I don't like? :)

[atommom]

7. Smite away!

(As long as I'm not one of the smitees.)

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. No problem atommom

You appear rather unsmite-able to me.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. LOL . . . n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Yes it is possible

Of course the supporters are denying it but the possibility is there that this law will be far more deterimental to non gay couples than anyone expects.

[kslib]

12. Dude, you have to change your avatar.

It's making me hungry.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. VOTE "NO" . . .

.
Holy Crapola, there's potential to make legally null and void all kinds of legal stuff that presently favor homosexuals and their children if this STUPID discriminatory Kansas constitutional amendment is passed on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 election. In other words, stuff that's legally favorable now in Kansas for homosexuals and their kids may be chucked out if this amendment wins!

In addition, there's potentiality that this amendment may impact, negatively, heterosexual couples who've contracted in some legal manner to receive or grant benefits in Kansas law similar to marrieds. Talk about stupid amendment wording . . .

Wow. Is this hateful and despicable crapola!! It may come back to bite the hateful religion-into-law crowd in Kansas and their carpet-bagging supporters too!

This is the Kansas ballot question that would amendment the Kansas constitution if it passes . . . and would not change anything if it does not pass . . .

VOTE NO !!!!

"Shall the following be adopted?

"16. Marriage (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.

"(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

"YES

"NO . . ."

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11303693.htm (as last visited Monday, April 4, 2005)

.


.