City Hall

City Hall

Domestic partner registery considered

December 22, 2006

Advertisement

Reader poll
Should the city offer recognition of gay partnerships?

or See the results without voting

Lawrence could become the first city in the state to legally recognize gay partnerships.

City Commissioner Mike Rundle has asked staff members to research an ordinance that would create a domestic partnership registry that would be run by the city.

A constitutional amendment approved by Kansas voters nearly two years ago outlaws gay marriage in the state. The domestic partnership registry would not automatically grant the legal rights that married couples have to gay or lesbian couples. But it would serve as a legal recognition of a couple's relationship.

"It would indicate that the city is welcoming and supportive of its gay community members," said Maggie Childs, who heads the Lawrence chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition, which asked Rundle to seek the registry. "In my mind, the primary benefit is symbolic."

Lawrence would join about 75 other governments that have created a registry, according to a list compiled by the City and County of San Francisco Human Rights Commission. In the Midwest, the cities include Kansas City, Mo., St. Louis and Iowa City, Iowa.

Religious debate

If city commissioners tackle the issue - they haven't yet scheduled it for a hearing - it could restart a local debate over what role government should play in protecting homosexuals from discrimination. In 1995, city commissioners passed an ordinance making it illegal to deny housing or employment to someone based on their sexual orientation.

The Rev. Leo Barbee of Lawrence's Victory Bible Church, was among a vocal group of opponents of that ordinance. He said he was not surprised the idea for a domestic registry has surfaced since Douglas County was the only county in the state that did not vote in favor of the constitutional ban on gay marriage. But he said the idea of a registry is misguided.

"I think God set up a standard that marriage is one man and one woman," Barbee said. "Anytime we go against that, I think we are going against what God said in his word. I know that will cause some confusion or cause some people to say I'm homophobic.

"I'm not against gays or lesbians as people, but I just feel it is not the right thing to do. My opinion doesn't mean anything. There is a standard that God has set up for what is right and what is wrong, and that's basically what I'm saying."

Childs said her group is prepared for the debate, if it comes.

"People can have their own opinions about what will send you to heaven or hell, but as long as we're in this country, that shouldn't be the role of government," Childs said.

Benefit questions

Rundle, who is gay, said he agreed to bring the issue to City Hall, in part, because he thought it could produce some tangible benefits. He said there are private employers who offer health benefits to the domestic partners of employees. But Rundle said it can sometimes be onerous to produce all the documentation to prove that a domestic partnership is in place each time a gay individual changes jobs.

A domestic registry would allow gay employees to produce a certificate similar to a marriage license showing that a domestic partnership exists.

The registries do not place any requirement on businesses or other organizations to begin offering benefits, such as health insurance, to the domestic partners of employees.

But supporters of a Lawrence registry said they hope it would be the first step to convincing the City of Lawrence and other government agencies to begin offering benefits to employees' domestic partners, just like a spouse is offered benefits.

Estimates on how much it would cost the city to begin including domestic partners as part of their benefit packages, aren't available.

Childs said she hoped that a registry also would be a "small, first step" in gaining marriage equality for gays in the state. Childs said that would be a tough political battle in Kansas, but said gay couples should not be denied the rights that married couples have when it comes to child custody, insurance rights, and medical matters.

Legal questions

City Manager David Corliss said the city's legal staff hasn't yet reached an opinion on whether a domestic partnership registry would withstand a legal test in Kansas.

Toni Wheeler, the city's interim director of legal services, said there are instances in other states where cities have been sued over extending employee benefits to domestic partners. She also wrote that the registry could be challenged as being in violation of the Kansas Constitution. It states: "No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."

Rundle said he wasn't letting the possibility of a court battle factor into his decision-making process.

Other commissioners who were contacted said that they needed more information about the proposal before determining whether they could support it.

Domestic partnership registry

Details for how a domestic partnership registry would function in Lawrence haven't been determined, but here is how it has worked elsewhere.

¢ Both members of the partnership normally are required to go to a city office - such as the city clerk's office - to sign documents in front of a notary attesting that they are in domestic partnership.

¢ Basic requirements for a relationship to be deemed a domestic partnership usually include that both parties be age 18 or older, live together, have an exclusive and mutual relationship, share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent.

¢ Some communities simply allow couples to sign a sworn statement that they are in a domestic partnership. Others require proof of joint ownership of property or joint residency, such a utility bills that show both names, proof of joint bank accounts or other similar documents.

¢ Most programs include a filing fee to cover the costs the city has to administer the program.

¢ Some communities allow heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners if they are not married. Other communities, however, do not allow heterosexual couples to be part of the registry because there is no law prohibiting them from marrying.

¢ Most registries also have a process where couples can dissolve a domestic partnership.

In Iowa City, Iowa, the program has existed since 1994. City leaders there said that the registry - which currently has 67 couples - generally has been well received. But Dale Helling, an assistant city manager, said he couldn't say that the registry has resulted in significant changes in the community's culture.

"I think it is something that has had an obvious positive impact on those who use it," Helling said. "But for the rest of the community, it is just a routine thing that we have now. You really don't hear much in the community for or against it."

Comments

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Can I register my brother and sister on the list? We really all "love" each other and want the same equality.

But, will being put on the list make people move out of our neighborhood?

hottruckinmama 8 years, 3 months ago

And I love how some folks here will say: "Yeah, but Topeka, lots of so-called straight men do that sort of thing with women all the time!! What's the difference?!"

difference is most women may not tell you topeka but they HATE it.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Kosmo, I'm not an abomination. Do you eat shellfish? Work on the weekends? Wear clothes of different threads? THOSE are abominations, too.

GR, there you go, yet again bringing non-issues up into this. Loser.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Non-issues?

I thought the issue was allowing those who aren't legal to marry to get on a list?

Besides, "I'm not an abomination. Do you eat shellfish? Work on the weekends? Wear clothes of different threads? THOSE are abominations, too."

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster: "Oh boy. "Thou shalt not kill". I think that was a big one, Cosmo, slightly bigger than Leviticus. "

The actual meaning is "thou shall not murder." Which is a very different action. Killing is not forbidden.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

LarryM said: "The actual meaning is "thou shall not murder." Which is a very different action. Killing is not forbidden."

Thank god.

Bunch of hypochristians.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Oh, and Culture_Warrior, this article with have references to the primary data, the EMPIRICAL data...

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture Warrior how DARE you state that it's deviant behavior and that I belong in an institution! You filthy DISGUSTING TROLL!!

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

I am not "sick" and I am not ashamed of my capacity to love another person!

carolannfugate 8 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm maybe not for sexual preference but still.................

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

CW: IT IS NOT ABNORMAL. IT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE. IT IS NOT DEVIANT. It is not a disease to be gay. There's nothing wrong with it. Stop comparing it to pedophilia and others. I am astounded that you are still allowed to spew your filth on this board.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

3%? Proof, please.

High rates of suicide and other self-destructive behaviors because of people like YOU ostracizing and denigrating us!

It is NOT against the natural order, and it most certainly IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS!!

oldgranny 8 years, 3 months ago

Tychoman pay no attention to him. From your posts you seem to be a fine upstanding intelligent young man.

Culture_Warrior seems to be just a mean old man that is scared of things he dosen't understand. Pay him no attention.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

I said they were OLD, conservativeman. Like you: OLD.

oldgranny 8 years, 3 months ago

For that matter have any of your friends or family ever gotten a divorce? Did you shun them after that? If you didn't then you are again "wrong" according to some parts of the Bible.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

con-man was MIA for a bit. Maybe he was in Iran and has come back as Culture_Warrior.

He certainly has the Kulturkampf.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Okay this argument is over. Conservativeman is back, kiss decent debate and decency in general goodbye, ladies and gentlemen.

oldgranny 8 years, 3 months ago

Con-man-culture-warrior and other thick headed people like him are exactly how this country got in the mess its in today.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Larry, telling people about the word of God and about Jesus is one thing.

Beating them over the head with it is quite another.

Even Jesus said that if someone doesn't want to listen, then you should shake the dust from your feet and move on.

So why haven't you moved on yet?

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Troll CW, I'd have to HAVE a mental illness in order to admit to one, and I don't have one.

Sigmund 8 years, 3 months ago

Let's see. The Domestic Partner Registery will convey no legal rights nor create any legal responsibility, it's primary benefit is said to be symbolic and it would indicate, primarily to Lawrencian's, that the Lawrence is supportive of its gay residents. This in the largest city in the only county in Kansas that voted against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet another PLC proposal that is completely unnecessary and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

That said, can we at least charge a impact fee or tax and expand this to heterosexual couples as well? $75 per couples to come on down and register in front of the clerk and make registration mandatory. If we are going to set up legally meaningless registries, lets at least make some money off of it!

ASBESTOS 8 years, 3 months ago

Katy bar the door, this is gonna git ugly!

kujeeper 8 years, 3 months ago

Mike Rundle and his domestic partner registry and the members of Progressive Lawrence should all pack up and go to San Fransico where they can live in peace. Quit pushing your worthless agendas on Lawrence.

8 years, 3 months ago

In a perfect world, same sex couples would be able to marry in this state. Since that isn't possible right now, I would fully support any step in that direction, such as this registry.

DaREEKKU 8 years, 3 months ago

KUjeeper-you could just move to Alabama...I think that's more plausible. I don't think it's a worthless agenda, in fact I hope they pass it and then sue the state of Kansas for equal recognition of rights.

mae 8 years, 3 months ago

I have some gay friends, although they seem to be more college swingers than the marrying type.

In my opinion, I see this "list" being available to judges and police and promoting discrimination. If I was in a gay relationship I'd forget about this slap in the face until a legal non-discriminatory solution is finally approved by republican Kansas.

It probably would be better to just find a minister that would marry you. Same thing really, you're not married either way. You can have a ceremonial wedding, or put your name on a list. Kind of reminds me of pre-holocaust. "Sign up here if you're proud to be jewish!"

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

I have said it once, I'll say it again... Marriages are sacred unities that should be granted, solely, by a religious institution. Civil unions (or, licenses) are legal contracts recognizing one partner as being legally bound to another partner.

Why in the world are we still viewing these things as synonymous. I believe the world would be a better place if we simply let religious organizations grant marriages and governments grant unions. Make it a two step process... Go to the courthouse to get your license and to the church to be married!

Early church fathers often mused, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Rome?" (What does religion have to do with government?) And, although I believe it is always valuable to have men and women who are Christians in our congress (as Christianity does set up an amazing framework for morality and ethics), I also believe that legislating morality is a dangerous thing. Let churches grant marriages... If they choose to grant them to homosexuals that, then, is between them and God. Let government grant licenses, which are not sacred documents, and should be none of the church's concern.

Homosexuality is a sin. Anyone who reads scripture and actually looks for the truth in its words will find this to be true. However, it is no greater or lesser than any other sin committed. If you lie... You sin. If you cheat... You sin. If you hate... You sin. If you deceive... You sin. These sins are sins, no different than homosexuality.

And, in an ideal society, I would say that none of us would have any sin in our lives. However, the constitution was not set up to eradicate sin in the lives of every human in America. (Christ's blood was given for that cause.) Instead, the constitution was set up to be a megaphone for the will of the people of the United States of America. If the majority of the government (be it nationally, statewide or local) votes to have an ordinance or law passed and that ordinance or law is upheld, the constitution has prevailed. We live in a democracy... Which, according to Winston Churchill is "the worst form of government... Except for every other form of government." I would tend to agree.

--Danny Speicher

DaREEKKU 8 years, 3 months ago

Speicher, and everybody else who has religious or personal beliefs:

You are entitled to your beliefs, but they are just that alone.....beliefs. They aren't the absolute truth. Just because they are your absolute truth doesn't make them the absolute governing truth for society. Your blatent disregard for a large part of society is both disheartening and troubling. Just because your scripture says homosexuality is a "sin" doesn't mean this said sin applies to all of society. According to my beliefs, the institution of Organized Christianity is a "sin." Does that make me right? No, it simply is one more point of view. Religion and government should remain absolutely separate, therefore your argument should not apply. Based on purely government function, the government has no right to deny a contract between two adults who want to share their lives. Kudos to Lawrence, I hope they Sue the state of Kansas.

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

Did either of you actually read my statement or just see the word "sin" and jump down my throat? Did you not notice I am for "separation of Church and State" did you not notice I am for civil unions? Yes, I believe it is a sin... But, if you would have read my entire post you would have noticed, as well, that I think it is backwards politics to say that morality should be legislated under the banner of the constitution.

Before you decide to pull out a "Billy Madison" reference and say that an audience is dumber for having heard what I say... Perhaps reading my statement FIRST would be a great way to go.

Also, rt, just because everyone has sin doesn't make it not a sin... It just means we all need a Savior. Indeed, we are all on a level playing ground when it comes to sin.

--Danny Speicher

person184 8 years, 3 months ago

right thinker...down right civil of you!

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

Interesting... Who granted those property rights, titles and power through marriage in the civilization(s) that you speak of?

--Danny Speicher

classclown 8 years, 3 months ago

"Go to the courthouse to get your license and to the church to be married!"

====================================

I got married in a courthouse by a judge. So by your system I wouldn't be married? What should I call my wife then? My life partner? My significant other? If I were to use either of those then everyone would think I was gay since those are their terms.

Nah... I'll stick with what I have. I like being married and having a wife. Normal has its priveledges.

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

I appreciate your footwork, Marion... I'll read them and get back on tomorrow. As far as separating marriage from civil unions I still think this is a great solution.

By doing so, you have the option (as a heterosexual or homosexual couple) to have the same rights as everyone else. I am simply offering a somewhat tangible solution to a problem that continues to plague and divide our nation. classclown... normal is relative.

--Danny Speicher

oldgoof 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion: You write: "Gay marriage and by logical extension, the recognnition of gay civil unions in Kansas are both llegal. . . . A City cannot give any sort o f legal recognition to a contract which goes against public policy and the public policy of Kansas is that such marriages and unioins are currently illegal.

Oldgoof says: Marion, I fear your 'logical extension' may be a bit quick here. I am familiar enough with some intracacies of HR policies from major Kansas employers to tell you might be surprised to learn of a number of nuances which provide recognitions to extended relationships beyond a 'married spouse' to an 'employed.' And these include other non-blood relations other than 'gay partner' and they are all legal and enforceable. Standard HR policies, i.e. contract.

This is not about 'civil unions.' HR policies recognize other non-blood individuals beyond this definition.

Without getting into a legal brief, I would just respectfully suggest a city maintained 'register' would not necessarily violate the laws which you, and many others, instantly assume are being violated, specifically the Kansas Constitution and Kansas law.

(oh, and I am not a friend of Mike's nor am I gay)

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

According to the Bible:

  • An unruly child must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17)
  • Overeaters should be killed by the plague (Numbers 11:32-33, Psalms 78:31)
  • Those who have premarital sex end up going to Hell (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
  • A child born out of wedlock - and all his descendants -will go to Hell (Deuteronomy 23:2)
  • Promiscuous women should have their nose and ears cut off, and should be burned to death (Ezekiel 23:25-27, Leviticus 21:9)
  • A man who rapes a virgin should be able to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
  • Jesus struck dead all those who failed to sell all their possessions and give every dime to the Lord (Acts 5:1-10)

So just get out of here with your "homosexuality is a sin" medieval baloney already!

overthemoon 8 years, 3 months ago

WHITE MOUNTAIN.....

you left out the parts about eating pork or shellfish....I'm surprised that Phred Phelps et al haven't been all over Red Lobster for feeding sin by the truckload.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 3 months ago

White Mountain, Overthemoon; here is MY favorite answer to the religious nuts who say homosexuality is a sin:

http://www.stallman.org/dr-laura.html

sublime 8 years, 3 months ago

Posted by kujeeper (anonymous) on December 22, 2006 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike Rundle and his domestic partner registry and the members of Progressive Lawrence should all pack up and go to San Fransico where they can live in peace. Quit pushing your worthless agendas on Lawrence THANK YOU!!!!!

sublime 8 years, 3 months ago

Why is it, that straight people get so hostile when defending homosexuals????In the closet perhaps?As soon as anyone stands up for what they believe in and takes a stand against homosexuality they are attacked and labeled.Words like,homophobe,closed minded,narrow minded,neanderthal, red neck, fascist,bigot- all of these words are BS.For a group that hates to be labeled ,they sure are quik to attack anyone that does not share thier views.I can understand the gays getting upset.Its the straight people who want to force feed you that life style that I don't understand...............I would like to see these "defenders" protect the rights of "white trash' for once.Think about it, have you ever heard anyone defend "trailer trash"? Well why not? They are people too.Just because they are poor does not make them trash.....My point is this,everyones rights are important.That being said,I don't think gays should get special treatment. Lets be real folks ,most gays are swingers anyway,Most of them don't want to get married ....I don't condone the gay lifestyle.Im all man,I love woman.I just can't understand "kissing whiskers".

sublime 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion, I knew I could count on you.Whats your opinion on all the hostility???

bulldawgs 8 years, 3 months ago

A gay registry...hey, great idea...now we will know where to go when it comes time to round them up for the mandatory AIDS testing or public lynching or whatever might come down the road...

classclown 8 years, 3 months ago

"Why is it, that straight people get so hostile when defending homosexuals????In the closet perhaps?"

=====================================

Maybe they experimented with it in college and it's their way of alleviating the guilt or shame.

Also, with some of them, I think they may never of grown out of their teen rebel stage. Not being around their parents anymore to be able to do things specifically to piss them off, they in their enlightenment choose to say or do things simply to piss off those that they view as "the establishment".

Currently it appears that would be mostly christians, conservatives, white males, or any combination thereof.

Due to this their debates/arguments tend to be emotional in nature. Those that have a personal conviction in a subject debate/argue with reason and logic while providing whatever facts they can to further their case, while the rebellious simply want to "shout the other side down". Their responses are laden with anger and an obvious lack of maturity.

They are the ones you will see name calling. They are the ones that are free and easy with the terms "bigot", "racist", "homophobe", etc. or coming up with insulting variances of a person's username, or making stupid references like "developturd" or simply calling everyone they disagree with stupid simply because they have nothing substantive to retort with.

paladin 8 years, 3 months ago

RT-Bad faith gonna get you. Get every time.

paladin 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion-Bad faith gonna get you, too.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 3 months ago

I'm 53 years old. My parents..my PARENTS mind you...were friends with a gay couple who lived together for nearly 40 years. They owned property together. Had a house that had been bought in common. The older of the pair passed away. He had no family but did have an ex-wife he had been divorced from for OVER forty years. She successfully sued for a portion of his estate and busted the will he left leaving everything to his partner.

Story two: My two older children (now in their thirties) had a godfather in common, a gay man who lived with his partner for nearly 12 years. He was one of my dearest friends. When my first husband died he was my rock, stepping in to help parent my children, taking them to the zoo and movies and for pizza. It broke my heart when he died in 1991. As he lay in the hospital dieing hid parents BARRED his partner entirely from seeing him. The person he loved and depended on was not allowed to hold his hand as he took his last breath. He owned his own home and had made a will providing for his partner. Guess who got his estate? Three guesses and the last two don't count. I sincerely hope the righteous religious are judged by their own god for telling ANYONE that love is a "sin".

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

The registry could actually give domestic partners more rights than married couples.

They would have all the benefits of marriage, and none of the restrictions. The biggest restriction they would avoid would be property rights. Unlike married couples in Kansas, domestic partners would still be able to own property in their own names and be allowed to sell without the consent of the partner.

And, they would not be subject to the extremely onerous process of divorce.

This actually could be a threat to the insititution of marriage if "domestic partner" or "civil union" were availble to hetero couples, as well.

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

"They would have all the benefits of marriage, and none of the restrictions"

Did you even read the article? It doesn't give domestic partners any rights of marriage, it is basically symbolic. Only the state can give out the rights of marriage.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

kuhusker, the goal is to give domestic partners the rights of marriage, like benefits, and defacto medical power of attorney. Suggest you go back and read the article again.

"But supporters of a Lawrence registry said they hope it would be the first step to convincing the City of Lawrence and other government agencies to begin offering benefits to employees' domestic partners, just like a spouse is offered benefits."

and

"Childs said she hoped that a registry also would be a "small, first step" in gaining marriage equality for gays in the state. Childs said that would be a tough political battle in Kansas, but said gay couples should not be denied the rights that married couples have when it comes to child custody, insurance rights, and medical matters."

DaREEKKU 8 years, 3 months ago

Cait48, why can't there be more reasonable people like you?

monkeyhawk 8 years, 3 months ago

I have no problem with civil unions. I voted against the amendment.

I DO have a problem with this statement:

"Rundle said he wasn't letting the possibility of a court battle factor into his decision-making process."

It must be lovely to have unlimited funds COMING RIGHT OUT OF MY POCKET to push his agendas. How many court battles could he could fight on his own dime, or how many more proposed misuses of tax dollars will we see before April?

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

cait48, sorry about your friend's situation. That was 1991. In 2006, the parents would not even be allowed to talk to the doctors about their son's medical situation unless the son had given written authorization for that to happen. In 2006, all couples, married or not, have the same rights and restrictions with regard to designating who is to be allowed to consult with physicians and take part in making decisions. HIPPA took care of that.

lunacydetector 8 years, 3 months ago

rundle wants to rally his gay troops and make this a campaign issue. why else would this be proposed just 4 months away from the next city commission election?

will this registry mean that suzy and sam, a brother / sister couple who love each other in a way most would consider 'unnatural' could register, and if not, why not? what about fred and fido, a human / canine couple who love eachother? what about tom, dick, and harry, a gay trio who wants to register - will they be discriminated against since they are a trio?

monkeyhawk 8 years, 3 months ago

P.S. Merry Christmas to Mr. Rundle and the entire city commission. God bless you.

jonas 8 years, 3 months ago

Does it seem to anyone else like there are problems with this debate bringing out selective amnesia in certain people?

"So, err. . . why can't a man and an animal get married?"

. . . some time passes. . . "So, err. . . why can't a man and an animal get married?" and on, and on.

Bruce Rist 8 years, 3 months ago

I hope this doesn't get ugly in here today.

Attack the issue not the person

Peace to you all :)

geekin_topekan 8 years, 3 months ago

Domestic partner?You mean I don't have to turn queer?Where's that mofo at?I'm pissed!!

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 3 months ago

How sad that this is even being considered. It shows the slump our society has taken.

LocalYocal 8 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

LocalYocal 8 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

werekoala 8 years, 3 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight :

Yur Damm straight! Things were so much better when the (blacks/women/Jews/gays/etc) knew their place, huh?

Richard Heckler 8 years, 3 months ago

Go for it. It seems as though this could apply to all "unmarried" couples/families.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Why not just secede from the State of Kansas and be done with it?

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

Godot, from your keyboard to God's ears!

But, getting back to your earlier post:

"kuhusker, the goal is to give domestic partners the rights of marriage, like benefits, and defacto medical power of attorney"

That might be the goal, but the city has no power to do that...only the state can. This is a matter of law. All the city can do is make a symbolic gesture.

true_patriot 8 years, 3 months ago

This issue will bring the homophobes out of the woodwork. It's ironic that the religous grand-standers are among the first to come running to the stoning and rail with hate against what Jesus would have called God's children.

The basic message of Christianity began to be perverted within 300 years after Christ's death and has been distorted beyond all belief in the past 200 years. There is nothing anywhere in the original Bible that would indicate against homosexuality in the context of a loving relationship. Heterosexual "misconduct" is condemned right alongside homosexual "misconduct" when outside the context of a loving relationship. If anything, homosexuality was much less controversial in those days than it is now. Even more ironic is that there is substantial evidence that the apostle Paul was a self-hating gay man of influence who "converted" and struggled the rest of his life with suppressing his homosexuality, much in the manner of the Ted Haggard's of today.

The people that stand up in favor of discriminating against other Kansans and other Americans on the gay issue are no different than those who defended slavery and later equal rights for minorities until the country passed them by and left them wallowing in their bitter loathing of anything different than their simplistic, self-centered worldview. We can now pat ourselves on the back that our state constitutions are being used for the first time to deny rights to citizens rather than to protect rights of citizens.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

"That might be the goal, but the city has no power to do that...only the state can. This is a matter of law. All the city can do is make a symbolic gesture."

As symbolic, and meaningful, as the declaration of Dada month at this same time last year?

true_patriot 8 years, 3 months ago

third paragraph phrase should read "... and later resisted equal rights for minorities ... "

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

"As symbolic, and meaningful, as the declaration of Dada month at this same time last year?"

More meaningful, certainly.

It has two primary benefits:

  • puts the city on record as favoring rights for same-sex couples living here as a matter of public policy.

  • provides a record that can be used (optionally) by private businesses who want to provide benefits to their employees.

As far as symbolic gentures go, at least this one is about real people living in Lawrence, and not random "outside the area" BS like the coal plant or even the silliness of the Dada thing.

conocybe_lactea 8 years, 3 months ago

Good for Mike. Even if Lawrence drops a court battle before it becomes expensive, getting the point across that not everybody here believes in denying inheritance rights and power of attorney to a person's chosen partner is a good thing.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

All I can say is that Rome was a great society and was destroyed from within by their moral and ethical decay. The United States is the greatest experiment history has ever seen as a nation who recognized Christian values and that a God has bestowed blessings upon us, as long as we maintain some semblance of values and morality. However, we have now created in this country a PC attitude of "If it's ok for them, then why should we judge them?"

Folks, we are on the way down, and we are headed for the bottom fast. Does this mean I am a bigot or a "hater?" Absolutely not. I have two friends who are gay, and they both know how I feel about it, but we are still friends. We have allowed this gay agenda to absolutley mushroom and grow, and now it is "in your face" time.

You can make fun of people like me, or you can heed the warnings, it is totally up to you. May GOD BLESS all of you this CHRISTMAS season!!!!!!

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

conocybe_lactea is unaware that there is nothing preventing gay couples from naming one another in their wills, naming one another as beneficiary, holding property as joint tenants, or giving one another power of attorney.

The only problem would arise if one of the couple were to die intestate. If you are serious enough about being a couple that you want to "register," then you should be serious enough to take the same legal precautions that a wise married couple would do.

Steve Jacob 8 years, 3 months ago

"Gay marriage is illegal in Kansas and it follows that so would be civil unions"

Um, Missouri passed the same law and they KCMO already has the registry. I am really on the fence about it, but leave religion out of it.

One thing for sure, Mr. Phelps has been out of Kansas picketing all over the USA, I guess we want him back to Lawrence. :)

And is the registry going to be public record? In the wrong hands, like the one name listed above...

tampatom 8 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

You can say that we are neither moral nor in the majority, but I would like to draw your attention to all the various states that voted down gay marriage. To my knowledge there was only one that passed it. And when it was defeated, it was defeated quite soundly, even in blue states. I think that tells where the true majority lies on this issue. Gay unions are nothing more than "marriage light," and having a gay registry is nothing more than furthering this gay agenda that has swept our country. It is bad for the country, and if you doubt it, than that is at your own peril.

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion, I read the articles you posted. They were very interesting and my response lies in two points:

1. All but the last article seem to be extremely short-sighted in their view of historical marriage. It is true, that the term "Marriage" (or, more appropriately, the root of the term "Marriage") Did not come around until the 14th century. No arguments here. But, we know that there were, definitely, "husbands" and "wives" prior to that. Take a look, for example, at the life of Solomon in the Bible who took hundreds (if not thousands) of wives. And, by the by, was ruined because he disobeyed the advice of prophets to not horde women, gold or horses. He did all of the above and started Israel, once again, down the path of destruction. Point being, there definitely was marriage in his time (even if it was not actually termed "marriage.") And, as near as I can tell throughout Biblical history, it was an institution set apart by God as a holy and sacred union (even if, sadly, the culture saw it as a "property" issue inasmuch as it was a holy union... This mentality, by the way, was not of God.)

Now, we can say that "this culture" or "that culture" did it differently. And, that is fine. You are correct in saying that not all cultures saw marriage as anything more than an issue of property... Some saw it as no more than a marking of sexual partners who have already been sexually active with one another. However, I think it is important to realize that marriage, in America, has historically followed the path of the Judeo-Christian traditions. And, although, obviously (as a Christian) I hold a certain love for that institution, I am not against other cultures (or even a unique hybrid culture, which is America) having their own, unique, ceremony. However, the term "marriage", seems to me, to be a term that should be left to religious institutions.

((cont'd))

jonas 8 years, 3 months ago

Pity2BU: You have a highly entertaining comment history! Kept me chuckling for a while.

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

((cont'd. from above))

2. However, as I read these articles I could not help but think that we are simply caught up in semantics here. Yes, I believe "marriage" is a term that should be given out only be religious institutions and "civil unions" should be given out by the state. I am, after all, a person who thinks words truly do matter... What we call something or someone affects our view on that as a culture. However, in the long run, if it unites a nation, why would it matter if we called civil unions marriages and called marriages civil unions? Or, we called all those joined (either by the state or by the church) "husband and wife" (or "husband and husband.") I am simply thinking out loud here after reading the articles you have given me, Marion... But, I think both sides of religious issues in today's society have gotten caught up far too much in semantics and far to little in finding a middle ground.

Here's what I'll say in closing... If those who are Christians (myself included) truly believe homosexuality is a sin... We need to spend less time condemning and finding out ways to alienate homosexuals and focus more on showing them the love of Jesus Christ. We need to do this in a manner that expects NO life change, but, instead, expects them to encounter the same love that we have encountered from Christ. It is not up to us, as Christians, to call out the sin of the world... It is up to us to show the world the love and forgiveness that Christ has provided us through the cross. All the while, spurring one another on, as Christians, to follow Him more diligently each and every day.

I am sorry if I sounded judgemental last night... That certainly wasn't my intent.

--Danny Speicher

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

"All I can say is that Rome was a great society and was destroyed from within by their moral and ethical decay."

Actually, the reason Rome fell was because it turned Christian. Funny how the right-wingers conveniently forget this fact!

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

kosmo513, can you provide 1 or 2 examples of how the gay "agenda" has a direct negative effect on you (without referencing vague statements about "society")

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

true_patriot: you state that "The basic message of Christianity began to be perverted within 300 years after Christ's death and has been distorted beyond all belief in the past 200 years. There is nothing anywhere in the original Bible that would indicate against homosexuality in the context of a loving relationship." I hope you know this is a lie. It is on a number of web sites so if you read it enough times I suppose you will think it is true. However, it is not. The Bible states that sex outside of marriage is wrong. (Deut 5:18) The Bible also states that marriage is between a man and a woman. (Gen 2:24) Simple.

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

LarryM, the United States is not a theocracy, and our civil law is not a mirror image of passages from the Bible.

.. setting aside the obvious inconsistencies that Christians such as yourself display in enforcing certain passages from the Bible and not others.

compmd 8 years, 3 months ago

what's the point of making a "feel good" ordinance without any power? a city ordinance cannot be enforced outside of the city, so whatever effects the registry has for domestic partners ends at the city limits. and rundle has no qualms about spending lawrencians' tax dollars for legal battles? I've seen some pretty egregious ethical lapses in polticians, but for lawrence, this one is darn impressive.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion wrote: "I would support the disolution of marriage as a legal institution, being replaced with civil unions."

Totally agree.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Thank you, Speicher, thank you very much.

MrMister 8 years, 3 months ago

Let them all register. I hate to say it, But anyone who does puts their name on a public domain list for Phelps to get his hands on. If I apply for a marriage license, It is published in the paper for all to read. Will it be the same for the "Gay List"?

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

"Actually Rome NEVER "fell"

So, who is Emperor today? Where are the legions?

Rome...the classical power of antiquity was a hollow shell of itself well before the last Western emperor was deposed, and the Byzantines were "Roman" in name only.

If something "morphs" into something else that is entirely different, and the very name of the thing ceases to exist, I think by any fair definition, it has "fallen"

As an aside, you are partially right in that it is very simplistic to blame something as vast as an empire falling on nothing more then an official switch of religion...but given that fact that I was arguing against an idiot who thinks Rome fell because of "immorality" then you need to cut me some slack.

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

white_mountain: what has that got to do with my post?

true_patriot 8 years, 3 months ago

Nod, the "Rome" thing is actually very relevant, because it is precisely the message of the fall of Rome that we as a nation are failing to heed right when we most need to it now, which is right now today.

We are making the same mistakes that Rome made, and these mistakes are being made by foolish men that the religious right and others are naively supporting, believing they are fighting against an immorality of culture or a tendency toward martial softness, but in actuality they are contributing to the fall of this great experiment called America. These mistakes are that we are engaging in world conquest (militarily and economically), over-militarizing (both abroad and internally), distracted by an excess of wealth and hyper-consumption and preoccupation with entertainment, and shifting our income towards money made from managing information and money itself while outsourcing the manufacturing of physical goods and commodities.

These are the hallmarks of many major empires passing into decline, not just Rome. History is staring us in the face but we're too busy buying the latest style of cell phone and watching "reality" TV to heed the ominous warnings.

Through naivety or outright denial, it is easy for many of us to simply blame the consequences of these fatal national mistakes on a certain segment of society (be it gays, non-fundamentalist Christians, Hispanics, Arabs - pick your favorite scapegoat) and thereby in our minds absolve ourselves of the responsibility of understanding the reality of the broader situation and then acting accordingly to make changes in our own lives rather than blaming it on others.

Christine Anderson 8 years, 3 months ago

Hey, LJW, could you please find another Lawrence clergyman to quote other than Barbee? This man can't keep his own leadership in order, for pete's sake. It took him 18 months to discipline one of his deacons for committing marriage/immigration fraud!

I'm sick of seeing his name in print. I don't want to hear anyone slandering gay folks, if they can't keep their own house(oops, I meant flock) in order.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

Never ceases to amaze me how liberals descend into the name calling abyss when they are challenged about morality and ethics. Call me an idiot all you want kuhusker, eternity will bear me out and prove what I say about the gay agenda is right. You asked for examples that the gay agenda is harming me personally and not make vague references to society. I cannot say that any gays have ever harmed me or my family, and that is not even the point. As far as I am concerned, let people sleep with who they want, just do not ask the majority of people who do find the gay lifestyle a disgusting one to accept it when it is thrust upon them constantly in our society by this radical gay agenda that is sweeping the country. I will refer you to the best selling book in the world, which you may or may not read. Read Genesis 19:1-26 to find out what our God thinks of a society where anything goes. In short, He finds it to be an abomination.

Ronald Reagan (another person whom I am sure you probably do not care much for) once said that "If our country ever ceases to be one nation under God, then it will be a nation gone under." I can see by most of the posts on here that we are on our way in that direction.

Someone mentioned the disgusting Fred Phelps on here in an earlier post, and I want to assure everyone who reads this that the VAST majority of Christians find him and his family and his methods to be utterly revolting.

Again, my sincere wishes to all for a Merry Christmas and Happy New year.

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

LarryM: I might have misunderstood the intention of your post, so I'll broaden the question and ask anyone out there who has the habit of citing biblical passages as justification for opposing civil unions:

  1. Should the Holy Bible be the determinant factor in US civil code?

  2. Do you agree that a man who rapes a virgin should get first dibs at marrying her? (per Deuteronomy 22:28-29). If not.. why not?

  3. And if you do agree.. how do you reconcile that position with Deuteronomy 5:18, which forbids sex outside of marriage?

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

How far are the proponents of the Civil Union registry willing to go to unravel the established law in the US? What is next on your agenda? Just curious.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

To white_mountain: Christian principles that our forefathers used in our founding documents should always be used as determining factors in U.S. Civil Code because whether certain ones like it or not, this nation was founded as a Christian nation and we ignore that at our own peril.

As for Deuteronomy Chapter 22, that is drawing attention to the very undesirable consequences of forced sexual behavior, and is intended to minimize the embarrassment to the woman and her family by making the offender own up to his sin and take care of her and not "put her away" the rest of her life. The offender inherits a pretty big responsibility with his actions.

I do not have to reconcile that with Deut 5, as adultery is still a sin. Duet. 22 agrees with Deut. 5, so the two need not be reconciled.

As far as brodening the debate, best to keep it to the subject at hand. We can go on and on ad nauseum about many Biblical passages, but the bottom line is that homosexuality is an abomination to almighty God. End of story. Believe it or don't, your choice.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

And lest I sound judgmental, perish the thought. God will do all of the judging in eternity. I love the sinner, but hate the sin, and that includes my own, as I am not without it either. I have to be constantly vigilant in my own life. Speicher you are absolutely correct when you say that it is up to us to show the world the love and forgiveness that Christ displayed on the cross. However, I will take a stand on what is right, and I will not budge from my stand if it is backed up by the scriptures. Bless you sir.

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

kosmo: I respect your opinion, but would disagree with you about this being a "Christian" nation.. don't believe that was the intention of the founders, as there was a clear desire not to have a theocracy.

That is why I believe our laws are mostly - and should be - based on universal notions of right and wrong. I happen to believe that no harm is done in granting civil unions. It seems that more damage is done to traditional marriage by the likes of Britney Spears and cheating husbands than is done by any gay civil unions.. not to mention the damage that repression of gays does to them.. ie, Ted Haggard feeling compelled to hide his sexuality, and thereby causing enormous damage to his family.

I believe the rules laid out in the Bible are selectively emphasized by those seeking some sort of moral high ground to justify discrimination.

I also believe that the Creator is - hopefully - loving, and that he intentionally created people the way they are. More and more scientific evidence accumulates to demonstrate that sexual orientation is not chosen, but is biological.

This is a little off the subject, but it also seems like if there is a Christian God, he is not paying much attention to the world. Too many terrible things happen to good people for a just and moral all-watching God to be paying much attention.

Live and let live should be the message from the church. Jesus was different because he hung out with all types of sinners, but today it seems like most Christians would rather have nothing to do with sinners, beyond scorning them.

kuhusker 8 years, 3 months ago

"eternity will bear me out and prove what I say about the gay agenda is right."

In that case, how about we make a deal? If you will allow gays to have equal rights here on Earth, then if I end up in Hell and you end up in Heaven, I will let you go ahead and say "I told you so" all you want.

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

LarryM: I might have misunderstood the intention of your post, so I'll broaden the question and ask anyone out there who has the habit of citing biblical passages as justification for opposing civil unions: 1. Should the Holy Bible be the determinant factor in US civil code?
It was for a long time. More directly I suspect you are asking should we be a theocracy. I would say no. Many of the founders of the US (even good old Ben F) felt that Christianity should be the basis of our treatment of each other (morals). Note that they were not all Christians (again good old Ben F see his letters to his sister about raising children.) 2. Do you agree that a man who rapes a virgin should get first dibs at marrying her? (per Deuteronomy 22:28-29). If not.. why not?
When you use these verses you need to look at the circumstances for which they were written. This is not a relevant question for a Christian. We are under a new covenant. You might also note that whatever web site you got that from misquotes it he must marry her with no option for divorce. It is not treated as OK. He does not get "first dibs." 3. And if you do agree.. how do you reconcile that position with Deuteronomy 5:18, which forbids sex outside of marriage?
Exactly what this discussion is all about.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

white mountain: Thank you for your response. The only thing I want to take issue with you on at this point, is that there is a loving Christian God, but the troubles in this world will continue to grow, not because of His not paying attention to the world, but because of mankind's continued unbelief in Him and their unbelief in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the importance of accepting Him in their lives.

kuhusker: The only way to escape hell is to read what I said to white mountain just now about Christ's sacrifice for all of us on the cross. He loved mankind so much that He gave His very life for us, and I love you enough to tell you that is for you as much as it is for me or anyone else. My two gay friends that I mentioned in an earlier post are Christians also, but I cannot fathom how they can rationalize that it is ok behavior. I will tell you that I expect to see them in eternity for their belief in Christ, which is the only way to escape an eternal death. Please consider this my friend, and do not reject it out of hand. Bless you.

white_mountain 8 years, 3 months ago

LarryM, thanks for the response. One thing though, I have always been a bit confused about the response that Christians are under a "new covenant".. you seem to imply then that whatever is written in the Old Testament doesn't apply?

My confusion comes in when Christians cite passages from the Old Testament in one instance, but then when challenged in another instance, dismiss the challenge by saying the Old Testament does not apply..

.. confused, bewildered.. and off to an office party (hoping I don't get sloppy drunk and do something I'll regret later!... or maybe this will all make more sense after I've had a few drinks?)

Kelly Powell 8 years, 3 months ago

What you call "christian ethics" is in reality a fairly common group of social mores that most cultures develop (give or take a few different flavors and such)and is in no way unique.....and while this country is in a state of turmoil....In no way will it "fall" like rome did....it may suck for awhile, but our system of changing leadership bloodlessly and having a rule of law not men will see us through this transition period.

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

Luke 22:20 is Jesus' statement about the new covenant. John 13:34 is the contents of this covenant.

Many of the passages in the Old Testament were written for specific situations. They did not apply even to the Jews later on. Others were for the duration of the old covenant. Others were part of the Law which still apply but as teacher for Christians who are under a much stricter system that is not rule based. However, in at least some cases someone will quote OT because they are too lazy to find the relevant New Testament passage or because the NT passage directly or indirectly references the OT. Much of what Jesus said assumes the OT background. Sorting it all out takes a good deal of research in some cases. When someone uses OT challenge them to use NT!! It will do both of you some good.

And while we are on the subject, don't assume that Christians do it right all the time. Or that all who claim to be Christian are. Example: if someone says that God hates you that is a lie. (John 3:16 17) Someone who misrepresents God at that level is not "working for God" but "working for the Liar." But of course they will claim to be Christian.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

To cool: As far as frozen embryos -- HUH??????

As far as challenging me on Old Testament Christians vs. New Testament, I would challenge you to go do your own research. All you need is the Bible of your choice and a book called "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible." If you are serious, it will keep you busy for a long time. Happy studying!!

budwhysir 8 years, 3 months ago

Pliticaly speaking, wouldnt a registry be a way to track these types of unions???

Not sure this is an issue we have time to fight about.

pity2bu 8 years, 3 months ago

This city has since gone to the dogs!

It all boils down to the 1960's dope smokin, tree huggin morons that are so liberal to think they can push their immoral values off on moral people who know right from wrong.

Thank GOD and I did say GOD, Kansas is as BIGGOTED as you think. Oh I'm sorry, I mean THANKS to the other citizens in the 104 counties that voted NO to this kind of hogwash.

Lets pack these idiots up and give them their own island in the Pacific Ocean isolated from the rest of us Biggoted non-smoking, non-tree huggin smart people with morals and values.

Take a hike you morons.... Oh and one last thing, I think I hear San Francisco calling all your names, sounds like you people are on their list.

Rundle you need to step down!!!!!!!!

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Proudly, Marion. I couldn't be more proud to do such a thing in my life than this.

Mike Rundle just won my vote.

jonas 8 years, 3 months ago

"There is no fence around the abyss at the bottom of the slippery slope of perversion."

Help! I'm drowning in euphamisms!

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Nothing but political grandstanding? What do you call the disgusting constitutional amendment? The only thing its backers did was unite the far-right.

If it's grandstanding, it's grandstanding with the best intentions to show that Lawrence won't stand for the tyranny of the seeming-majority. But I don't think it's grandstanding. It's a gesture to show that not everyone in Kansas is bigoted and thinks people like me are less than human.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Conservativeman, what are you doing back? You should know by now that you're not welcome and you certainly don't deserve to be here anymore. This is what, your sixth incarnation?

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

I highly doubt anyone will file suit, because it's not illegal.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion, that's for a different thread.

Daniel Speicher 8 years, 3 months ago

Posted by pity2bu:

"Thank GOD and I did say GOD, Kansas is as BIGGOTED as you think."

Just so you know... Us Christians... We're not all as far gone as this guy. Just wanted to point that out. As a matter of fact, I want to point out that there are some of us (even in the "evangelical" branch) who truly care about people and want them to come to Christ through the attractiveness of Christ's love and not by the condemnation of God's judgement.

Not to preach... But, Christ loves everyone. He loves gay/bi/les/tgd community and he loves the biggot. And, He offered a free gift 2000 years ago that all one must do is take it... Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.

Don't let people like pity2bu deter you. You will find those in every religion (and athiesm, too.) God loves you... Happy Holidays!!

--Danny Speicher

ENGWOOD 8 years, 3 months ago

City Commissioner Mike Rundle U been suckin coal dust again!

Kelly Powell 8 years, 3 months ago

parkay...is "incestor" an actual word? How about "incestavore"....that way we get the gist of the person being incestuous and a predator.......Not that this has anything to do with domestic partnership other then what is in your doomsday waiting for the rapture mind.....

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

To crazyks: I hope you are not willing to bet your eternal soul on that, but unfortunately you sound pretty inflexible yourself. It just never ceases to amaze me that folks such as yourself call Christians who have moral convictions "inflexible, opinionated, haters, etc." We love the sinners and want them to see the light of Jesus and what He has done for them. We were all sinners once ourselves, and still remain imperfect. We do not hate anyone, and if there is someone among us who does, shame on them. (i.e. Fred Phelps).

Take a moment and think about the positions and opinions you occupy, and ask yourself how inflexible and opinionated you are. I prefer to do my best to try and lead my life with morality and a certain ethical creed. To take part or agree with a lifestyle that God has called an abomination is unthinkable to me, and it damages us as a nation when we legitimize it in any way.

Hope your New Year leads you to be more flexible and less opinionated, and more open to the things of God.

Thanks

kosmo.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Obviously, Parkay, there is no fence around the abyss...they let you in , didn't they?

If you don't like gay relationships, then I suggest you don't become part of one.

As for me, I don't care in the least if gays are allowed to marry. It won't affect me at all.

"Sanctity" of marriage? What sanctity? The good old boys network, made up of straight men, has been out there for years and years, scr**ing anything female that can't move away fast enough, but somehow they think they're more moral than gays?

I fail to see how allowing gays to marry, or belong to a LEGAL civil union, will in any way affect you at all.

Gay relationships already exist, with or without the benefit of marriage. How exactly has this damaged YOUR relationship?

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

parkay vomited a nice example of xtian charity: "The polygamists and incestors and pedophiles are waiting in the wings to start their domestic registries, as soon as the sodomites get theirs. If you don't condemn sodomy, you won't have the ability to condemn any of the other perversions. There is no fence around the abyss at the bottom of the slippery slope of perversion."

Nice. Way to love your fellow man.

Seems to me that many sodomites, pedophiles, incestors (?) are upstanding men respected in the xtian community (the Good Reverend Haggard and another mega-church leader in CO Springs).

Clean your own filthy house first, parkay, before you condemn others.

Only ideology and faith-driven dogma could result in so much hate for those who have done no harm whatsoever. Only a religiously-addled mind could hate with no objective reason whatsoever.

Merry Christmas, parkay, you pathetic little creep.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

For those of you who supposedly are Christians:

If Jesus turns out to be as opinionated, inflexible, and without compassion as you all seem to be, then none of you stands a snowball's chance in h*** of ever getting into heaven.

budwhysir 8 years, 3 months ago

I have no comment that would be politicaly correct in pointing out how politics play a part in the political realm of putting a registery of politics on this matter

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

kosmao said: "To take part or agree with a lifestyle that God has called an abomination is unthinkable to me, and it damages us as a nation when we legitimize it in any way."

Wow! It's a long fall off of that high horse. I will simply point out, as scenebooster above, that god explicitly stated "Thou shalt not kill". Now I hope you are out protesting the war in Iraq with all of your might. Otherwise, you are just another christian hypocrite.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Kosmo, why don't you leave it up to God to decide who has sinned and who hasn't, and who is considered an abomination and who isn't? Did he die and leave you in charge?

"Judge not lest ye yourself be judged."

Thinking that something is against God's law or will and YOU abiding by that is one thing. You have a perfect right to live your life however you see fit.

So do others.

If you don't like gay marriage, or gay partnerships, then by all means don't do it. This does not give you the right to tell others how to live their lives.

God gave people free will. I don't remember the Bible saying anywhere, "well, it's up to you to live your life the way you think I want you to, unless, of course, there's some perfect, sanctimonious prig nearby to tell you everything they think I would want you to do or not do."

You don't have a direct phone line to God, and you have no way of knowing what he thinks about the whole thing.

Regardless of whether you think gay marriage is right or wrong, it has nothing to do with you. That is between the particular people and their particular god.

Jesus said that we should treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. Would you want others to judge you in this way, for whatever reason?

Let he amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone.

Didn't Jesus also say that if you don't show understanding and forgiveness to others, that you will receive none yourself in the hereafter?

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

crazyks: "Kosmo, why don't you leave it up to God to decide who has sinned and who hasn't, and who is considered an abomination and who isn't?"

"you have no way of knowing what he (God) thinks about the whole thing."

He did decide and He gave us the results. I realize you don't want to hear the answer you could check it out yourself if you wanted to.

"Let he amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone."

But Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more." He made it very plain that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Period. Yes, you can be forgiven. Jesus did not come to condemn you but to save you from your sin. (John 3:16-17). As He lifted up the woman caught in adultery He will lift you up and say "go, and sin no more."

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_Warrior stated: "The DSM used to diagnose homosexuality as a deviant sexual behavior. It was changed because of politics, not because of any scientific breakthrough or discovery."

Uh, wrong. Years of psychological, sociological, behavioral, and anatomical studies indicated that homosexuality was not a disease but a normal part of human behavior and experience. These studies showed (and continue to show) that homosexuals were not freaks with different brains and that homosexuals displayed similar patterns of criminal behavior as the general population.

Ya got it backwards, Warrior. It took science and reason to overcome millenia of hate and discrimination egged on by religious dogma.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_warrior,

I am not here to make up for your lack of education. Read a textbook yourself to find plenty of references. Here is a review of some of the studies to get you started:

"Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective. Herek, Gregory M.: University of California, Davis, CA, US American Psychologist. 61(6), Sep 2006, 607-621."

You can buy a copy at: http://content.apa.org/journals/amp/61/6/607

The abstract states: "Whether and how civil society should recognize committed relationships between same-sex partners has become a prominent, often divisive, policy issue. The present article reviews relevant behavioral and social science research to assess the validity of key factual claims in this debate. The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. Trends in public opinion toward greater support for legal recognition of same-sex couples are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)".

oldgranny 8 years, 3 months ago

This is what I can't figure out. There are lots of things forbidden in the Bible that we pretty much routinely do to day. Working on Sunday. Most different ways of having sex between a married couple seem to be okay today yet a lot were forbidden in the bible. Men were supposed to support the family and the woman really wasn't supposed to venture out of the house much. There are lots of things that were tubu back then that are pretty well accepted now. Who decides what rules are okay to disreguard and which ones must be followed to the letter? And how do we know that whoever decided all of this was right and knows whats okay with God?

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster: You need to read it in the original language. Also you need to back up and look at the rest of the context.

Your quote is interesting but it is an opinion not what God said.

You might check out what God said about society's response to murder. Numbers 35:16- has some interesting conditions, but note that murderers can be killed. Vs 30 requires more than one eye witness, a condition we violate a lot today. Note that the chapter ends with a reminder that they are not to murder.

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

In case you were wondering about what the people that got homosexuality removed from the DSM had in mind, this quote is pretty interesting:

"The Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 to discuss whether pedophilia should remain a mental disorder. Opening the debate was Richard Green, M.D., J.D. a widely known writer specializing in homosexuality and gender-identity issues. Green argued in favor of removing pedophilia from the diagnostic manual (DSM). Green was one of the clinicians who, in the 1973, took the side of gay activists to argue for removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. In a second article in the Archives, "The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile," Gunter Schmidt, D. Phil., makes a sympathetic case for the pedophile who, Schmidt says, must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect."

I'm not sure I would recommend that you look it up unless you have a pretty strong stomach.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

I find it laughable that you consider someone like Tychoman, who stands behind what he says, to be abnormal, but you don't consider yourself to be abnormal.

I guess hate toward your fellow humans is considered normal behavior, then?

If you want to find a lot of immature, hate-filled postings, try looking back through your own.

It sounds like you would like to totally eliminate homosexuality. In which case, you need to reread the serenity prayer. You obviously have not learned how to distinguish between those things that you can change and those that you cannot.

And you haven't learned to deal with your frustration over it, either. You haven't learned to live with the world the way it actually is.

That, to me, is the definition of someone who needs therapy and treatment.

You obviously are delusional. That is an aspect of many mental illnesses.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Well, actually, Larry, the word of God has been twisted and edited by man so much over the centuries, that even if you totally believe the Bible, you should have grave concerns as to what parts of it are valid.

Jesus' comments to "go and sin no more" were actually directed toward a prostitute, which is a different issue entirely from sex before marriage.

According to the Bible that you quote ad nauseum, and according to Jesus, the greatest commandment for mankind is to "love God with all your heart and soul and mind."

I believe that if you're so obsessed with homosexuals and what they may or may not do behind the privacy of closed doors, you have already broken that one.

The second most important thing Jesus said was to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. You have obviously broken that one as well.

Again, salvation and whether someone goes to heaven or not (if you even believe in that), is completely between the individual and God, and has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

"Jesus did not come to condemn you, but to save you from your sin."

I would guess from your posts that you think it's your job to condemn people instead, since Jesus was so misguided as to not do it himself.

How blasphemous of you.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Oh but this is where I draw the line, granny.

Those are crap sources, troll. They're 10+ years old. And compared to actual SCIENCE, the statistic is closer to 10% of the population can be identified as homosexual. Look in any news article about homosexuality in animals (which is very common and accepted).

Like I said, suicide appears to be higher because 1) it's a smaller demographic and 2) people like YOU create such a negative atmosphere of hate and ignorance that it drives people to do such things. Also, HIV is no longer a valid argument in the "homosexuality is wrong" debate because it's escalating in other demographics faster than in the "gay man" column. You are such an idiot.

It's not a dangerous lifestyle. It's not deviant. It's not a mental disability, and it isn't wrong.

oldgranny 8 years, 3 months ago

I don't blame you Tychoman.

Culture_Warrior-have you ever had sex with your wife other then to reproduce? Had oral sex? Even so much as looked at a woman you weren't married to? Did you let your wife work outside the home? If so then you to are out of line with what the Bible says too. And who's job is it to decide which of these is the greater "wrong"?

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_Warrior, you are a typical hypochristian. When confronted with facts, you bury your head and claim bias.

Did you read the article? Did you dig into the references for the primary data? No, because you are an ideologically-driven idiot.

You would make a good creationist and holocaust-denier.

Pity you missed Ahmadinejad's little conference. You would have fit right in.

Or did you miss it?

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

crazyks: "the word of God has been twisted and edited by man so much over the centuries, that even if you totally believe the Bible, you should have grave concerns as to what parts of it are valid."

Sigh, one of those lies that gets repeated so you can ignore what the Bible says. If you will bother to do the research, you will find it is not even remotely true.

"Jesus' comments to "go and sin no more" were actually directed toward a prostitute, which is a different issue entirely from sex before marriage."

Again, you misunderstand. All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Jesus' comments were towards a woman caught in adultery. We don't know that she was a prostitute nor is it relevant. He exhibited the same behavior towards the women at the well in Samaria.

Actually, the second is "Love your neighbor as naturally as you love yourself." That means I want them to join me before a Holy God after they die. Which means they need to have a personal relationship with Jesus. If I care for other people, then I must tell them about Jesus.

"salvation :..is completely between the individual and God, and has nothing whatsoever to do with you." You are correct salvation is a personal relationship with Jesus but God said to tell the Good News.

Note: blasphemous you probably should have used hypocritical.

"you think it's your job to condemn people"

Where have I done that? You certainly have done that.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Actually, Tychoman, I've always thought that the people who were the most insane were those who persistently claim that they ARE sane.

Which means that CW is really insane, of course.

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

crazyks: However, Jesus confronted people who misused scripture. At one point He even got physically violent. You may have noticed that I tend to respond to misuse or misquoting of scripture. If you don't do that, I tend to stay out of the "conversation."

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_Warrior/Conservativeman said: "I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian."

What a joke. You call yourself a libertarian and yet your screen names are "Conservativeman" and "Culture_Warrior"? Do you even know what a libertarian is?

Of course you don't. You read the word somewhere and liked it.

Your posts and screen names are not libertarian, they are right-wing christian authoritarian.

No self-respecting libertarian would associate themselves with such statements you have made.

Your anger and cruelty are disturbing, but your stupidity is truly astounding.

Keep on posting, though. They are always good for a laugh.

"I'm a libertarian". Phhhffffbbb HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

People have refuted your arguments many times. You just refuse to listen.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_Warriorman said: "You can't refute my argument so attack the messenger. Typical loser."

Reread this thread, dufus. You will see that I did indeed effectively refute your argument AND effectively attacked you.

Really, Couture_warriorman is proof that one should have at least a third grade education before they are allowed to play on the internet.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

"you (or anybody else) have no right to base law based on your religious beliefs. None. So it really doesn't matter in the least what the Bible says about homosexuality (or anything else) UNLESS you subscribe to that worldview."

WRONG.

"Residing a free country, how is it that you justify restricting the rights of another to participate in the political process? You cannot have it both ways."

WRONG.

Everyone wants a cut-and-dry answer, especially fundies, who want things to be based on their ideologies and dogmas. Our political process is a give-and-take. Religious people have a right to argue their views and reasonable people should have a chance to refute them.

Problem is, religious people often have no rational arguments for their views, only "God said so in the bible" (and often this is not true).

The religious must be forced to justify their positions in a secular society, even if those positions are taken from a religious standpoint.

So, 75x55, I ask again: 1) Do you believe that human life begins at fertilization?

2) Why do you believe that human life begins at fertilization?

3) Where in the bible does it state that human life begins at fertilization?

Justify your opposition to abortion and human embryonic stem cell research.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

I have a friend of many years who was married to a guy, had three children with him, then, while the children were very young, divorced her husband to be with a woman partner, who was Mommy 2 to the children until they were well past adulthood.

Recently my friend left her female partner to be with a new guy.

That was choice, not nature.

BTW, the adult children and their children are not happy with Mommy 1.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Culture_Warrior was wrong on the percentages. It's not 3% nor 1.5%.

I realize that 10 years is a very long time for homosexuals with all their diseases and "other" lifestyle choices. So, 10 years could be outdated, since they would be dead. Unfortunately, I can't find any other census data except for the year 2000. I know it's a whole seven years ago, but maybe someone has better data to confront this.

Here's a link for your viewing pleasure: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-state=dt&-format=&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_PCT014

Unless my math fails me, I calculate about 0.56%. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Maybe it's less.

==========

ywn: "So, 75x55, I ask again: 1) Do you believe that human life begins at fertilization?"

Do you believe in science? Do you believe that events can be determined without the Bible you imply is needed? At what unambiguous point would you say life begins?

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

You're talking about someone who is bisexual, Godot, not homosexual. There's a difference.

And if they're all ADULT children, then I suggest they just get over it. They have no more right than anyone else to dictate to Mommy who she is with and who she can love.

No more right than any of us have to dictate the same thing to our children, even when it's a heterosexual relationship they're in.

Want to count how many people on these boards are not happy with the heterosexual partner their child is with?

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

.56% of the population? That's absolutely ludicrous.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Larry M, only ONCE in the Bible did Jesus get angry enough to be violent, and even then he didn't go after people, but inanimate objects. He tried to destroy the booths of the money changers, because he was angry that they were making a profit from religion and the word of God.

Nowhere did it say that he got violent with the adulterers. Nowhere did it say that he got violent with the fornicators. Nowhere did it say that he got violent with the liars, or the cheaters, or any of the other sinners. I don't recall the Bible ever saying anything about Jesus and any homosexuals.

So which sin did he consider more of an abomination? What do you think he'd get more upset over now, homosexuality, or those who make money at the expense of others?

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Crazyks, my suggestion is the person in question is neither bi, nor gay, just fickle.

Fickleness is a choice.

budwhysir 8 years, 3 months ago

This article has touched a never here in the good old state of kansas

Larry Miller 8 years, 3 months ago

crazyks: You are correct, as I said. However, Jesus also got mad at the people who made rules more important than God. (Matt 23:13) But note he treated everyone else with tenderness but did not excuse their sin.

Comment: One of the things that really annoys me is that many people seem to treat homosexuality as some sort of special thing whether they are celebrating it or condemning it. I don't think it is worth all the emotion but that's just my opinion.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 3 months ago

Being fickle is definitely not just something homosexuals do. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Let me clarify: being fickle (or un-loyal) is a choice made by a person of any sexual persuasional choice of the moment.

Sorry I brought it up.

Godot 8 years, 3 months ago

Loyalty. Fealty. Devotion.

Words that are soon to disappear from our social discourse.

Kelly Powell 8 years, 3 months ago

bullsht......it may not be as prevailent, but it is not a dead attitude....If anything we are simply weeding out those who only played lip service to the terms.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

What an idiotic point, changing an animal's sexual orientation to make sure the farmer doesn't lose any value.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

"to make sure the farmer doesn't lose any value."

Hmmm. Must have missed it from the above link. The point wasn't inadequate hormones?

Speaking of (fill in the blank),

".56% of the population? That's absolutely ludicrous."

What is? The census data or your inability to do the calculation yourself and show us otherwise?

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

Listen, gr, .56% of the population is homosexual? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. A better percentage would be closer to 10 or 11%. Surveys in schools and colleges would bring the percentage to 10 or 11. Did those data actually ask someone if they're homosexual? No. It just doesn't make sense.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Well, I did say "unless I'm reading it wrong."

Thank you for pointing out the census data is WRONG. Or at least implies incorrect points.

Tychoman 8 years, 3 months ago

It does imply incorrect points.

Dambudzo, of course it's not mandatory. It's not a registry of gay people in Lawrence, it's a registry of couples that want to be recognized by the city government.

Tychoman 8 years, 2 months ago

Gay matchmaking service? Moronic troll. I can't believe you're still here.

It's not for identification, Dambudzo, it's for legal recognition.

gr 8 years, 2 months ago

'if you don't like him around, don't visit here'

gr 8 years, 2 months ago

Tyco is probably not legal. Let's round him up and export him!

Tychoman 8 years, 2 months ago

Shut up, gr.

Dambudzo are you seriously asking these questions or are you just screwing around.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.