Kansas Embarrassment

[Colleen Thomas]

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.

I don't know what your legal experts think to do. If it passes by rule and is added to the constituion, it becomes part of constitutional law.

There is no judicial reviw. In fact, your jusiciary will have no choice but to up hold it, as it is now part of the constitution.

The only theoretical grounds for review would be federal review. And in that, you would have slim to no chance of getting it stricken from the constition.

the very reason states are turning to this method of enforcement is that is short circuts the courts. Something they cannot do with legislation.

 

[Belegon]

...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

James Madison in Essay Number 10 of The Federalist Papers
(arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)

Our founding father is here talking about the very problem we are facing. In a true democracy the word of the majority becomes law. However, the United States was not founded by a majority, but by minorities who had banded together in the idea that by doing so a tyranny of the majority could be avoided.

The present time is as dangerous or more so for the true freedoms in this great nation as ever was the 1850's or the 1810's, let alone the guerilla victory of the original thirteen colonies.

When the majority conspires to remove the basic rights of any of our citizens they are themselves acting contrary to what I would consider the ideal which we often proclaim as "AMERICA!"

Freedom is not defined for me by any other. It is by it's very nature something one can only define for oneself.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

James Madison in Essay Number 10 of The Federalist Papers
(arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)

Our founding father is here talking about the very problem we are facing. In a true democracy the word of the majority becomes law. However, the United States was not founded by a majority, but by minorities who had banded together in the idea that by doing so a tyranny of the majority could be avoided.

The present time is as dangerous or more so for the true freedoms in this great nation as ever was the 1850's or the 1810's, let alone the guerilla victory of the original thirteen colonies.

When the majority conspires to remove the basic rights of any of our citizens they are themselves acting contrary to what I would consider the ideal which we often proclaim as "AMERICA!"

Freedom is not defined for me by any other. It is by it's very nature something one can only define for oneself.

Conversely, you must always consider the will of the majority, least we become a country run by the loudest or best funded special interest group.

The will of the majority here is plain. Americans aren't ready for Gay marriage. the will of the majority was plain after the civil war too. Americans weren't ready for integration or for blacks to have civil rights.

The will of the majority is muteable. Blacks earned myriad small victories, across all regions and states, save the very deep south. When the will of the majority had reached a point where it no longer was so obviously against them, the final phases of the civil rights movement went to work in the heartland of the strongest opponents.

Proponents of gay marriage tried to short cut, to skip the largely thankless ground work and just score a big win in the courts. They got that win in Mass. and it has cost us all in most other states. As long as the will of the majority is so solidly against something, forcing it down thier throats is going to provioke this kind of groundswell popular movement.

When you flaunt the will of the majority so badly, you give rise to men Like Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay. Otherwise sane and responsible people will vote in their anger for demogogues and extremists.

It's just the way it works.

 

[Belegon]

Conversely, you must always consider the will of the majority, least we become a country run by the loudest or best funded special interest group.

The will of the majority here is plain. Americans aren't ready for Gay marriage. the will of the majority was plain after the civil war too. Americans weren't ready for integration or for blacks to have civil rights.

The will of the majority is muteable. Blacks earned myriad small victories, across all regions and states, save the very deep south. When the will of the majority had reached a point where it no longer was so obviously against them, the final phases of the civil rights movement went to work in the heartland of the strongest opponents.

Proponents of gay marriage tried to short cut, to skip the largely thankless ground work and just score a big win in the courts. They got that win in Mass. and it has cost us all in most other states. As long as the will of the majority is so solidly against something, forcing it down thier throats is going to provioke this kind of groundswell popular movement.

When you flaunt the will of the majority so badly, you give rise to men Like Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay. Otherwise sane and responsible people will vote in their anger for demogogues and extremists.

It's just the way it works.

Agreed. Rarely is a worthwhile change of any kind accomplished by taking the shortest route. I don't blame people for trying to accomplish such a change in the shortest time possible, but I do feel that this is one more area of life in which patience is a virtue.

I find it hard to blame the proponents of gay marriage for trying to actually accomplish their goals in a time frame that would allow for them to reap the rewards of their labors within their own lifetimes.

What scares me is people who have confused what is popular with what is moral. As I am sure it does you Colly.

It is my hope that the trend now developing will be slowed in the courts and through the indignation of the few who will not shut up even though they are unpopular.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The opponents are also trying the shortcut option, taking advantage of a current atmosphere of staggering ignorance about homosexuality to pound through a few lies about the safety of the children under a well-funded campaign. They, being the leaders of the anti-gay movement, know they are in a losing battle with time. The younger generation is not only more accepting of homosexuality, they know far more out homosexuals personally as friends and co-workers (can put a face to the cause so to speak). Also the younger generations have become wholly interested in the whole thing to a degree similar to white college activists in the 60s. There is lesbian and gay chic, more mediums deal with lesbian and gay issues and included lesbian and gay characters. Furthermore, foreign countries have begun accepting more and more their homosexual members and extending them full rights of being treated as a human. None of these countries has collapsed or become any more noticably sinful and none of them has been swallowed into the fiery recesses of Hell as an eternal warning of God's anger. More and more statistics show that gays and lesbians are proving to be more stable than their heterosexual counterparts and further research points to the elasticity of gender and further mediums explore this (art, poetry, comics, books).

Overall, the homophobes in X years in the future will be just the same as the integration defenders of the 50s. They "seemed" to have the will of the majority, they feed the same old bullshit, played on the same old petty insecurities and hatreds, and similarily they will be made out to be the villains. Time will score a victory for the gay marriage campaign.

What we're seeing now is the last desperate gasp, an attempt to fight time, try to cement the hate in stone while the closed-minded fuckers are still alive, before they've all croaked, before the evidence reaches the boondocks, before their constituency actually meets gay people face-to-face and see they're humans.

They may do it, but I'm still willing to bet that this will just go in the chapter of the history book like the 50s where a giant push of conservatism heady on a McCarthy style victory attempted to cement an irrationally discriminatory way of life and failed as younger generations rose with increasingly more open views and more information.

It's one of the few things in politics I'm willing to pin hope and belief to.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Agreed. Rarely is a worthwhile change of any kind accomplished by taking the shortest route. I don't blame people for trying to accomplish such a change in the shortest time possible, but I do feel that this is one more area of life in which patience is a virtue.

I find it hard to blame the proponents of gay marriage for trying to actually accomplish their goals in a time frame that would allow for them to reap the rewards of their labors within their own lifetimes.

What scares me is people who have confused what is popular with what is moral. As I am sure it does you Colly.

It is my hope that the trend now developing will be slowed in the courts and through the indignation of the few who will not shut up even though they are unpopular.

Gay marriage is a lightening rod. It's an issue that is so emotionally loaded, it dosen't surprise me that it has become part of a larger program.

In the states where it has passed, the hands of the courts are tied. Only if you can bring suit that the amendment was passed in a way that didn't conform on proceedural grounds will you get it over turned and even then, it will be passed in a better worded form the next go round.

You ronly true chance in the federal courts is to argue it violates the principal of equal protection under the law. That's an iffy proposition to argue before a fairly solidly conservative high court. especially if you have already been turned down by a newly conservative appeals court.

My chances of ever being able to marry have been more significantly damaged by the Mass. ruling than they have by anything else in my life time.

You are dead right on. Significant changes take time. I do hold it agaisnt those who pushed it to a court. It's not just their life, but mine they were gambling with. And I am far to conservative to have willingly taken that risk with my dreams.

 

[flawed_ethics]

This is Kansas we're talking about, right? The same state that voted to only allow creationism to be taught in schools, banning evolution?

I'm not surprised. Hell, I don't trust anywhere south of the fourtieth parallel.

 

[Guest]

This is Kansas we're talking about, right? The same state that voted to only allow creationism to be taught in schools, banning evolution?

I'm not surprised. Hell, I don't trust anywhere south of the fourtieth parallel.

That was quickly overturned.

Each state is unique; I've always found it difficult to lump everything together and make such a generalized statement.


March 1, 2001 VNN6603 Comment on this story

Kansas Puts Evolution Back Into Public Schools

FROM NEW YORK TIMES

USA, Mar 1 (VNN) — by John W. Fountain ("New York Times," Feb. 17, 2001)

TOPEKA, Kan., Feb. 14 - In the beginning, there was the theory of evolution. That was until the Kansas State Board of Education voted two years ago to remove it as the sole explanation of the origin of man from the state's public school curriculum.

But in a 7-to-3 vote today, the board reversed that decision, reinstating evolution with the adoption of new state science standards and essentially mandating that evolution be taught in public schools throughout the state.

Kansas' move back to evolution became apparent last August when voters in a Republican primary defeated three conservative members of the school board who had supported the earlier decision, after public debate quickly spiraled into a movement to vote out those responsible for the change and to vote in those who promised to reverse it.

This morning's decision was greeted with applause from supporters who attended the hearing in a crowded room at the state board of education headquarters on a cold, drizzly day.

The move also dealt a blow to creationists and others who had applauded the school board's decision in August 1999 to remove evolution from the state's science curriculum. The standards are guidelines for teaching and testing. The document adopted today is a version of another first presented to the board two years ago and will be used as a reference in developing statewide tests for students this spring.

Adoption of the standards places evolution squarely back into the state's science curriculum, but not without adding language that may appease Christian conservatives and others who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools as the origin of man.

" 'Understand' does not mandate 'belief,' " the document the board adopted says. "While students may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where students' and/or parents' beliefs may be at odds with the current scientific theories or concepts."

In a statement, Gov. Bill Graves praised the board's decision, saying, "The students of Kansas will benefit from the broader and more comprehensive science standards supported by the current Board of Education."

A 27-member committee of science teachers and other experts appointed by the board wrote the 100- page document. The booklet, "Kansas Science Education Standards," refers to evolution as "a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology."

The document also states, on Page 5, under the heading "Teaching With Tolerance and Respect":

"Teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and other appropriate sources."

In August 1999, the board, with conservative Republicans in the majority, voted 6 to 4 to eliminate evolution. The decision did not prohibit the teaching of evolution, but left the option to local school districts. It did, however, remove evolution as the sole explanation for the origin of man, including some references to evolution, the Big Bang theory and the earth's age.

That meant that evolution would not be included in state assessment tests that evaluate student performance. Critics of that policy said it would discourage some teachers from devoting any time to the subject. At the time, news of Kansas' decision echoed across the country, particularly in states that had dealt with the fight over creationism and evolution.

Steve Abrams, a member of the conservative minority who voted today against reinstating evolution, was part of the conservative majority in 1999. Before today's vote, Mr. Abrams, who was re-elected to the board in November, expressed his continued opposition to teaching evolution and argued against the notion that the battle over the last two years could be boiled down to the "religious right versus science."

"Every time religion is brought up, it's brought up by someone on the opposition," Mr. Abrams told the board. "Not one time have I talked about that, the fact that religion is an integral part of this. I'm saying that we ought to be following what good science is."

Mr. Abrams had unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to the standards in favor of teaching "intelligent design," a theory that asserts that man and the universe were the work of God.

"If it's the religious right, it may be the religious right versus the religious left," Mr. Abrams said. "That's a possibility. But certainly I don't espouse that. What I do espouse is the idea that it's good science: what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, good empirical science. And this does not leave that with us."

In addressing Mr. Abrams's concerns today, another board member, Janet Waugh, said: "We are not atheists on this board. I believe the board members are all Christians, and we have no problem with Christianity or any other religion being taught, but it cannot be taught in a science class."

After the vote, board members as well as the state education commissioner, Andy Tompkins, expressed relief that the evolution debate, at least where the Kansas school board was concerned, was finally over. Still, he does not expect the issue to disappear.

"I think there's some resolve right now," Mr. Tompkins said. "But I think the issue, in terms of people talking about it, and what's going to happen, is probably going to continue, not only in our state, but probably in other states also."

Copyright New York Times