Archive for Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Domestic partnership registry opens today

Same-sex couples hail recognition

Partners Jill Kuhnheim, left, and Theresa Shireman joke with their 2-year-old son, Julian, during dinner Tuesday night in their Lawrence home. Kuhnheim and Shireman, who have been in a 12-year relationship, say they plan to fill out an application for the city's domestic partnership registry program that begins today.

Partners Jill Kuhnheim, left, and Theresa Shireman joke with their 2-year-old son, Julian, during dinner Tuesday night in their Lawrence home. Kuhnheim and Shireman, who have been in a 12-year relationship, say they plan to fill out an application for the city's domestic partnership registry program that begins today.

August 1, 2007

Advertisement

Domestic registry to go live

The state's first registry for unmarried couples will go live online in Lawrence tomorrow. Gay and heterosexual couples can apply to the city's domestic partnership registry at <a href="http://www.lawrenceks.org">www.lawrenceks.org</a>;. Enlarge video

Lori Messinger discusses Domestic Registry benefits

Hear Lori Messinger discuss what benefits she thinks the registry will provide.

Frank Reeb discusses Domestic Registry requirements

Frank Reeb, city clerk, discusses the requirements that must be met to be included on the city's domestic partnership registry.

Registry requirements

People can apply for the domestic partnership registry only online. The application form can be found at www.lawrenceks.org. There is a $75 fee that must be paid at the time of registration.

Among some of the requirements that must be met are:

  • Must be age 18 or older.
  • Both members of the partnership must be Lawrence residents and must have lived at least 60 consecutive days in Lawrence.
  • Must share a residence and must both contribute to supporting the household.
  • Neither member can be married or part of another domestic partnership.

Lori Messinger already feels like she is part of a true partnership.

Yes, it is with another woman, which in this state means it won't be called a marriage. But don't tell Messinger it is not a partnership. Not after her companion of 15 years, Boo Tyson, stood by her as Messinger's father was dying. Not after Tyson moved not once, but twice, so Messinger could build her career as a social welfare professor. And not after they balance the checkbook each month. It sure feels like a partnership when they watch both of their salaries go to pay for their jointly owned Lawrence home.

"You know, we fight about money and all the other things people deal with in regular life," Messinger said. "We're partners of the same sex, but in every other aspect of our lives, we live a very normal family life."

Today, Messinger won't have to just feel that she's in a partnership. She'll be able to show it, too. That will be courtesy of a new card and certificate that city leaders will be issuing as part of a domestic partnership registry program, which is the first in the state.

The registry begins accepting applications today at www.lawrenceks.org.

Gay and lesbian couples across the city said it will be a special day for them. The registry is open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, but the registry particularly was pushed by homosexual couples because the Kansas constitution prohibits gay marriage.

"We want that piece of paper that says we're being recognized, at least by the city of Lawrence," said John P. Connolly, who is in a partnership with Steve Maceli. "It is just recognition. That is what we want. We're a legitimate couple; we're a committed couple."

The registry doesn't grant members of a domestic partnership the legal benefits that come with marriage. But supporters of the registry have said it will make it easier for employers to add domestic partners of their employees to the company's health care plan. Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity.

Many couples on Tuesday, however, said the insurance issue was not why they were going to sign up for the registry. Several were employees of Kansas University, which does not offer domestic partner benefits, and nothing in the city ordinance requires companies or organizations to extend health benefits to domestic partners.

For those people, joining the registry is about much more than health benefits. It is about social change.

"There are a lot of (gay) people afraid of what society's response will be to them," said Kelly Barth, who has been in a 10-year partnership with Lisa Grossman. "I want people to begin to see and acknowledge people who are different than them and make that shift in their own mind."

Messinger said she hopes the registry will provide a symbol of normalcy to same-sex partnerships.

"I think it would help younger people who are just realizing they are gay or lesbian to see that it is sort of normal. To see that there are a lot of gay and lesbian people out there and that we have good lives," she said. "It allows us to be present in that way, and I think that is a good thing."

Theresa Shireman said the registry more than anything else is a sign of what the city stands for.

"I think it is an important thing for Lawrence to do," said Shireman, who is raising a son with her partner, Jill Kuhnheim. "We were at a position where we were thinking about moving into Kansas City. These kind of things make an important difference in our decision.

"It is really about the community saying we accept all different types of families here, and we value diversity."

City commissioners approved the registry in late May after hearing large amounts of public comment both for and against the registry. Commissioners approved the registry on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Mike Amyx opposing it on grounds that it overstepped the city's role.

Comments

The_Voice_of_Reason 8 years, 1 month ago

I suppose this means ol' Freddie and his gaggle of cult members will be in town tomorrow: guess I'll have to stop by Hyvee and see if they have any intelligently designed rotten tomatoes meant for the higher purpose of loading my water balloon sling shot and being hoisted into the heavens only to rain down upon the heads of the bible thumping, backwoods, buck tooth heathens.

JHawker 8 years, 1 month ago

Lawrence is taking another step in the right direction :-)

FormerCentralKansan 8 years, 1 month ago

Will they have a satellite office out at Riverfront Park in North Lawrence for all the perverts who infest that place. Don't ever bring your kids out there or run your dogs. That place is crazy!

Kim Gouge 8 years, 1 month ago

FCK....who said anything about perverts?

mick 8 years, 1 month ago

I just want to encourage all of the poodles and mariposas to give the city the $75 for this. It will help to defray the costs of the inevitable losing legal battles.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 1 month ago

It could well be a step in the right direction. If those who sign up feel that way that is all that matters.

gabbo 8 years, 1 month ago

Congrats to all that benefit! Even if one opposes the 6th and Wackyness of the current commishes, it has to be on the record that the city of Lawrence was brought out of arrears in current public policy with this registry. If folks take care of each other, why should anybody give a damn about their private business?

Bradley Kemp 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion:

It is not a fact that the ordinance is or will be found to be unconstitutional. It is your opinion. Here are some people who disagree with you.

  1. Me.

  2. The city attorney.

  3. The attorney general of the state of Kansas.

  4. A friend of mine who is a retired justice of the Kansas supreme court.

  5. Rep. Lance Kinzer -- who is no fan of the ordinance but who proposes a statutory remedy rather than a constitutional challenge.

bytheway 8 years, 1 month ago

About time. Everyone deserves the right to be acknowledged no matter their orientation for the love they have for their partners. Stupid idiots who don't think people should have those kind of rights need to quit hiding behind their bible.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 1 month ago

This registry, intended to legitimize homosexual behavior, is an embarrassment to the city.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

That's hilarious, Marion. You show us an obviously unconstitutional bit of verbiage and insinuate that any attempts get past such stupidity is absolutely hopeless.

We get it, already. Now go take a nap with your dogs!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker Perhaps people would not christian bash if christians didn't continually spew s h i t e to in their direction? We're all head butting, buttheaded hypocrites and are currently in the process of encouraging each other's anger. Great. Some of us are willing to call a truce because we're so stupid as to believe that doing so won't deny us an eternal, heavenly afterlife.

mom_of_three 8 years, 1 month ago

"legitimize homosexual behavior?"

If the government did it's job correctly, it shouldn't be bound by what some people think the Bible approves of. It should really think about what is fair or unfair to it's ENTIRE body of citizens. It shouldn't matter whether you or I approve of homosexuality or whether the President approves of it. It should be EQUAL rights for all, no matter of sexual orientation, religion, etc.....

50YearResident 8 years, 1 month ago

Will this registry be published in the Journal World just like marriage licenses and divorces? I think it definitely should be public information. If you sign up it should be public information for everyone to view and be aware of.

50YearResident 8 years, 1 month ago

It should also be published in the paper when a name is withdrawn from this registry. It's only fair folks, we all need to know to make it official.

oldgoof 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion: "The registry in Lawrence will be found to be unconstitutional (Which it clearly is; go read the amendment!) and the cause will be set back for years." . . Marion's inability to interpret law, is here again revealed. (it clearly is)

bd 8 years, 1 month ago

Mom of three, you are correct "equal rights for all" according to our laws!!!!!!! Another smoke and mirror show on the path to try and legalize homosexuallity.

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion - you've been pushing the same, tired line for some time. Give it up. Various persons (beside myself) have patiently explained why you are incorrect. Learn a little, okay?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

(Un)christian fear is so mind boggling! It flows into and through every aspect of their lives...so sad. Keep keeping the world safe for God, guys. I'm sure it's much appreciated. What horrors would abound without y'all around to make the world a better place.

fdalpd 8 years, 1 month ago

I do not read anywhere in Article 15 sec. 16 of the KS Constitution that would cause this domestic partnership registry to be unconstitutional. The amendment states "marriage shall be a civil contract", whereas the local ordinance explicitly states "registration pursuant to this Article creates no legal rights, other than the right to have the registered domestic partnership included in the City's Domestic Partner Registry." Law defines a basic contract as "a binding agreement between two or more persons that is enforceable by law." Nowhere does Lawrence hold this ordinance to be anything more than just a way to inform the community.

I think what is more important is Lawrence looking past what the "state as a whole" believes is right (no pun intended). Even if this registry grants no legal rights to the participants it still allows Lawrence and the individuals to do what they feel is right.

This ordinance may get struck down, however, reading the amendment I don't feel the language is as clear as some people on this board made it out to be.

compmd 8 years, 1 month ago

"Gay and lesbian couples across the city said it will be a special day for them."

Why is it such a special day if its supposed to be about health insurance? Unless of course people feel it means more...

Marion said: "It is a shame that folks who really want and need legal recognition for their relationships are being exploited by local feel-good politicians in this matter." Marion, you're completely correct. Its unfortunate that people realize that its you posting and just trying to be inflammatory, when in fact you've stated the crux of the problem with the registry: legal recognition.

I've said it countless times before, the intent was right, but the implementation wrong, and this will end up costing a lot of people a lot more than just money.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Awww, compmd. As a member of our great community I want to thank you SOOOO much for your Obvious concern and veiled threats.

Sigmund 8 years, 1 month ago

"Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity."

OK, name one.

Truth be told this creates no rights and no "contract" that can be enforced by a court between the two partners nor enforced against third parties. Completely and totally worthless.

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

"I don't see why a pagan person would feel the need to get married, assuming it is not a requirement of one of their many gods"

Because marriage and god don't have anything to do with each other. Unless, of course, you want them to.

I'm not certain what it is about this idea that is so difficult for you to either understand or acknowledge.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Marriage has been cheapened by the modern world and would be further cheapened by extending the definition to include deviant sexual relationships. A gay couple may want to believe that God will bless their "marriage", but they are not reading or following His word if they are participating in a homosexual relationship. Does this mean gay people can not be nice people? Of course they can be, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness from God. We all do things that are wrong but once we admit we are wrong and ask God to forgive us and help us to turn from those wrong things we can be changed. The problem lies in trying to make sin acceptable and legitimized. I don't agree to that.

diggerpine 8 years, 1 month ago

My family has lived here 40 years. I hope this is Not what Lawrence will be known for. I also think this registry should be published and updated.

Ralph Reed 8 years, 1 month ago

Just a couple of things.

First, let's take religion out of the mix and look at this without those blinders. I've looked in several versions of the Bible at http://www.biblegateway.com/ and find no references to homosexuality. I can only find references to sodomites, which was applied to those who practiced ritual homosexuality. I might be wrong, but I don't think anything in the Bible applies here. Could it be just "man's interpretation" of the Bible? Maybe we should simply read what is said.

Second, as I see it this registry is not just a chink in the armor to forward the cause of legalizing homosexuality. I have heterosexual friends who are lifelong mates, with children, who pay horrible insurance costs because they're not married; not to mention not having other rights afforded family members. This registry should allow them to obtain family insurance rates instead of paying for one family (depending on who claims the child) and the other paying for a single policy.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker says: It's quite entertaining to see many valued LJW neighbors posting on (the other) thread that my right to gun ownership and use should be regulated and on (this) thread screaming bloody murder to have unfettered rights for gays. Maybe it's just my twisted view of things, but does that seem strange to any of the other valued LJW neighbors?


No. It's all about unwaranted fear.

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

My partners, Lassie and Bambi's mother, and I wanna sign up so our lifestyle can be promoted. No open-minded, equal rights for all type of people, would oppose that, would they?

Where can I see a publicized, who's what, list?

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

Why are christians so obsessed with having sex with animals?

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

"OK, name one [Fortune 500 company offering domestic partner benefits]."

Here are the first 25 out of 268 Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits. Oh snap! Looks like the free market y'all fetishize has decreed that domestic partner benefits are essential to attracting and retaining the high-quality workers necessary to remain competitive in the 21st century.

How's that cognitive dissonance working for you?

3M Co.
Abbott Laboratories
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
Aetna Inc.
Affiliated Computer Services
Agilent Technologies Inc.
Allstate Corp., The Altria Group, Inc. Amazon.com Inc. American Express Co. American Family Insurance Group American International Group Inc. AmerisourceBergen Corp. Amgen Inc. AMR Corp. (American Airlines) Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. Aon Corp. Apple Inc. Applied Materials Inc. Aramark Corp. ArvinMeritor Inc. Ashland Inc. AT&T Inc. Automatic Data Processing Inc. Avaya Inc.

Hskrchad 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion, I hate to confuse you with the facts but many will be shocked if the ordinance is found unconstitutional.

When examening a statute The Supreme Court applies the fundamental rules of statutory construction including the maxim of plain meaning i.e., The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. State v. Ruez-Rees Jr. Kan No. 95,056. Additionally, it is the role of the Supreme Court to construe a statute constitutional if possible.

In examening the Lawrene ordinance it's plain meaning is clear that the STATE shall not recognize a relationship outside of marriage (No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.). The Lawrence ordinance does not ask the state to recognize anything.

Additionally, Kansas cities and municipalities are afforded the constitutional protection of Home Rule. see Art. 12 Kan. Const. Specifically, Cities are hereby empowered to determine their local affairs and government. Art. 12 Kan. Const Sec. 5(a). Therefore the ordinance is clearly within the sound discretion of home rule.

Marion, do some research and consult a lawyer before entering a gun fight with a knife.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

I find it ridiculous that people associate the gay lifestyle with promiscuity.

I've actually witnessed that catholic-school girls are the most promiscuous; especially when they get out of catholic school.

Confrontation 8 years, 1 month ago

"I might be wrong, but I don't think anything in the Bible applies here. Could it be just "man's interpretation" of the Bible? Maybe we should simply read what is said."

Great post. "Man's interpretation" is all anyone has. Christians seem to constantly twist the bible to fit their personal opinions.

Sigmund 8 years, 1 month ago

werekoala (Anonymous) says: "OK, name one [Fortune 500 company offering domestic partner benefits]."

As your reading comprehension seems to be lacking, I shall restate my challenge with emphasis on the part you conveniently left out....

Sigmund (Anonymous) says: "Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage *but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity."*

OK, name one.

Truth be told this creates no rights and no "contract" that can be enforced by a court between the two partners nor enforced against third parties. Completely and totally worthless.

bugmenot 8 years, 1 month ago

Why do people keep saying "road to legalizing homosexuality"? Homosexuality is already legal. Homosexual marriages aren't yet recognized in Kansas, but, good Lord, you can certainly legally be a homosexual.

craigers 8 years, 1 month ago

Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?

salamisang 8 years, 1 month ago

Why do you want a published list of people who register?

50YearResident 8 years, 1 month ago

A published list will keep someone from signing up with multiple partners.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 1 month ago

"Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?"

Bewildering, isn't it, craigers? Don't even try to wrap your feeble, religiously-addled mind around it.

This is a step that brings the city more in line with the Constitution. As a strict constructionist, I take "equal protection" to mean just that, no exceptions or interpretations. As a strict constructionist, I also take "no establishment of religion" literally, period. No exceptions or interpretations.

It is fun to watch how uncomfortable fundie xtians are with the freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

salamisang 8 years, 1 month ago

Lot of Fortune 50 companies in Lawrence, right thinker?

Ragingbear 8 years, 1 month ago

This is a step in the right direction. We still have a long ways to go. In many ways, I see similarities in this to the entire racial struggle of the days of Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Slowly, but surely they are gaining the recognition and protection that they are rightfully entitled to.

Sigmund 8 years, 1 month ago

This isn't progress, unless by "progress" you mean conferring no legal rights upon the registrants.

What is the effect of registering? Registration creates no legal rights, other than the right to have the registered domestic partnership included in the City's Domestic Partner Registry. http://www.lawrenceks.org/adminservices/domestic_partnership/faq.php

It is like a vanity license tag, worthless. Except with a vanity tag you get to drive your Volvo on the road for a year. A waste of time an money for all concerned....

justthefacts 8 years, 1 month ago

Query: Can anyone who wants to see who has registered see/get a copy of the list under the Kansas Open Records Act? That Act create the presumption that all public records (one possessed by a unit of the government) are open unless some law specifically allows those records to be closed to the public. K.S.A. 45-221 lists the types of records that may be closed. See www.kslegislature.org for a copy of it. I don't see anything in there that specifically closes this type of record. Subsection (a)(30) might allow the registrant's home addresses to be closed. But that would not necessarily extend to their names and the fact they've registered. So, is there any other state law that allows the city to refuse to provide a copy of this list?

craigers 8 years, 1 month ago

That's fine, then stand your ground. I simply asked a question. People view marriage as a long term committment and those that are heterosexual couples that have children and love each other and don't want to get married are simply dancing around being committed till death do us part. Sorry but if you are in such loving relationship and have children, then get married. And if marriage is so "evil" then why are people trying so hard to attain it's benefits?

Sigmund 8 years, 1 month ago

justthefacts, just read the FAQ ... Is a domestic partnership registration confidential? No. When an application for Domestic Partnership Registration is filed with the City Clerk's Office, it becomes a public record pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act. http://www.lawrenceks.org/adminservices/domestic_partnership/faq.php

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

" "Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?"

Bewildering, isn't it, craigers? Don't even try to wrap your feeble, religiously-addled mind around it. "

Well, with all the benefits of marriage, why wouldn't everyone who can get legally married, already be? Why are there so many "living in sin" if there is such an (tax) advantage to marriage. Kind of indicates it's a promotion of lifestyle rather than because of any "freedom" or "civil rights".

justthefacts 8 years, 1 month ago

Thanks S. That brings up the next question. Does anyone think that someone (like "Freddie") might obtain this list and use it for "not so nice" reasons? Like picketing a home, or targeting individuals? If I were contemplating registering, I might think twice about doing so, for this reason.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker says: An interesting link: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-v: Leftie Spinmasters, start your engines!!! Blow it to pieces.


ummm... That site is "spinning" so out of control that it will blow itSELF to pieces.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

justthefacts,

Yes, let's let Freddie and the rest of the terrorists dictate innocent people's lives. Let's give up equal rights so people like Freddie can rule the country.

Sigmund 8 years, 1 month ago

"Does anyone think that someone (like "Freddie") might obtain this list and use it for "not so nice" reasons?" I do.

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

Warsteiner Dunkel, Beck's Dark and Heineken

Marion, seems we have the same taste in beers!

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

But, destroying the country and the state is unacceptable. Why do you idiots focus only on the gays, the abortions, the bible, evolution and all that other nonsense? You should focus on the substantive issues affecting our country such as the war and winning it, the economy, education, health care. But, I guess you rather just be queer free then have a stable economy, good health care and world peace. Priorities, huh?


Fantastic post, Babyboy! I hope one day the Republican party is PURGED of this scum! Today's Republican party is NOT the same party my parent's belonged to and supported all their lives.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

gr says... "...with all the benefits of marriage, why wouldn't everyone who can get legally married, already be?" ---Why ask why? It's none of your business.

"Why are there so many "living in sin" if there is such an (tax) advantage to marriage."

"Kind of indicates it's a promotion of lifestyle rather than because of any "freedom" or 'civil rights'."

trinity 8 years, 1 month ago

hskrchad, great post! but, attempts to talk sense to someone so hell-bent for getting in the last word&being right are futile. so are his efforts at trying to get someone to kiss his "heinie" ass.

fascinating_person 8 years, 1 month ago

  1. right_thinker and gr, STOP using bestiality as an example. It makes no sense to compare screwing an animal to a consensual relationship between two human adults. Stop diluting the discussion, you're being stupid, just STOP.

  2. Those who disdainfully stated that this is 'just' a feel-good move by politicians, yes, it is that in large part. If you reread the article (or finally read it a first time), you'll note that many of the couples interviewed were thrilled just to be recognized at all, even if better benefits don't follow. I'm sure none of these couples think this is a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction not a meaningless gesture.

  3. bugmenot, I'm also trying to figure out why some people apparently think it's illegal to be a homosexual. No clue where that idea is coming from. And SettingTheRecordStraight used the expression: "legitimize homosexual behavior," to which mom_of_three responded: "It shouldn't matter whether you or I approve of homosexuality:" Exactly right. Whether "homosexual behavior" is "legitimate" or not is subjective; what DOES need to be agreed upon by all is that subjective opinions shouldn't influence a group's rights.

  4. 50YearResident seems completely obsessed with getting this registry public. (Why, I don't know. Scared of homosexuals? Secretly gay, hoping to add to his list of contacts? Just hoping to "embarrass" people whose sexual orientation he can't understand? Your guess is as good as mine.) It seems, from both the article and from common sense, that most of the homosexual couples interested in the registry are committed couples of years and years, many of whom share a home and/or are raising children. If this is true, I suspect that they aren't ashamed of their lifestyle and aren't trying to hide it, and therefore I'm sure many of them would be more than happy to let that information be made public alongside marriage licenses, as 50YR suggested. As for his assertion that "a published list will keep someone from signing up with multiple partners," - a) would it? and b) you clearly have no concept of the homosexual lifestyle if you only believe the stereotype that homosexuals are promiscous.

....so maybe - and this goes for a lot of people besides 50YR - MAYBE if you really have no idea what you're talking about, and have never had a real conversation with a gay person, and are just spewing BS because everyone else at your church/in your neighborhood/in your political party is, you should shut your trap.

dtaylor 8 years, 1 month ago

NEWSFLASH!

I was at City Hall at 10 am when lots of same-sex and a few opposite-sex couples registered as domestic partners. And the world did not end! Whew!

For those of you who are obsessed with knowing who registered, here is another news flash: you can see many of them tonight if you watch the news (pick a Channel; they were all there). Also, the LJWorld will not publish the list of registrants because the State does not recognize this as a coupleship (their words, not mine). At any rate, unlike those who are registering to carry guns (conceal/carry) and vehemently protested having their names published (why? I haven't a clue!), the DP registrants were not given a choice.

NEWSFLASH FOR SIGMUND: I know this won't shut you up, but AT & T requires documented proof of domestic partner registry from a government entity. This is well-documented; two different AT & T employees mentioned it when they testified against House Bill 2299 in Topeka a few months ago. Given your thought process, the only next comment you can make is: "Ok, name two."

***I'm still waiting for R_T and some of the others to rally behind me as we pressure our Legislators to SAVE MARRIAGE by making divorce more difficult! Who's with me?? Require counseling for those who want to divorce? Stiff fines for those who cheat on their spouses? Jail time? Come on people! LET'S SAVE MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

If you idiotic homophobes would READ the provisions given by the LJW in the article, it shows:

Two consenting adults. Is an animal a consenting adult? No.

Neither can be married or in another domestic partnership.

Well, that just blasted your arguments against the registry.

Against domestic partnerships? Don't get one. God you people piss me off sometimes.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

dtaylor,

I endorse your mission to save marriage. "Thou shall not commit adultery" is one of the 10 commandments so it should be equal to "Thou shall not kill." I think jail time is appropriate.

simplyamazed 8 years, 1 month ago

Why does everyone have to worry about what everyone else seems to be doing with their lives? If it is their choice to have a same sex couple then so be it. They could be doing worse things by far! It is the couple who will have to face the maker someday and account for what they have done. I have never read where it was going to be before a judge and a jury.(they are before the jury everyday on earth and man is the jury cruel) I am not gay or lesbian but it seems that most people who are complaining are backsliders and they will face the same judge. Leave them alone and clean around your own door before striking out at such honest people! At least they are willing not to hide where most will not speak of their indiscretions. Thank You City Commissioners for getting at least one thing right in your tenure. Some of my best friends are gay or lesbians and I am so proud for you! This is a great day in history.

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion: there is no contract here. The City is creating a registry as part of their zoning policy categorizing different types of households. We've been over this ground. Stop repeating yourself.

What's most important to remember about Marion's confusion is that the key shortcoming in the 'sky is falling' scenario is NOT the FLAWED analysis of the state of Kansas constitutional law......

The KEY flaw is one that trips up 'busybodies' all the time: there is no PLAINTIFF to file a lawsuit! Judges do not just wake up some morning and say 'I think I'll hold a hearing on Issue X.' Nor does Marion, or I, or any reader, or the King of Siam have a basis to file a lawsuit as NO ONE can demonstrate harm to themselves. No demonstrable harm - no "standing." (By my analysis, the only person would have "standing" to file a lawsuit would be the Attorney General of Kansas. The AG has already given his thumbs up to this registry scheme.)

No plaintiff - no lawsuit - no judgment.

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

rightthinker: "...to have unfettered rights for gays."

What rights are the "unfettered" ones? Clearly, you don't even know what the word means.

bluedog 8 years, 1 month ago

I have a couple of questions, not statements (I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire). Can a couple who is on the list have themselves removed, such as in a divorce? And does the registry have any legal bearing when dividing up assets?

dtaylor 8 years, 1 month ago

Bluedog. Yes, the couple can "unregister" just like marrieds ("til death do us part") can divorce. The registry offers NO LEGAL RIGHTS OR BENEFITS. At this time, it merely allows people (like me) who work at companies that extend domestic partner benefits to show our employers that we really are in partnered relationships.

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

craigers: "People view marriage as a long term commitment and those that are heterosexual couples that have children and love each other and don't want to get married are simply dancing around being committed till death do us part."

Exactly! So why have you and the other religious crazies undermined the distinctive, exclusive definition of marriage by refusing to apply it equally to all people? Did you seriously think that because you 'successfully' mandated an unfair and discriminatory marriage policy that the fair-minded public at large would just accept your bigotry and condemn couples to second class citizenship?

No, I've warned you before that if you were really concerned about marriage as social institution and not as a religiously imposed straitjacket, you'd SUPPORT marriage rights for ALL couples willing to make that commitment. You have no one but yourself to blame for any undermining of marriage that results from this watered-down version.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

bluedog: To answer your questions: Yes. No, since it's a registry, not a contract.

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

"Although, if I may comment a bit further without your vicious attacks, gays are nowhere NEAR done pushing their agenda."

right_thinker


R_T, somewhere along the line, I didn't get a copy of the 'Gay Agenda' memo. Can you enlighten the rest of us as to what this 'Agenda' entails?? Details please!

KULawyer07 8 years, 1 month ago

The test used by Kansas courts in determining whether a city ordinance conflicts with a state statute or constitutional provision is the test used in Junction City v. Lee. That test is "whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids or prohibits that which the statute authorizes." Using this test, it is clear that the Lawrence registry does not permit that which the Marriage Amendment forbids or prohibits that which the Marriage Amendment authorizes.
The Marriage Amendment prohibits cities and counties in Kansas from recognizing any relationship, other than marriage, "as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage." The Lawrence registry does not entitle domestic partners "to the rights or incidents of marriage." The ordinance simply allows domestic partners to register with the City of Lawrence. The right to register is not a "right or incident of marriage." Furthermore, the ordinance does not confer any other rights whatsoever. While private companies may use the ordinance to allow the domestic partners of employees to receive health benefits, the Marriage Amendment does not prohibit private employers from extending those benefits to the domestic partners of employees. Ordinance No. B certainly does not require private employers to extend benefits to domestic partners.

Since the Lawrence registry does not conflict in any way with the Marriage Amendment, the City of Lawrence has not unconstitutionally exercised its home rule authority in trying to enact a domestic partnership registry ordinance.

Confrontation 8 years, 1 month ago

"Require counseling for those who want to divorce?"

Bad idea. Too many women remain in abusive relationships after they have their (mostly religion-based) counseling. A woman or man should not be required to get counseling to get out of an abusive relationship. Neither should have to sit through counseling if their spouse cheats. Perhaps pre-marital counseling is a better idea.

Candice Chandler 8 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says: "...if I may comment a bit further without your vicious attacks, gays are nowhere NEAR done pushing their agenda"

You're kidding me, right? Exactly what would the "agenda" be? Equality? Acceptance? No, wait--they want to turn you gay, is that it? Please! Give me a break!!!

dtaylor 8 years, 1 month ago

R_T, sounds to me like you are in a crummy relationship if your only response to me is that married couples should take drugs so they can deal with their spouses. I am sorry that the institution of marriage means so little to you. My partner is neither mouthy, arrogant, nor unruly. She would not cheat on me. We would hold marriage in high regard (just as we do our partnership), not like some chain-clad chore of a marriage you seem to have. I guess this is a good example of irony . . . So, I guess this means you will not help us save marriage by ending divorce? And if, according to you, it is human nature to cheat (that does not seem very Christlike, btw), then why would you care if I could marry my spouse? Because I would make your marriage look bad? Tell me you are not that shallow . . . .

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

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

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

right: "Thank you as a valued LJW neighbor to bring this egregious misuse of the word to my attention."

No, its not "egregious misuse" but rather a carefully crafted codeword to signal a false claim about others. There are no "unfettered" demands for rights nor is there an "agenda." I noticed YOUR agenda by just reading your plagiarized (and irrational) quote claiming that gays can't be victims if corporations grant them benefits.

bugmenot 8 years, 1 month ago

Seriously - if you are against the "gay agenda," say it outloud. Type the words out. All I can figure is that you either mean the "gay agenda" is a big conspiracy to turn everyone gay (and I can't imagine anyone, even on this board, believes that) or is an attempt to have being gay be accepted as normal as being straight. If you have a problem with gays being accepted the way straight people are, you have some serious, serious issues. It isn't a choice; it's as if you're saying I don't think the handicapped should be treated the same way as the non-handicapped. They didn't set out to make their lives harder; they were born a certain way. And, I don't think it's even reasonable to equate being gay with somehow being handicapped or a "lesser" person than non-gays. I think gay people should be allowed to be as proud of being gay as straight people are of being straight.

Honestly, what are you afraid of if gays marry? I cannot wrap my mind around what the problem with that would be. There'd be more marriages? Gays would feel more comfortable in society? Do you really have a problem with that? Gays cannot possibly harm the reputation or institution of marriage more than straights have.

justthefacts 8 years, 1 month ago

"Perhaps pre-marital counseling is a better idea."

Fact: Some religions already require such counseling. [6 months waiting period (minimum) and meanwhile classes and retreats required. And if the church's pastor is given good reason to think a couple has "flunked" the classes, no ceremony.] And still, that religion's adherent's have a no less higher % of divorce then the general population.

As an actor with the initials K.R. once said in the old movie "Parenthood" - You need a license to get a dog, ride bike, drive a car etc., But any ___ can be a parent." It doesn't take much to make a giant mistake. Same could be said of couples who jump in and out of relationships as fast as they change hair styles (and with less thought). There is no one gender or specific sexual orientation that is less or more prone to that conduct. Some individuals are simply better at picking out life mates and/or more able to work through the rough times (that always come) and stick to their vows/commitment. How does anyone, let alone the government, fix problems that are (at core) (a) rooted in the individual and (b) not universally accepted as problems? The government cannot (and should not) be expected to fix all problems, or solve all issues, especially those beyond its natural authority. Take some personal responsibility. Do what you preach.

Lonestar1 8 years, 1 month ago

What a great revenue stream for the city! Let's do something that brings people to Lawrence to spend money at the local businesses and causes some publicity. They can all register at City Hall as "partners" and pay a fee to the city for the privilege. What does the city plan on doing with the money?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker says... "Remember, God loves the gay, the idiot, and the far-left godless loon too-so know that you guys are loved."


Well, I'm glad you included yourself in that statement!~) I do have a hard time understanding why you spend so much time encouraging hatred of "the gay...and the far-left godless loon"?

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

So if I'm understanding you correctly, the federal, state, and local governments should all consult the Bible before deciding whether or not to bless a given union, is that right?

Because my next question is, what if it's a heterosexual couple who are Pagan? They certainly reject Jesus and Yahweh -- are straight Pagans more or less deserving of the right to be married than a homosexual couple who believe Jesus died for their sins (but that homosexuality is no more a sin than being blond)?

Also, Jesus clearly states that remarriage after a divorce is adultery (and therefore sinful) in Matthew 19:9 -- do you believe we should make it illegal to remarry?

If not, how do you explain making one act you view as sinful illegal, while permitting a second (and more clearly prohibited) act to be legal?

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

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

irishdevil99 8 years, 1 month ago

Quigley,

What's your problem with KUlawyer07's comment? I thought it was nice to get a legal analysis from someone who (granted, online anonymity leaving everything in doubt) at least claims to be a lawyer. It's far better than those who've been saying nothing but "It's legal, so there!" or "It's unconstitutional, so there!" without backing up their statements. Are you upset that they sounded intelligent? Or that they didn't throw enough folksy touches in?

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

"The Overhauling of Straight America," and a 1989 book titled "After the Ball."


R_T is this your smoking gun Gay Agenda claim??? How utterly laughable!!!

A TWENTY year old source?

Yes, we all know this is the same book that the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (the LOONS who believe in reparative therapy or conversion therapy) love to quote from.

R_T, pick up the clue phone, Dr. Reality is calling.

dtaylor 8 years, 1 month ago

R_T, there is also a movie out there produced by anti-gay psychologist Paul Cameron (who was later stripped of his license by the APA) and the Christian Coalition (also in the 1980s) that was called The Gay Agenda. It was sent to churches (for free) all over the U.S. and its premise was that the Gay Agenda is rejecting God, turning everyone else gay, and getting everyone else diseased. It was horrible anti-gay propaganda but a lot of people believed it. So, I guess I can conclude that a lot of people out there are trying to tell me--and you--what the Gay Agenda is. As a person who is gay, all I can tell you is that I live my life as normally as you (work to make ends meet, try to be a good provider, try to be good to my friends, try to mow the lawn, try not to complain about washing dishes and doing laundry), and I try to live by the "Do Unto Others" rule. The only difference is that the person I have chosen to share my private life with is a female (as am I). Again, you have never answered what makes my relationship with her a threat to you, your family, or your beliefs. I can only conclude that you must have been hit on by a male at some point in your life and it upset you greatly. I am sorry if this is the case. All I can say is that's too bad. And I can also say (and I am not trying to be mean) Welcome to the World of Women who constantly get hit on by men who think it is their duty to hit on us, even when our body language says Go Away.

It's really easy to make these comments online when no one sees you. Do you really believe what you are saying? I think you know that I am sincere in what I say.

justthefacts 8 years, 1 month ago

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

justthefacts 8 years, 1 month ago

Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from your brother's.

ihatelv 8 years, 1 month ago

I posted this in the other article, and didn't want to leave you all out....

O, and nobody took me up on my offer from yesterday:. I'm offering a piece of paper that will say what ever you want on it for $50::.. Down from $75:: It will also not be a legally binding document of any kind. So if you're interested, let me know:

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

Right_Thinker wrote the 6 major points of the gay agenda are:

-Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. -Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. -Give homosexual protectors a "just" cause. -Make gays look good. -Make the victimizers look bad. -Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.

This was allegedly from a 20 year source. To modernize, all you have to do is sub "gay/homosexual" with Christian and it makes way more sense:

-Talk about Christians and Christianity as loudly and often as possible. -Portray Christians as victims, not aggressive challengers. -Give Christians a "just" cause. -Make Christians look good. -Make the victimizers look bad. -Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the Christian cause.)

Funny how that works.

farmgal 8 years, 1 month ago

to: I've got my ascot... http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/un: that is so damn funny, LMAO here. While I feel that people should have the right to be with whomever they chose and I certainly don't hate people due to their sexual preferences, color of skin, etc., I do think that if you chose to live outside the norm, you shouldn't expect to have special treatment. (I know, many will say, they don't expect special treatment, but imo, they do).

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 1 month ago

farmgal,

You've been mislead. First off, it's not a choice to be gay...I'm not sure where this comes from b/c I don't know why someone would choose to be a subject of ridicule.

And secondly, it's not special treatment. Heterosexuals are qualified to register as well. If anything, you've gained an additional right if you want an alternative to marriage.

I'm glad you don't hate people due to their sexual orientation, though, unlike b3.

Kodiac 8 years, 1 month ago

RT,

The link you gave us was from the Alliance Defense Fund group. Yep no agenda here right RT. Just your normal conservative fundamental christian group of lawyers who are trying to defend the rights of your average American citizen. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defense_Fund

One agenda deserves another....

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

No farmgal, I do NOT want special treatment and I do NOT live outside the norm! I stopped justifying who I am as a person many years ago, I do NOT have to prove anything to anyone. I mind my own business, work and pay ALL my taxes. No one in this forum is asking for special treatment, just EQUAL treatment. If we can't expect such, then we might as well trash the Constitution.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Talking about a "gay agenda" today is as ridiculous as talking about a "black agenda" would have been in 1963.

After all, there was a conscious effort to:

-Talk about blacks and civil as loudly and often as possible. -Portray blacks as victims, not aggressive challengers. (Think of the lunch counters) -Give northern civil-rights workers a "just" cause. -Make blacks look good. -Make the victimizers look bad. -Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the civil rights cause.)

Yet somehow, society failed to crumble, and in fact became stronger. As it will again. And folks like you who just can not seem to wrap your heads around the idea of people living differently from you will look just as silly, sad, pathetic, and crude to your grandchildren, as the white Southerners who attacked civil rights workers do to you and I today.

Enjoy your fear of the unfamiliar. Revel in your vitriol while you can. Because we all know how this movie is going to end.

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

KUlawyer's observations were quite on the mark. Largely the same facts that have been posted by various people online here about this topic for some time. Unfortunately, a significant quantity of people online are incapable of learning anything (or unmotivated to do so).

quigley 8 years, 1 month ago

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

fdalpd 8 years, 1 month ago

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

Candice Chandler 8 years, 1 month ago

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

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

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

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

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

compmd 8 years, 1 month ago

JJE007 (Anonymous) says:

Awww, compmd. As a member of our great community I want to thank you SOOOO much for your Obvious concern and veiled threats.

I am concerned. I don't like the idea of this blowing up in people's faces, or the city's. Since you are also a member of our great community then you know that in Lawrence everything is controversial, and everything is protested, and sometimes that leads to policy change. If you would like to ignore the potential scenarios that could arise and threaten the longevity of the benefits of the registry, you are doing yourself a disservice. Are you at all familiar with my stance on this issue and the complexities and problems with the implementation of the registry that I have descibed in the past or are you just assuming that anyone who disagrees with you or what you want hates you? I think you do not understand that criticism doesn't imply malice. But that doesn't matter, because you came into this thread and attacked everyone that had ideas the slightest bit incompatible with yours.

For anyone to threaten anyone else on this board they would have to be

a) Extremely new to the LJW forums b) Extremely stupid.

I don't satisfy either of those conditions; I'm very curious to know what "veiled threats" I supposedly made on this board.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Oh pack it in, b3. Biblethumpers like you should be grateful that (for some unfathomable reason) the Journal-World allows hate speech and narrowmindedness to continually be posted on these forums, while arbitrarily and subjectively removing only certain users' posts--yours and myself included.

LJWorld, it's time for some moderation.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Cry me a bleeding river, RT. You whine more than anybody else here. You're tired of being called narrowminded, bigoted, uneducated, etc.? Stop BEING narrowminded, bigoted, and uneducated. Open your mind. What you and your wife do grosses me out as much as what I may do with my boyfriend, but you don't see me saying that because it grosses me out, you don't deserve equal rights.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

"Open your mind." Tychoman

Just be sure that in doing so you don't open it so far your brain falls out.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

"People are just tired of being called ignorant, or bigots, or uneducated, or narrow-minded because they are opposed to homosexuality."

Well, I myself am personally opposed to practicing homosexuality for myself. So you know what I do about it? I don't indulge in homosexual behaviors. Amazing how that works out.

But as for telling other people how to live their lives? Yeah, not so much.

You're not being called an ignorant uneducated narrow-minded bigot for not wanting to have gay sex yourself. You're being called one because you want to force everyone else to be exactly the same as you are.

blackwalnut 8 years, 1 month ago

Is there anything you right wingers are not terrified of? Anything at all?

denak 8 years, 1 month ago

Here is an interesting little factoid:

On Monday I bought my Family Law text. Of the 16 chapters dealing with Family law, only one of the chapters deals with marriage, marriage requirements, benefits.etc.. The other five chapters deal with matters involving minors/children.

And the other 11, what do you think these chapters deal with? If you say.D-I-V-O-R-C-E., you are correct. 2/3rds of my text deals with divorce.

On the first page of chapter one, the text clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Then it spends 11 chapters describing what happens when that union dissolves.

Obviously, hetersexuals aren't doing a great job at this whole marriage concept so as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals should be allowed to get married. It's not as if they are going to screw up marriage anymore than heterosexuals have.

Dena

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Yes, our society has a big problem with divorce and it is because people are taking marriage less seriously. People want to be married and forget God in the process, even though the concept was designed by Him. Lots of people are cohabitating and sleeping around before marriage rather than waiting for that special person to spend their life with. The definition of marriage has been cheapened and people want to make it even more broad.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Homosexual marriage goes against the point of marriage (i.e. reproduction) so I don't think it should be legalized. I don't see why a pagan person would feel the need to get married, assuming it is not a requirement of one of their many gods, but they are still within the limits of the way God created us to function. If a homosexual believes that Jesus died for their sin, then they need to find out what God considers sin to be and it is clearly laid out in the Bible that homosexual relations are sinful. In order to be forgiven of sin you need to repent of it. It is a sin to divorce and remarry except in cases of adultery so I don't think it should be legal except in that case. The Bible does suggest that widows remarry so obviously that is okay. Obviously the state does not base its decisions on what the Bible says at all times (or even most of the time anymore) but a homosexual "marriage" is against nature and the creation of our bodies, hence the reason it is offensive to so many people who are not even Bible believing Christians. To legalize homosexual marriage is to relax the term "marriage" to the point where it is really meaningless anymore.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

manyblessings :

Sounds like you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth on this one. On the one hand, you're saying that marriage has been cheapened and devalued by the modern world.

On the other hand, you are saying that marriage would be devalued by letting gays get the same benefits.

So which is it? Right now you sound like a person whose car has just been totaled, complaining about a scratch on the bumper.

Let me ask you this-- which is worse in your eyes:

1) a homosexual couple who believes God has blessed their marriage, waits until after the ceremony to consummate their relationship, live together the rest of their lives in love and harmony, and adopt a child who they bring up to love and respect his God and his fellow man, or

2) a heterosexual couple who meet on a drunken fling in Vegas, get married after the girl turns up pregnant by a justice of the peace, never set foot in a church, and spend five years making each other and their children miserable until they finally separate in a bitterly contested divorce where the children are used as pawns and grow up hating both parents.

By your arguments, you somehow find #2 to be superior to #1, or at least more worth of social recognition and legal benefits -- why is that?

Amy Bartle 8 years, 1 month ago

I'm so proud to be part of this city for implementing the domestic partnership registry. I hope that this evolves into more rights eventually for gay couples. I hope that 10 years from now - it may take 20 - that rights for gay couples will be a non issue because they will be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Do you know what Adam and Eve's favorite song was?

"We are Family!"

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Why rail against a fad, right_thinker? Silly goose.

craigers 8 years, 1 month ago

manyblessings, I just have to ask why in the traditional marriage service done in churches does it speak of having children if it is God's will for them to do so? If your thought of marriage is solely for reproduction, then why doesn't our marriage ceremony say join together as husband and wife and start procreating? I'm not trying to sound rude, but children aren't mandatory for marriage. However, it is in God's word that if we have children, "To train a child in the way he should go". And not all remarriage is considered adultery, biblically.

hornhunter 8 years, 1 month ago

No, my family has many branches. These people just get a trunk

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Sorry for my veiled accusation of a veiled threat, compmd. The argumentative heat created by waves of naysaying got the better of me. I will cop to the conditions you presented for one who would be foolish enough to actually make a real threat to an individual or individuals in this space and time... "For anyone to threaten anyone else on this board they would have to be a) Extremely new to the LJW forums b) Extremely stupid." ...however, my philosophy would always lean towards replacing "Extreme" with "Moderate", so... I'm saying I am: a) Moderately new to the LJW forums b) Moderately stupid!~) Sorry, again! Have a good day and beware the dismissive naysaying.

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

"Otherwise, it's really none of your business what anyone else does."

Unless you don't like their opinions.

or their dog.

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

"Yes, the far-(wing) takeover of Americathank god you loons are a fad."

There, fixed this for you. As best I could, without changing the grammar.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Yes the point of marriage is to procreate. Remember sex outside of marriage (according to the Bible) is wrong. Inside of marriage we are told that we are to have sex and not deprive one another except during times of fasting and prayer. (1 Corinthians 7:3-6) Keep in mind that throughout most of history birth control was not practiced and children were considered a blessing. When blessing Rebekah, upon her marriage to Isaac, her family said "Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands, of ten thousands...." (Genesis 24:60). For refusing to raise up children with Tamar after marrying her (and "emitting his seed on the ground"), Onan was struck dead by God. Traditional wedding vows DO say to have children. I will post that part of the traditional wedding vow in a minute.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Traditional wedding vows give the following 3 reasons for marriage:

"First it was ordained for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of His holy name.
Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instinct and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright; that those who are called of God to this holy estate, should continue therein in pureness of living. Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Jeremiah 29:6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters-that you may be increased there and not diminished.

Malachi 2:14 ....Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

manyblessings, You seem very sincere and kind but why do you continue with this biblical quoting here? Has your congregation not made clear to you that this is a place of demons? It is a hell, of sorts. In the book of Demons, it says that preaching to "the screen of the unbelievers" shall cause the fires of "a hell, of sorts" to leap forth and singe "with electronical wizardositry" the preachers' words that dare visit the "cyberspace" heathen mass...for it is a place of jokers and fools, laughing in their joking foolery, naked of clothing fit to cover their offensive nature, parts and posts. You are brave to continue, but your words and the words of your religion fall upon a place where its seed cannot procreate. Take it to the choir.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Wow, a harsh reaction don't you think? I was simply responding to someone's question about why I believe the way I do. Craigers asked about the marriage vows talking about having children. I quoted the Bible because he said that it wasn't in God's word that we should have children in marriage. I disagree and posted some quotes to show differently. I am not going to leave God's word out of my discussion because it is very relevant to the topic.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

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

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

I'm beginning to wonder if manyblessings is related to the woman that came through my place of employment one afternoon and asked me if I read the Bible. I told her that I did when I was young. She then proceded to ask me "why don't you anymore? do you not understand it?"

I'd never been so offended in my life.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Tychoman,

People aren't "created" gay. We are created male and female with the proper equipment for reproducing with the opposite sex. Being "gay" is in your mind. We all have areas where we are prone to sin because of our fallen human nature and we all need the Lord's help to gain self control in those areas. The Lord loves us all equally and is equally willing to forgive us and help us to turn from sin if we only ask.

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

How does God saying we should have children in marriage become "the reason for marriage is to reproduce?"

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

How does God saying we should have children in marriage become "the reason for marriage is to reproduce?" Veritas

I think Genesis 1 :27-28 lays it out pretty clearly. " So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, " Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

This was the point of creating male and female and the very first command given to people by God, the first words they ever heard from Him.

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

DID HE SAY "THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS TO REPRODUCE" ANYWHERE IN THAT???!! I don't see any mention of marriage in there, whatsoever.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Do you ever give up, manyblessings? You are so ignorant of how people really work. You remind me of that crazy witch in "Edward Scissorhands" who shunned him at the beginning because he was different and had crosses and rosaries all over her house. She sat alone, every night playing the organ, remixing hymns.

Tell me, was that you who portrayed her in that movie?

Nothing in Genesis said anything about marriage.

Against gay marriage? Don't get one. God created EVERYBODY, didn't he? That includes gay people. Just don't let one touch you, otherwise you'll get the gay, too!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Thump. Thump. Thump.

---Who's there?

The Word of God.

---We don't want any, thanks.

You need it. It cleanses sin.

---No thanks. Go away now.

It's free!

---Not interested...Bye! Thanks!

I'll just slip it under the door.

---No. Really. We don't want any.

It's important. Here it comes.

---Go away!

I'll read some of it to you,

---Gotta go poop. Have a good day!

You are a sinner.

---I'm pooping! Leave me alone.

You will burn in Hell!

---For pooping? Love you, too! Bye!

I'll wait until you're finished

---Burning or pooping?

mick 8 years, 1 month ago

I estimate that this little political statement is going to cost Lawrence taxpayers about $100 thousand or more in a losing legal battle. The Kansas Constitution cannot be any more clear. If you want sanctification for your homosexual behavior I suggest that you move to Massachusetts.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

For those who apparently don't know this- Adam and Eve were the first husband and wife as described in the Bible. They had the first marriage. God told them to "be fruitful and multiply".

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Mick if you want sanctification for your bigoted behavior, I suggest you move to Iran.

Manyblessings, learn to read. "Be fruitful and multiply" does not equal "I now pronounce you man and wife. Besides, that was in Genesis. Old Testament, which according to homophobes like you, doesn't count.

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

So you ARE the same woman I met once at a drive through window. That, or she's one of your husband's wives.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

"Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord. " Psalm 128:3-4

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Thump. Thump. Thump.

Who's there?

The word of mick.

We don't want any, thanks.

You need it. It is good and pure and guaranteed.

To give dissatisfaction? No thanks. Go away now.

It's free and can be used over and over again!

To bore people? Not interested:Bye! Thanks!

I'll just slip it under your post.

No. Really. We don't want any.

It's important. Here it comes.

Go away!

I'll repeat its truth, briliance and...did I mention truth?

Gotta go poop. Have a good day!

You are an idiot!

I'm pooping. Leave!

You will lose One Hundred Thousand Dollars!

That's OK. I have toilet paper! Bye!

I'll wait until you're finished

Wiping or listening?

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

You're my favorite, JJE.

Manyblessings, stop spamming up the boards with your cherrypicking.

manyblessings 8 years, 1 month ago

Tychoman-

Adam and Eve were indeed husband and wife. Not sure why you would try to argue that. " And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:23-24

"Woman" means literally, "womb-man". Woman is different from man because she has a womb for growing babies in, one of the primary purposes for marriage.

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

I aspire to be more than a freakin' plant, personally. I hope someone overwaters you.

Veritas 8 years, 1 month ago

I wouldn't want to be forced into marriage with someone I had just met. Poor Eve.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

Technically Eve was related to Adam. So following that logic, all humans are related to each other.

EWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

God created Adam in His likeness and then Eve was created from Adam's rib. Jeepers. What's wrong with that, scenebooster, haven't you ever heard of cloning?~)

manyblessings, You are a trip. I can't help but love you but I'm going to keep trying!~) Kidding...

Does the bible tell you that you should ramble on about it incessantly to sinners, heathens, fools, cyberspace and the army of the Lord, alike? If not, then I'd say the danged fool human that told you to do so was pulling your leg. It creates far more frustration than belief.

tuna 8 years, 1 month ago

Manyblessings said: Woman" means literally, "womb-man". Woman is different from man because she has a womb for growing babies in, one of the primary purposes for marriage.

Were you like homeschooled? The word "woman" comes from the Olde English word "wif-man," with "wif" meaning female and "man" meaning human being. You can be all woman without the babies.

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

Tuna: Sure, and next time you're going to tell me that they weren't speaking English in the Bible or something. I have a copy of the Bible clearly written in English.

interestedparty 8 years, 1 month ago

So, some of you think the "Adam & Eve story" is literally true, huh? Interesting notion...have you thought that one all the way through?

I also once heard someone say in a argument to defend English as the official language, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

compmd 8 years, 1 month ago

JJE007 said: ":however, my philosophy would always lean towards replacing "Extreme" with "Moderate","

The wingnuts (from both sides) can make it easy to get bothered by things, especially here. Don't sweat it, JJE.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Good on y', compmd. It's hard not to sweat on a day like today, though!~)

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years, 1 month ago

Tychoman says: You're my favorite, JJE. Manyblessings, stop spamming up the boards with your cherrypicking.


At least one of us is hearing you, Tychoman. Fight the good fight!

craigers 8 years, 1 month ago

manyblessings I know that God desires godly offspring, but you were asserting that the sole reason for marriage is procreation. That is where I disagreed with you. Have fun debating with all these people.

Just because people don't believe in the bible doesn't mean they won't be held accountable for what's in the bible. The fact that some reject it, doesn't negate it's truth.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

I think this debate with manyblessings can be settled with a simple question:

Do you believe that all laws should be based on what the Bible says?

  • If not, then this whole rigmarole about what the Bible says may have some relevance to what you believe in your own life, but it has relevance toward what laws and rules the secular state should establish.

  • If so, well, good luck with your theocracy. But I'm not sure America is the right place for you.

Claire Williams 8 years, 1 month ago

Oh yes, let's trot out the Bible for this discussion! Hey everybody, it's "Word of God" campfire quote time!

Seriously though, it drives me nuts that every time this topic comes up, certain people always start producing excerpts from the Bible showing that it's wrong. Stop jumping up and down and hollering about it, you look like a child who needs to pee badly.

Your religion has no legal bearing on the law. Or a local ordinance, for that matter. Why? Because of a little thing called "Separation of Church and State". You should read about it.

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

"But the fundies are asking that gay people abstain from pursuing their version of life & liberty, because somehow that doesn't jibe with their interpretation of a book written (by men) thousands of years ago."

The Book, written by men, but inspired by God, says not to lay man with man, woman with woman. It also says not to lay with beast.

If you imply, just because it's spoken against in the Bible, therefore it should now be ok to do, how do you pick and choose which things are now permitted but not others?

"Do you believe that all laws should be based on what the Bible says?"

Do you believe laws should not be based upon the Bible? Saying just because it's a fairytale, we should be free to do now, doesn't work in general, does it?

ihatelv 8 years, 1 month ago

just_ducky, Not that I am one of these bible thumpers (far from it), but please show us where in the Constitution it talks about the separation of church and state............

Claire Williams 8 years, 1 month ago

Ihatelv:

'In the United States, the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .'

'The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect, of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions, while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy, has been termed the "separation of church and state."'

'The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."'

There you go. Any more questions?

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

"If you imply, just because it's spoken against in the Bible, therefore it should now be ok to do, how do you pick and choose which things are now permitted but not others?"

I think the point, which you appear not to understand, is that you don't "pick and choose" which things in the Bible are okay to do and which are not. I'm not sure where you even get the notion of just because it's spoken in the Bible it's okay to do now, as it seems a rather specious notion, that no one appears to be advocating. The idea is that the Bible should not be relevant in making the laws of the state, the laws should reflect the purpose of government on the whole: promoting a secure and peaceful society. That, to my mind, was the original point of the Bible's listing of laws in the first place, providing a blueprint on how the Hebraic society of the time could live reasonably safe and secure. However, as has been brought up on multiple occasions, that society existed thousands of years ago, and a lot of things have happened between then and now, and it was undoubtedly different from our own on several fundamental levels. By all means, continue to use it as a reference for your daily life. But if you are enshrining laws for the entire society to follow, those laws should be crafted with a mind on our current society, and what provides that society with secure and productive operations. They should not be based on the laws of a society that existed before virtually all of our current governments and societies even existed.

craigers 8 years, 1 month ago

Scenebooster, God tells us what he desires in His word.

gr 8 years ago

"just because it's spoken in the Bible it's okay to do now, as it seems a rather specious notion, that no one appears to be advocating."

But they are. "They" say it's ancient writings that are made up and therefore we should not follow them. If, as you say, our laws should not be based upon the Bible, then that's what they would be saying. But, they are discrediting it, and then at the same time saying it is valid but only for religious people. And then pointing out this and that. It sounds like they believe it, but don't like it.

"providing a blueprint on how the Hebraic society of the time could live reasonably safe and secure."

Good point. We don't stone people today as we have a court system. They didn't have any back then and there needed to be some form of law and order as those people really needed it - just like we do today.

"and what provides that society with secure and productive operations. " Which calls to mind, how does permitting and promoting gay "marriages" provide society with secure and productive operations? They say, what does it hurt. Which, what does it hurt to hump dead deers? And endless other things?

Many of our laws are based upon Christian teachings. Our nation wasn't necessarily founded as a "Christian" nation, but one that allows Christians and other religions to exist without advocating one over another. If our laws do not have some sort of "absolute" basis, it is only the current political whim and whoever has the most money to donate, wins. Which is what it sometimes appears to be.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.