Proving what Hitler learned nearly three quarters of a century earlier, hate still wins votes. The new Kansas legislature has made one of their first priorities to not be outdone by the bigotry of its Missouri neighbors and has put an ammendment to it's constitution on the ballot to ban same-sex anything. To quote one of Overland Park's most divisive "pastors" on one of the local TV news shows last night:
I think this proves that people of faith need to exercise their right to vote. All of the new members of the legislature voted for the ammendment.
Great... religious nuts found out there's power in voting! Who told them?! :)
It really looks like the Protestant movement has run its course. Now they're using political power to affect the changes they deem "necessary" to perserving their way of life. Seems like deja vu for the history buffs of us - I remember a church located at 1 Vacitan City Drive that incited its people to holy war, committed crimes against its own people, and generally tried to badger them into submission. Ya know, come to think of it - this is just another place where the Evangelicals and Islamists have something in common! Let's hope as they duke it out they don't take too many more innocents with them.
7 comments
Dude, religious people have known about the power of voting since, well, voting started! Too bad most of them are cooks. That is one scary thing about religion, true religious nuts are always on the extreme far Right or Left. They are never in between. My dad has the VW Jetta TD-something. He absolutelly loves it. Tootles.
James Justice on Friday the 4th of February at 10:45 PM
Travis,
I am sorry you are angered by the recent wave of morality in the country but it seem that you as a gay man should recognize the opportunity and tolerance provided by this country. Only in America can voices of so many points of view be heard. The freedoms afforded to all allow for both responsible and irrational discourse. You and others have the opportunity to engage in the process, state you case and let the chips fall where that may. In this case the majority wins. This is that same majority which supports the freedoms and opportunity afforded to you. If this was not the case and right wing religious nuts were out to get you, that last thing homosexuals would be worried about is getting married.
James
I am sorry you are angered by the recent wave of morality in the country but it seem that you as a gay man should recognize the opportunity and tolerance provided by this country. Only in America can voices of so many points of view be heard. The freedoms afforded to all allow for both responsible and irrational discourse. You and others have the opportunity to engage in the process, state you case and let the chips fall where that may. In this case the majority wins. This is that same majority which supports the freedoms and opportunity afforded to you. If this was not the case and right wing religious nuts were out to get you, that last thing homosexuals would be worried about is getting married.
James
Ok... So first off, who said I'm gay? I wonder if whites who fought in the civil rights movement thought to have one black parent or at least be of mixed origin somewhere down the line.
I've already been through the majority rule argument before, James "Justice". The Constitution was drafted in such a way to keep the majority from stomping on the minority - it could be argued that the minority it was trying to protect was the wealthy elite, but things evolve.
I love your closing... I wonder how many Southerns uttered similar words to blacks in the '50s? "You know? If we really didn't like you niggers, we woulda just shipped ya back!" 40+ years after the fact, it seems outrageous. Hopefully, 40+ years from now my soon-to-be neice or nephew will look back on this and think the same of your statement.
I've already been through the majority rule argument before, James "Justice". The Constitution was drafted in such a way to keep the majority from stomping on the minority - it could be argued that the minority it was trying to protect was the wealthy elite, but things evolve.
I love your closing... I wonder how many Southerns uttered similar words to blacks in the '50s? "You know? If we really didn't like you niggers, we woulda just shipped ya back!" 40+ years after the fact, it seems outrageous. Hopefully, 40+ years from now my soon-to-be neice or nephew will look back on this and think the same of your statement.
James Justice on Saturday the 5th of February at 10:26 AM
Am sorry I assumed you were gay. From the tone of your post I thought this was a impassioned issue with you based in personal experience.
As far a comparing the plight of slaves with homosexuals you are way off the mark and your comparison is offensive to black Americans. The past persecution of slaves is a tiny bit worse that the ?persecution? of homosexuals, otherwise I would round a couple of them up and ?enslave?them to redecorate my pad and get my wardrobe in order.
This is an issue of assumed rights and protections.
I believe that were we differ is the core belief in God and his authority over man.
As far a comparing the plight of slaves with homosexuals you are way off the mark and your comparison is offensive to black Americans. The past persecution of slaves is a tiny bit worse that the ?persecution? of homosexuals, otherwise I would round a couple of them up and ?enslave?them to redecorate my pad and get my wardrobe in order.
This is an issue of assumed rights and protections.
I believe that were we differ is the core belief in God and his authority over man.
Now you're apologizing? Ok... I'm not sure why it would be necessary as I'm not saying that I'm not gay, but likewise I'm not saying that I am. That's a personal matter between me and those I think should know one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that many people try to marginalize arguments by making assumptions about the person that is making a statement rather than responding to the statement. And I'll be the first to admit that I suffer from this to a degree as well.
I would ask that you go back and look at the history of the Civil Rights movement. They didn't fight to end slavery in the 1950s - slavery had already been outlawed for nearly a century. The fight was against treating them as second class citizens. Many of the cases were state-sponsored - public buses with places for blacks in the back, schools that were segregated by law, etc. Discrimination is discrimination - it doesn't matter if its race, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality that has prompted the discrimination.
That's the point that most aren't seeing here - this isn't about forcing your church to marry a gay couple, it's about forcing to state to extend the same rights of coupled-existence to all of its citizens. Your church can now, and should always be able to deny a marriage ceremony, or any other ceremony for that matter, to anyone they feel do not meet their standards. That's the separation of church and state; the state can't compel you to do something. However, the state shouldn't be allowed to draw that line - it should be blind to race, gender, sexuality, and anything else. So long as Tim and Tom getting married doesn't effect Tim and Diane's marriage, then the government shouldn't intervene.
You're right, this is an issue of assumed rights, but not assumed protection. The 14th Amendment is pretty straight forward on the issue:
You and your wife, should you be married or decide to get married, have certain protections between each other guaranteed under the law: split ownership of property, the ability to legally act on each other's behalf, the right to private communications which can not be used in a court against each other, etc., etc. By denying Tim and Tom those same rights, states are clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. I've yet to read or hear any argument that can sway that legal opinion. I know I have at least one (recovering) lawyer that reads this blog, so if I'm wrong I'm sure he'd be more than willing to point out where I'm off. The 14th amendment is why I've said before that these bans on same-sex marriage - oh, I'm sorry... "defense of marriage" acts will eventually be overturned.
And finally, you are right - we do differ there. I believe that the only authority any God has over me is that which I grant him. I would ask that you go revisit the story of creation and the fall in Genesis of your Bible. Upon a closer inspection, you might find that it says nearly the same thing as I believe. If God has the ultimate authority of man and man doesn't have the ultimate authority over himself, how do you explain the fall of man? But as I've said before, I have to wonder if I pay homage to the same deity as the Evangelical/extreme Protestant movements.
I would ask that you go back and look at the history of the Civil Rights movement. They didn't fight to end slavery in the 1950s - slavery had already been outlawed for nearly a century. The fight was against treating them as second class citizens. Many of the cases were state-sponsored - public buses with places for blacks in the back, schools that were segregated by law, etc. Discrimination is discrimination - it doesn't matter if its race, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality that has prompted the discrimination.
That's the point that most aren't seeing here - this isn't about forcing your church to marry a gay couple, it's about forcing to state to extend the same rights of coupled-existence to all of its citizens. Your church can now, and should always be able to deny a marriage ceremony, or any other ceremony for that matter, to anyone they feel do not meet their standards. That's the separation of church and state; the state can't compel you to do something. However, the state shouldn't be allowed to draw that line - it should be blind to race, gender, sexuality, and anything else. So long as Tim and Tom getting married doesn't effect Tim and Diane's marriage, then the government shouldn't intervene.
You're right, this is an issue of assumed rights, but not assumed protection. The 14th Amendment is pretty straight forward on the issue:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall... deprive any person of life, liberty... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You and your wife, should you be married or decide to get married, have certain protections between each other guaranteed under the law: split ownership of property, the ability to legally act on each other's behalf, the right to private communications which can not be used in a court against each other, etc., etc. By denying Tim and Tom those same rights, states are clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. I've yet to read or hear any argument that can sway that legal opinion. I know I have at least one (recovering) lawyer that reads this blog, so if I'm wrong I'm sure he'd be more than willing to point out where I'm off. The 14th amendment is why I've said before that these bans on same-sex marriage - oh, I'm sorry... "defense of marriage" acts will eventually be overturned.
And finally, you are right - we do differ there. I believe that the only authority any God has over me is that which I grant him. I would ask that you go revisit the story of creation and the fall in Genesis of your Bible. Upon a closer inspection, you might find that it says nearly the same thing as I believe. If God has the ultimate authority of man and man doesn't have the ultimate authority over himself, how do you explain the fall of man? But as I've said before, I have to wonder if I pay homage to the same deity as the Evangelical/extreme Protestant movements.
Not recovering lawyer. Fully recovered lawyer. My one-time legal affliction is in complete and satisfactory remission. Or, as I like to say, I successfully made the tranformation from unhappy attorney to happy unattorney.
As to the 14th Amendment and such: an interesting thing about the Bill of Rights and other amendments (and about the "Law" in general), is things often don't "mean" what based on a straightforward reading an average person would think they "mean." (And what "is" the meaning of "is" anyway?)
The most definitive current articulation of the state of the 14th amendment on same sex issues would be the US Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. State of Texas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102.
The 14th Amendment says: "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion in Lawrence states "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.'" (Citations omitted).
The issue as it pertains to same sex marraige is whether same sex couples are "similarly situated" to opposite sex couples when it comes to marraige laws. Some people (and some elected and appointed officials) would say yes, and some would say no. This involves weighing what are singnificant and insignificant similarities and disimilarities of the people, facts and the law at issue.
And that is the debate that is going on. This is also an example of the tension between so-called "strict constructionists" who think regardless of a common sense interpretation of words informed by current knowledge and social experience, the language can only mean exactly what it meant way back when it was written and so called "activist judges" who think the Constitution is an evolutionary document whose interpretation is properly informed by current knowlege and experience.
And the beat goes on.
I will now resume my happy unattorneyness.
As to the 14th Amendment and such: an interesting thing about the Bill of Rights and other amendments (and about the "Law" in general), is things often don't "mean" what based on a straightforward reading an average person would think they "mean." (And what "is" the meaning of "is" anyway?)
The most definitive current articulation of the state of the 14th amendment on same sex issues would be the US Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. State of Texas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102.
The 14th Amendment says: "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion in Lawrence states "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.'" (Citations omitted).
The issue as it pertains to same sex marraige is whether same sex couples are "similarly situated" to opposite sex couples when it comes to marraige laws. Some people (and some elected and appointed officials) would say yes, and some would say no. This involves weighing what are singnificant and insignificant similarities and disimilarities of the people, facts and the law at issue.
And that is the debate that is going on. This is also an example of the tension between so-called "strict constructionists" who think regardless of a common sense interpretation of words informed by current knowledge and social experience, the language can only mean exactly what it meant way back when it was written and so called "activist judges" who think the Constitution is an evolutionary document whose interpretation is properly informed by current knowlege and experience.
And the beat goes on.
I will now resume my happy unattorneyness.
Valintino on Thursday the 10th of May at 6:38 AM
Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi
Comment feed for this post