Kansas Embarrassment

[Guest]

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 1601
A PROPOSITION to amend article 15 of the constitution of the state of Kansas by adding a new section thereto, concerning marriage.

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Kansas, two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the Senate and two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the House of Representatives concurring therein:

Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection: Article 15 of the constitution of the state of Kansas is amended by adding a new section thereto to read as follows:

‘‘§ 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.’’

Sec. 2. The following statement shall be printed on the ballot with the amendment as a whole:

‘‘Explanatory statement. There is currently no constitutional provision regarding marriage. There is a statute, enacted by the legislature, that defines marriage as a civil contract between two persons who are of opposite sex and declares all other marriages to be contrary to public policy and void.

‘‘A vote for this proposition would amend the Kansas constitution to incorporate into it the definition of marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman only and the declaration that any other marriage is contrary to public policy and void. The proposed constitutional amendment also would prohibit the state from recognizing any other legal relationship that would entitle the parties in the relationship to the rights or incidents of marriage.

‘‘A vote against this proposition would not amend the constitution, in which case the current statute that defines marriage would remain unchanged but could be amended by future acts of the legislature or modified by judicial interpretation.’’

Sec. 3. This resolution, if approved by two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the Senate, and two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the House of Representatives, shall be entered on the journals, together with the yeas and nays. The secretary of state shall cause this resolution to be published as provided by law and shall cause the proposed amendment to be submitted to the electors of the state at the general election in April in the year 2005 unless a special election is called at a sooner date by concurrent resolution of the legislature, in which case it shall be submitted to the electors of the state at the special election.

I hereby certify that the above CONCURRENT RESOLUTION originated
in the SENATE, and was adopted by that body
President of the Senate.
Secretary of the Senate.
Adopted by the HOUSE
Speaker of the House.
Chief Clerk of the House.


We took our children with us today to vote NO. They were excited, enjoyed the entire voting process, held the voting ballot to the machine to be sucked in (oooh).

And our logical, analytical, ten-year-old daughter wanted to know why other people have a problem with something like this. Why lawmakers are angry with these people who just want to get married. Smart kid.

Ah, well. In our fair state, it's currently passing - with YES votes almost two to one.

So we shall soon join the other 19(?) states that have already passed one of these unconstitutional amendments to the constitution.

I'm so ashamed.

 

[minsue]

I know the feeling, Sarah. I got a nice double whammy of shame last Nov when our fair state voted for the constitutional ammendment, a law requiring citizenship to be proven for access to any govt services (luckily being interpreted VERY narrowly by our Dem Att Gen considering proponents wanted it clear down to police, fire, libraries, etc ) and Bush all on the same glorious evening.

I'll wallow with ya.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It's not about hate.

It's just that all dem faggots are gonna burn.

In vella's place, with the shag carpeting and drinks.

Really, we've made it quite preferable to Heaven. It's so trendy, we even get bicurious angels poking their heads in from time to time.

 

[carsonshepherd]

We've got that coming up too, sarahh.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I suppose the people are speaking.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

And WHAT people!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I guess these... amongst other people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1555000/images/_1559871_flags_afp300.jpg

 

[Guest]

Your arrogance is more fun when you're drunk, Joe.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Your arrogance is more fun when you're drunk, Joe.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Posting a picture of Americans when talking about who voted for some legislation in America is an act of arrogance... and posting a monkey to represent the same people isn't an act of arrogance?

What kind of definition for arrogance are you working with?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I suppose the people are speaking.

Unfortunately, the majority of the voters will usually vote for crap like that. Even in Caslifornia, a state with a strong liberal reputation, a similar law was passed by the public a few year ago. Actually, it wasn't as bad because it allows for Civil Unions. The law being proposed in Kansas doesn't even allow that.

Most people, even if they don't care what people do in private, would oppose extending the right of marriage to gay people.

 

[Guest]

I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Legal experts at nearby universities continue to discuss the unconstitutionality of such an amendment. They propose it will be attacked and stricken, ya da ya da.

However, this state is spending an outrageous amount of money to push this through. We have many other issues in serious need of attention at present.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The monkey I posted wasn't to represent Americans, Joe!

The Orangutang I posted was to represent you.

 

[Guest]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Posting a picture of Americans when talking about who voted for some legislation in America is an act of arrogance... and posting a monkey to represent the same people isn't an act of arrogance?

What kind of definition for arrogance are you working with?

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Just because "the people spoke" doesn't necessary make it right, or fair, or equitable, or even constitutional. There have been a few other issues in this country, since overturned, in which the people spoke - incorrectly.

But Joe, no matter the issue, you always seem to take the counter. Why? That is the arrogance of which I speak.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The monkey I posted wasn't to represent Americans, Joe!

The Orangutang I posted was to represent you.

He has a point there, Burley. Let's face it, the title of the pic is "We the Righteous People."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The monkey I posted wasn't to represent Americans, Joe!

The Orangutang I posted was to represent you.

Which is kinda personal... unwarranted, I should think. I haven't said anything bad about you or anyone else.

Past that, in the end, how I voted isn't an issue. If the number was accurate and it was a 2-to-1 situation, that says a lot about what the people want. That's a pretty strong margin.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Legal experts at nearby universities continue to discuss the unconstitutionality of such an amendment. They propose it will be attacked and stricken, ya da ya da.

However, this state is spending an outrageous amount of money to push this through. We have many other issues in serious need of attention at present.

But, but, but

Who will hate the gays if they don't. Don't you see your ripping them apart with your real issues? How will they fuel their irrational hatreds and distracting moralistic campaigns to distract themselves of the sin, stigmata, and total lack of hope that their lives have become. I mean, be fair.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Just because "the people spoke" doesn't necessary make it right, or fair, or equitable, or even constitutional. There have been a few other issues in this country, since overturned, in which the people spoke - incorrectly.

But Joe, no matter the issue, you always seem to take the counter. Why? That is the arrogance of which I speak.

I never said it was right or fair... just that it seemed as though the people, through their vote, were making a strong point about what they want and don't. There are issues I don't "counter"--but the issue of "the people who voted are no more than animals" isn't one I agree with.

 

[cantdog]

Then deal with them. Governments are essentially supererogatory. People are going to deal with their difficulties irrespective of government. These laws are going to be enforced by extortion, correct? Any number can play.

In Portland, Maine, there is now a co-op, grown out of one of the local credit unions, which insures people. Gay couples are using it to cover one another for life insurances and health insurances. The Pine Tree Legal association makes durable P.O.A.'s available and wills. There are ways to circumvent the hate-based.

The custody of minor children may require home grown extortion to enforce, however, and discrimination in housing or employment. It's an appeal to the reasoning faculty. You can't continue with no knees, people see that.

 

[cantdog]

This tyranny of the hateful majority is indeed the people speaking. The goons were the employers, the business community, speaking, when they torched people's houses, wives, and kids.

The union members soon began doing their own speaking. It was bloody and protracted, but it was ultimately resolved by the right to unionize.

This falls into the category of things which cause revolution, Joe, as we discussed on Lauren's thread about the rights of European mankind. You should expand your ideas to include the broader picture. The people here are speaking unwisely, and their society will pay the price. The gays are one of the first groups the fascists attacked in the middle of the last century.

People are more willing to go to bat for gays now than they were then. Across the Atlantic they have full rights in the charter. There is an example of how civilized people conduct their affairs.

 

[Guest]

Then deal with them. Governments are essentially supererogatory. People are going to deal with their difficulties irrespective of government. These laws are going to be enforced by extortion, correct? Any number can play.

In Portland, Maine, there is now a co-op, grown out of one of the local credit unions, which insures people. Gay couples are using it to cover one another for life insurances and health insurances. The Pine Tree Legal association makes durable P.O.A.'s available and wills. There are ways to circumvent the hate-based.

The custody of minor children may require home grown extortion to enforce, however, and discrimination in housing or employment. It's an appeal to the reasoning faculty. You can't continue with no knees, people see that.

Currently in Kansas 1 out of 3 gay couples have children. (from the Lawrence Journal World)

Future custody aspects are very frightening.

 

[cantdog]

They will lose. There is little legal recourse. Will they do nothing? Just accept it?

 

[Guest]

They will lose. There is little legal recourse. Will they do nothing? Just accept it?

Remember the Jayhawkers?

Lotta pissed off gay friends in Kansas right now.

Which is what it is going to take to fix this insanity, I know, I know.

(Ya wanna get drunk? I'm in a terrible mood.)

 

[blackhaus7]

I'm surprised, Sarahh. I voted no, but I knew it was pissing in the wind (and considering how the wind blows in my part of Kansas, an extremely unpleasant exercise)several weeks ago. Quite frankly, I figured it to pass at least 70/30.

 

[Op_Cit]

Well at least they're going about it the right way (within the context of this democratic republic): That is, making it an amendment and submitting it for the approval of the people. (As opposed to judicial interpretation, or making simple legislation.) That's what this democracy is all about.

Now, whether the feds step in and say it's not a 10th amendment (US) issue is another thing. If they do, you'll have the anti-judicial activists ranting and raging.

Personnally, I hope it goes through. The sooner the myth of democracy as ethical is shattered in the average person's mind the better.

(Remember I'm an anarchist: I'm against the mob telling anyone what they can or cannot do.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Currently in Kansas 1 out of 3 gay couples have children. (from the Lawrence Journal World)

Future custody aspects are very frightening.

How do gay couples have children? I thought that was part of what the flap was about. If the children are from a previus marriage, the blood relative will have custody. If they were adopted, the person listed on the order of adoption will have custody. If they were the results of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood, the blood relative will have custody.

The gay couples may not have to split up. Unless there is an anti-sodomy law on the books and it is being enforced, they can remain a committed couples. This is not as good as marriage but it is a lot better than the situation a few years ago.