Unmarried Lawrence couples may register as domestic partners beginning Wednesday.
Representatives of the Lawrence-Douglas County Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition will be available to help couples fill out registrations from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St.
The state's first domestic registry provides legal documentation that can be used to help secure health insurance for domestic partners.
The cost is $75. Once a couple has registered online, they will receive an e-mail confirmation. Within the next two weeks, the city will mail a registry certificate and laminated cards to the couple's home.
The registry is only available online at www.lawrenceks.org. For more information, call 832-3200.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
What a sad day for Lawrence. I'm embarrassed for us.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
I embarassed for us too...embarassed that bigots such as yourself have the manual dexterity to operate a computer keyboard and sully Lawrence's good name by spewing their filth online.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Too bad for you. It may not accomplish much, but it's a step in the right direction.
interestedparty (anonymous) says…
I'm okay with the City offering this service, but wonder why the fee is so high. Quick research on the internet shows that KCMO's registry is free; St. Louis' is $10; Eureka Springs' is $35. I wonder why Lawrence set the price so high? It certainly seems as if the City of Lawrence is offering a city service to tax payers and then WAY over-charging them. This should be offered at minimal cost. I bet this is the highest cost of any registry in the country.
What's up with that?
toefungus (anonymous) says…
I am sad for my toe.
craigers (anonymous) says…
interestedparty, if the registry participants want to gain similar rights to married couples, then they should pay the same fee married couples do for a marriage license.
And it is definitely a sad day STRS.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Man, to describe this event as a "sad" day is pathetic on so many levels. If you're going to let something like this get you down, you're world must be constantly hopeless.
Cheer up...I'm sure Jesus will be coming back any day to start the cleansing process and you won't have anything to worry about.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
You can do this online? Great - I'll register my dogs. They've always been a cute couple...
craigers (anonymous) says…
RR, I know I don't have anything to worry about. Thanks for your re-assurance though.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Then craigers, why so sad? Is it b/c deep down you know there really isn't a hell?
And why do people compare same-sex couples to animals? You may not like same-sex couples, but they are humans. Do you need to be reminded that "all men are created equal?" Or is that just something that's brought up when convenient to yourself?
EXks (anonymous) says…
My 85 year old granny and her boyfriend Clyde are going to register, good for them!!! Thanks Lawrence!
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I read a story last week about a guy who was suing to stop paying alimony to his ex-wife, because she had registered on a domestic partnership with her girlfriend. The court said it didn't constitute common law marriage, so the alimony payments had to continue.
It was an interesting story.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Roadkill don't assume anything about my beliefs. I know there is a hell and I know Jesus is real. The confirmations are in my life and what he has done in my life as well as others I know. You aren't interested so I won't go deeper. I didn't compare same-sex couples to animals, that was 75x55 so you would need to address that question to him. All men are created equal. You are correct on that. You believe that same-sex relationships are natural which would lead you to think that they are intitled to the same rights as heterosexual relationships. However, I don't believe same-sex relationships are natural at all, which inherently leads me to a different conclusion.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
What is the purpose of the registry if a business cannot be "made" legally to offer DP insurance?? I hav eposed this question many times on may blogs on here and never seem to get an answer. If there are no legal implications to the registry and a business cannot be foreced to offer it...what is the point of it??
Thanks in advance for answering, Im really confused about it all.....
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Who compared anyone to dogs?
I just want the right to legitimize the relationship between two loving and supportive creatures - is that so wrong? Ya bunch of specieists!
deec (anonymous) says…
Animals cannot legally give consent, since they can't read or sign documents. Humans, whatever their sexual persuasion, are presumed capable of reading and signing documents.
aquakej (anonymous) says…
well, I, for one, am very happy to see this step going forward. All people need to be treated with equality and dignity, regardless of their personal beliefs. I don't care what the Bible says; the Bible is not my government. We need to work a litle harder on the seperation of church and state. After all, that is what our country was founded upon.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"Roadkill don't assume anything about my beliefs. I know there is a hell and I know Jesus is real."
Craigers, it doesn't sound like my assumption was wrong. BTW, it's not a hard assumption considering that 99.9% of people that oppose this policy are christians who believe in a hell. It's too bad people let the fear of hell contribute to their irrational beliefs.
And I realize 75x55 was the one making the animal comparison...sorry, I should've specifically referred to him/her when I made that comment.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Let the fundies be sad. It is no skin off of my arse. We have a constitution that prohibits establishment of religion and also calls for equal protection under the law.
While christian beliefs are often at odds with our Constitution, it is good to see that they have not yet destroyed it.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
ksdivakat,
I believe there are some businesses out there that do offer DP insurance so this registry makes it possible for some to qualify. I can't think of the businesses off the top of my head but I seem to remember some specific examples in an article several months back. I'd have to do some research and get back to you.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
See....I still cant get an answer, everyone is to busy arguing about the bible and heaven and hell!! Can anyone tell me what is the purpose of the registry if it provides no legal action and does not force a business to offer DP insurance? If there are no legal benefits, what is the point?? To be recognized isnt the answer, because there will only be a select few that actually recognize it. So what is the point if it does not mandate businesses to offer the DP insurance?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
YWNM - while I cannot see the validity of your last sentence - I would agree wholeheartedly with your observation that "We have a constitution that prohibits establishment of religion and also calls for equal protection under the law."
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Roadkill, I would appreciate that, I really am quite confused about the registry vs marriage, the legalities involved anyway, I do know that some businesses offer it, but my question is that if a couple are registered then does their place of employment HAVE to give it to them, by law?
deec (anonymous) says…
The question was answered. Some businesses require legal documentation that 2 people are domestic partners in order to offer benefits to the partner. The registry will provide that legal documentation.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Okay this is for craigers, STRS, and the other bigots that plague this forum: how do two consenting men or women living together and loving each other attack your own marriage? Infringe on your rights? Make YOUR marriage less special?
Now let me think about this...Holy crap, it doesn't!
staff04 (anonymous) says…
ksdivakat--Don't quote me on this, but I think AT&T is one big player that I believe offers coverage to domestic partners...
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Ah yes...AT&T rings a bell (no pun intended). I think they were the example cited in an article several months back. I did a search but couldn't find the article.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Ok, let me get this straight deec.....just in case a business wants to see "legal documenataion" of domestic partner is the reason this was created?? But according to the arguments on these blogs this has nothing to do with the law! Its not changing the law and its not forcing the law....so doesnt it stand to reason that if a business offers DP insurance then they dont need the paperwork because they already offer it?? And just by registering does not force the business to offer it of they dont offer it?? So really not much has changed except for the fact that it stirred up the conservatives in this community and gave biggots a forum. This is the insanity i dont get! There is no legal benefits of the registry, there are also no legal rammifications of the registry...so what gives?? Just another reason to argue??
interestedparty (anonymous) says…
craigers, you've made a good argument for at least lowering the cost to $50, which I think is what a marriage license costs. There are some differences, however. First, the County issues marriage licences, not the City. But, the biggest difference is that the DPR does not covey any legal rights, while a marriage licences entititles you to about 1200 rights immediately and for as many times as hetersexuals get married.
The DPR is not a marriage equivalent in any way. It only gives a couple some kind of verification of their relationhsip. It might be able to be used to access other benefits, such as health insurance, but even that is not a given.
I'd like to add that I am a Christian who fully believes that the way that many conservative Christians treat gay & lesbian people is not in keeping with the model given to us by Jesus. By his actions, Jesus teaches us to welcome the "stranger" and to be in loving relationship with our fellow travellers. The Gospels are full of stories where Jesus reaches out to those that the larger community calls "unclean." In fact, I would argue that the exclusionary nature of today's fundamentalist Christians (not only to gay & lesbian people but to almost everyone who disagrees with them) is more like the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah than anything that consenting adults may or may not do in the privacy of their sexual lives.
If you really know scripture, first, you know that it is not intended to be some kind of literal document. Few, if any, biblical scholars argue that the Bible is literal. This claim belongs to this new fangled sect of Christians who continue to claim that "their" truth is the only truth. It is really an absurd claim if you study scripture. However, even if that were true, there is no way that any of us could live into that--we would all fall short. But, thankfully, God is bigger than that and has offered Grace to eveyone because no one can really earn it.
Secondly, if you really know scripture, you know that in EVERY place where the Biblical writers refer back to the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, the moral of the story is about how we treat others--it is about hospitality and welcome. It is a very modern and misguided intepretation to say that it is about homosexuality.
Jesus never speaks to the issue, but his acitons speak louder than words.
These are also the folks who continue to claim that the United States is a Christian nation, which is also some modern, new-fangled understanding that just does not hold up. The Government is secular and that is what makes the religious vitality in the United States possible. It protects us all--even those who claim that they "own" the Bible and the Constitution.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Tychoman, I never said it did make my marriage less special.
mick (anonymous) says…
ksdivakat- the purpose has been stated by the homosexuals before; "This is just a start."
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Then why do you have such a problem with two consenting men or women who love each other as much as you do your own spouse (if you're so lucky) deserving the same rights you do?
Hint: Your twisted interpretation of Christianity doesn't count as a valid answer.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Donquipunch,
When did preventing equal rights become moral?
LittleMissFlea (anonymous) says…
EXKs-That's pretty awesome. You should send flowers.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
I'm sure that it's very hard for some people to understand that Domestic Partnership, while not equivalent to marriage (thank goodness?~), is a reality and needs to be legally recognized. If this registry does not provide what is required to ensure that domestic partners are treated as partners then there will be continued efforts to improve domestic partnership recognition. It is a start and that is important.
I'm sure that many will come up with multitudes of reasons why this is meaningless and ridiculous. Meaninglessness and ridiculousness are KEY in some people's lives.
So tell me, "What's it TO y', buddy?"
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
...swiftly apply to backside.
craigers (anonymous) says…
interestedparty, Jesus was friendly to the wayward stranger, sinner, tax collectors, and many others in order to show them the correct path to go on not to encourage them to continue down the path to destruction. If you really knew the bible, you would know that too. And can you please show us the other interpretation to the scripture of God making us male and female and how the man should leave his father and mother can cleave to his wife? I'm sure you will say that wasn't literal too, so whatever.
Tychoman, I have been married for 5 years now so no lucky about it. Except for Her and I were lucky to find each other.
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Kdivakat, you raise good questions and I will try to help, but I am not sure you will fully understand it unless you are in a position to not get legally married, and/or you know what it feels like to be marginalized. That said, the Domestic Partner Registry does not authorize or force a company to offer benefits. The company that I work for in Lawrence offers DP benefits and it requires Registry proof. This is a huge benefit for folks whose domestic partners are in between jobs or cannot work for whatever reason. This might not seem like much, but for me and my partner, it is a step in the right direction on a deeper level.
[Note: If the folks reading this are ultra conservative religious extremists who want to tell me that I am not discriminated against because I can marry a man if I want to, then you probably want to stop reading here. Sorry, but telling me that I am going to hell only strengthens my belief that your morality must come from a bubble gum machine; and I am sorry that your simple mind cannot grasp the difference between religion and government; and I am sorry that your level of education never extended beyond your simple understanding of Christianity.]
My partner and I are in our 40s, so ensuring that we are recognized as each other's caretaker/provider is important. We have spent over $1000 to make sure that we are each other's medical/financial power of attorney (as well as other things such as beneficiaries, etc), but that won't stop some person from Lawrence Memorial Hosp from denying me the ability to be at my partner's bedside if my partner is seriously injured. Think about it: the person you love more than anything in the world is injured in some freak car accident and you cannot be by her side because of religious extremism. Will a DP Registry help me to get by her bedside? Maybe not, and probably not anymore than a notorized legal document that says I am her medical power of attorney (which I would probably not have on me anyway). But, it is a step in the right direction. It enables me to say hey, this person is ill and needs me to be with her and here is my proof that we take care of each other. I would think that her ability to get better would supercede a religious argument, but that's just me.
You know, it makes me laugh that I have a legal right to carry a gun in my purse in public, and I have a legal right to drink (and get drunk and act like a jerk) in public, and I can marry and divorce as many men as I want (like Britney Spears), and I can have as many kids as I want with them and totally ignore them, and yet I have to fight to be recognized as my mate's partner. I don't understand how my relationship with my partner imposes on anyone else's right to live their lives as they wish. If the religious fundies are right and I am wrong, then shouldn't I be able to deal with my purgatory and punishment alone?
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Donquipunch says . . .
I was thinking something more along the lines of "Protecting the moral fiber of society?" But if cheaper insurance coverage for you and your same-sex partner/child/goat of your choice is more of a key issue, well, what's a little moral decay?
===========
Don, I am not sure how my loving and committed relationship to my same-sex partner contributes to moral decay anymore than opposite-sex people's ability to marry and cheat on their spouses and ruin their kids' lives. I am also sorry that you believed whoever told you that the next step after legalizing same-sex relationships is allowing people and goats to marry. Wow.
jcstepmom28 (anonymous) says…
dtaylor, I hope the registry works out for you.
That being said, don't forget the tax man gets his on this item too. Married couples can cover their partner not only tax free, but the employee can reduce their taxable wages by participating in an employer's section 125 or cafeteria plan.
Now, on DP insurance. If the employer pays any portion of the partner's coverage then this amount becomes taxable to the employee. Say insurance for the employee only is $200 per month of which the employee only pays $50 (dreaming, I know.) Employee adds DP and insurance now costs $400 per month, but the employee only has to pay $100. I do believe that the additional $150 per month in additional premium for the DP becomes income to the employee.
http://www.irs.gov/govt/fslg/article/...
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Craigers, how do two men or two women who love each other like a married man and woman lead someone down a path to destruction?
I told you bigots not to bring up your twisted sense of Christianity and "moral fiber," whatever that is. You must have so much moral fiber, your soul's going to be constipated for eternity.
Wow. Two consenting adults in a committed, monogamous relationship are such a threat to 'Mercan way of life. Sheesh.
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Thanks for the info, jcstepmom28. Lots of hassles are included everywhere: in order for one of us to not get stuck with a potentially hefty gift tax down the road, we must have a financial paper trail that proves that we each paid 50-50 on the house that now includes both our names on the deed (we did not refinance because the 4.74% mortgage rate is too good!). Married couples don't need to document this proof. Oh well, whatever it takes to make sure that she gets the house when I pass away and vice versa . . .
75x55 (anonymous) says…
interestedparty - that's very interesting. I'll have to check that story again (S&G), as I recall it was about the grace of God and how He was willing to spare both cities if Lot had been able to find even one righteous man.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
dtaylor, Thank you thank you thank you! Finally I understand!! that being said, I am not "against" the registry, in fact it will actually affect me as I am considered "common law" married, but i cant put him or his daughter on my insurance. I have no problem with the gay community being able to register, so whoever blogged that earlier about me...get over it! I am also a christian..I just happen to come from aplace where I believe that God loves everyone (yes even homosexuals ya'll) and that your being gay is no different than my being straight or bi or whatever i identify with. God loves everyone, he didnt say except homosexuals, he said everyone, and dtaylor your right, nobody is gonna answer for their life other than you, so carry on I say and thanks for the info, now i know I need to also look into this so that my step daughter who I have rasied since she was 8 mo and shes 14 now can get insurance on her so that she can get semi decent health care!!!!
75x55 (anonymous) says…
gracious, sceneb. - you'll find that understanding completely in my 12:04pm post.
Have you tried cutting back on caffeine? You're sounding a little stressed there...
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Remember, ksdivakat, not every company offers domestic partner benefits. Mine does, but it is also a Fortune 100 company and it seeks the best employees, gay or straight, married or common law. Companies are not forced to offer these benefits, and some might extend only to same-sex couples and not to opposite-sex non-married couples. You will have to check with your HR dept at work. Good luck!!!
mick (anonymous) says…
The $75 does not come close to paying for what it will cost the city in legal bills trying to defend this thing. In the end they will lose. Save your $75. The State laws are clear.
mick (anonymous) says…
If you want sanctification for your homosexual behavior I suggest you move to Massachusetts.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
offtotheright wrote:
"You carry a purse?"
Why wouldn't a woman carry a purse?
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Yes, offtotheright, I carry a purse and I wear makeup. If women don't, does that make them lesbians according to the Word of Offtotheright? If husbands cheat on their wives, does that still make it a good marriage because it's a man and woman? If you tell your kids it's ok to call a kid a sissy, does that make him (and you) a good Christian?
Thanks for making me laugh out loud! You remind me of the arguments I had with my little brother when we were kids. If he couldn't think of an intelligent or well-documented response, he would try to attack me personally. But wait--we were kids. My goodness, how simple you are . . .
mick (anonymous) says…
Quick geography lesson for scenebooster; we live in America. Our Constitution gives legal power to the states, not the municipality. All I am saying is that this will not stand and anybody who knows what they are talking about will agree with me.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
mick, the Attorney General disagrees with you, and I think I'll trust his knowledge of state law and the Constitution over yours...no offense.
mick (anonymous) says…
Well, we'll go through the motions and you will see that I am right.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
How is this registry illegal, mick? Clearly you're a better legal expert than the Attorney General, or the City of Lawrence. Tell us! Preach it down from your armchair pulpit!
It doesn't guarantee rights entitled to marriage, it doesn't override the bigoted constitutional amendment.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
mick the mean and foolish,
Are you saying that Kansas is as bigoted as everyone believes? Amazing.
OUR Constitution gives legal power to individuals, too, misstur dbrilliant. Does it not? ...even if we must wrest that power from righteous toolbags.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Tychoman, stop foaming at the mouth. My last post referencing the bible was to interested party, not you or the question you posted. And I told you before that same-sex marriages aren't going to change my marriage or the value of it. Relax a little bit man.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
It's kind of funny, I think that the entire population of Lawrence that is opposed to the registry is actually posting on this very thread! Maybe, in its way, this thread is actually a "bigot registry" set up so that decent folks can track all the bigots in Lawrence.
mick (anonymous) says…
All I am telling you is that this will not stand. State law takes precedence. Morrison knows this, the commissioners know this. Be prepared for a big disappointment.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
So then why do you have a problem with it, craigers? And none of that ridiculous cherry-picking from Christianity or the Bible about sins. Your prejudice is your own, don't blame it on God.
mick, put up or shut up. How does this break state law? Oh that's right: it doesn't.
mick (anonymous) says…
I know the exact statutes. Get a lawyer if you want legal advice. I'm just telling you- be prepared for a BIG letdown. The grownups in Topeka have made provision and anticipated this very thing so if you want sanctification for your homosexual behavior, move to Mass.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
Mick knows more then the state attorney general, obviously. He must be the bestest law-talkin' dude since Lionel Hutz!
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
I'm not a Christian.
I think the registry is BS.
I'm married, and don't think everything I have other people who are not married should have...
I also don't think if I get divorced, my wife should get 50% if 50% is not hers.....
There are many things about being married I don't agree with. If there is separation of church and state, then how can a priest legaly marry me? The way I see it, they both should be completly separate. If they were, this whole notion of "Jesus said" would be moot. You get legally married by the government. The religious part is just an afterthought for those who care. The rest of us get what we need by being legally married by the government.
So, unitl there is some true separation of church and state in getting married, I don't think gays should get the same benifits. What is keeping two dudes who live together, who are not gay, from signing up for the registry to get benifits from the others job? Is there some fraud involved? How do you prove it? Do you have to be really gay to sign up? Do they ask? Can they legally ask?
Also, just because I do not think being gay is a normal thing doesn't make me a biggot.
dtaylor (anonymous) says…
Sorry Mick, but when I look at my loving, honest, and committed relationship with my same-sex partner, I simply cannot see how it is going to threaten your sense of well-being or your morality. I think that a lot of married couples are doing a very good job of ruining the sanctity of marriage; how can I be a contributor of it when I haven't even been given a chance yet? While I am at it, I sure wish you would start helping opposite-sex couples to understand what the value of a relationship should be. Maybe you could talk to your State Representative or Senator about making divorce more difficult to obtain? Senator Brownback often talks about how the sanctity of marriage is under attack. Don't you and your friends think it would be good to have this legislation? I would back it in a heartbeat!!
irishdevil99 (anonymous) says…
Mick,
I'm curious... who exactly do you think will sue to get the law changed? This law isn't forcing anyone to do anything, other than companies that already have rules within their system supporting domestic partnerships. You may find it abhorrent and want to sue, but unless I'm very much mistaken, you don't have legal standing.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
*rolls eyes* you're bad at being a troll, you know that, mick? All your ranting and raving just makes you look like a fool.
Talk to you later, fool.
husker, the days of Phil Hartman were the best seasons ever. I miss him.
mick (anonymous) says…
You people just don't get it. All I am telling you is that this will not stand. You will see.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
"be prepared for a big disappointment"
Maybe we're the only big disappointment around here, mister downer.
What joy do you find in being such a dismissive and arrogant prig?
Do you really believe that this stupidity will reign forever?
I mean...y' know...I kinda do!~)
How about you?
We need to get over our pessimistic ways, dude.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
"All I am telling you is that this will not stand."
Yes. And you keep telling us over. And over. And over. And over. And over again. At least a broken record plays music. You only spew out bigotry and intolerance.
kmat (anonymous) says…
What the level headed, intelligent people on this board need to remember is that these religious fundamentalists get so worked up over their b.s. because they feel guilty for their past sins. I haven't met a born again that didn't have major issues with past sins and that's why they are so fanatic now. And unfortunately, I know a lot of born again, just waitin' for the rapture zealots.
I am very proud of the comments by the open-minded, caring individuals on this board. It just shows the intelligence level of those that aren't bigoted and does show the ignorance and hatred of those that have made such terrible comments on here. If you really do believe in Jesus, you zealots better be asking for forgiveness tonight. You're comments on this board are definitely against the teachings of christ.
My husband and I got married because we wanted the legal rights, didn't really care about the whole "marriage" thing. Since we don't want kids, we've had many zealots tell us that we shouldn't be allowed to be married (but we have been for 15 years - a lot longer than many of these religious freaks). So it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, these zealots will always find something wrong if you don't believe exactly as they do.
irishdevil99 (anonymous) says…
ihatelv:
"If there is separation of church and state, then how can a priest legaly marry me? The way I see it, they both should be completly separate. If they were, this whole notion of "Jesus said" would be moot. You get legally married by the government. The religious part is just an afterthought for those who care. The rest of us get what we need by being legally married by the government."
I sort of agree with this. It seems to me that, if marriage is going to be defined in religious terms, then the government shouldn't be performing them. Let all people get civil unions and let that be the standard as far as legal issues and benefits go. Then, if they want to do a religious wedding above and beyond that (or even without the civil union portion), fine, but let it not have any legal affect. I'm not sure where the problem with the homosexual unions comes in, though.
"What is keeping two dudes who live together, who are not gay, from signing up for the registry to get benifits from the others job? Is there some fraud involved? How do you prove it? Do you have to be really gay to sign up? Do they ask? Can they legally ask?"
For that matter, how do you keep a man and woman who live together but aren't in love from getting married just to get benefits? Do they really have to be in love? Do we ask?
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
"All I am telling you is that this will not stand."
Waaaa! Waaaaa! Baby wants his bottle!
irishdevil99 (anonymous) says…
Mick,
"You people just don't get it. All I am telling you is that this will not stand. You will see."
Okay, that's a strong statement. You have our curiosity piqued. Now... please elaborate. Why do you think it won't stand? Who do you think plans to challenge it, and on what legal grounds? What statutes do you think will help to strike it down? Or did you have nothing more to contribute than "It's not going to stand, so there!"?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
By the way, ihatelv, you don't have to be gay to sign up for this registry. Earlier a poster happily mentioned her 85-year-old grandmother signing up with her boyfriend. Domestic partner doesn't necessarily mean gay, although that is certainly a reasonable assumption.
kmat (anonymous) says…
And had to point out also that if people want to bring up the whole Lott and S & G thing, remember that Lott's daughters got him drunk and raped him. That book you say guides your moral behavior sure has some great morals in it, doesn't it. Lott also offered his daughters to be raped to the croud that gathered outside his home, wanting the guests he was feeding and sheltering. Would you guys offer your children to be raped, in the name of God????????? If not, then quit throwing Christianity and that damned book at those of us that can decide what is right and wrong without having to rely on religion.
Ah, such a good book to take literally and live your life by. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
"For that matter, how do you keep a man and woman who live together but aren't in love from getting married just to get benefits? Do they really have to be in love? Do we ask?"
I'm just guessing here, but I bet getting divorced is a lot harder than getting "un-registered", which isn't even a legally binding thing anyway......
irishdevil99 (anonymous) says…
kmat -- I refuse to take seriously any biblical literalist who has not personally sold all of his possessions, given all he has to the poor, and gone to follow Jesus. ;-)
mick (anonymous) says…
Go ahead and throw your $75 away. The city is going to need it to fight its losing battle.
irishdevil99 (anonymous) says…
ihatelv:
"I'm just guessing here, but I bet getting divorced is a lot harder than getting 'un-registered', which isn't even a legally binding thing anyway..."
That's a fair point. I guess I would be against the idea of a domestic partnership registry also if homosexuals were allowed to marry, thus giving them both the same opportunities and the same consequences as heterosexual couples.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
"Go ahead and throw your $75 away."
Hey, he's just as good a financial advisor as he is an attorney!
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
It does NOT go against existing state law, why do you people believe it does? Marion, that last thing we need from you is yet another "I told you so." Do you ever get tired of that?
irishdevil, if gays were allowed to marry, we wouldn't need domestic partnership registries.
Long live the registry.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
"Well, for starters, the registry goes against the Constitution of The State of Kansas."
Oooh, check it out, another armchair lawyer who think he knows more about the law then the Attorney General! Man, I wanna be an armchair lawyer too. I've watched a bunch of old episodes of LMatlock and I bought the Harvey Birdman Attorney At Law DVD!
mick (anonymous) says…
Thank you Marion. I just hate to see the city engage in such waste. They know it's a losing battle and are doing it purely for political reasons.
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
How can it be illegal, when the registry is not a legally binding cert/doc, anything....??
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
Hell, for $75 I'll give you a piece of paper that says whatever you want on it.......
mick (anonymous) says…
Anyway, I just want to compliment you all on your brilliant political correctness. Bye.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
mick V Marion....in...
negativity battle of the officious prigs!
What began as a cat fight and spat, ends in Domestic Registration...
Unrated
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
The theory is that the registry "recognizes" a relationship other then marriage, thus it would violate the marriage amendment. However, this line of reasoning is not valid for a couple reasons, mainly that the amendment was written with the plain purpose of prohibiting same-sex marriage and other unions, such as civil unions, that are substantially similar to marriage.
There are lotsof relationships the state recognizes that are not marriages, such as corporations, LLCs, business partnerships, and so forth, that under mick and Marion's reading to the law, would also have to be found not valid.
The DP registry was carefully drawn up not to grant any marriage-like rights or be similar to marriage such that it would violate the constitution, and the attorney general concurred. Nothing is ever bulletproof in the legal profession, but the DP registry is about as solid as it can reasonably be.
It is also important to draw a distainction between the legal arena and the emotional/political areana...it is clear that lots of opponents and proponents both of the registry see it as something important and symbolic...which is fine....but the law doesn't care about symbolic stuff or emotional reaction, only with actual written words and specific intent, and DP supporters are on solid ground here.
That is my attempt at playing lawyer, at least.
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
"Well unfortunately for narrow-minded fools like yourself, sovereign human beings don't need your permission (nor that of the church) or approval to love one another."
Well, too bad were not just talking about love. I am a man. I love some of my male friends. I'm straight and married. The distiction is that I do not have gay sex with them. Sex on the other hand is regulated already by the government, staraight and gay. Is this right? I'm not one to say, but your assertion of "approval to love one another" is not in question.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
"How about if 2 men, a woman, and a goat want to register as "partners"?"
They can, but only if it is solemnized by a priest, a rabbi, and minister, walking into a bar....
(thus ends my poor attempt at using humor with a bigot...what is it they say about trying to teach a pig to sing....)
kmat (anonymous) says…
Has anyone paid attention to the user name ihatelv ??? I think the negative attitudes of this person can be summed up pretty easily. Hates love, must have been burned bad. Thus, hate anything that loving people might use to make their relationship legal.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
I was wondering when parkay, the creme de la creme of bigots, would show his ugly face.
kuhusker, your last post about the rabbi and the bar made my day. Thanks dood.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"How about if 2 men, a woman, and a goat want to register as "partners"?"
Again, animals cannot consent and therefore they do not qualify. Why is this so hard to understand by people who oppose the registry. This reasoning is why people make fun of us in Kansas...I guess some of us deserve it.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
Hey, if parkayis baaaaa-d enough to want to get it on with his pet goat, then all I can say is "ewe!"
(thank you very much, you've been a great audience, I'll be here all week)
white_mountain (anonymous) says…
been gone for a while.. has someone mentioned they want to marry their dog yet?
white_mountain (anonymous) says…
my bad.. 10th comment down.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Yeah, white_mountain, and a goat was mentioned a few posts up from here.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
That would be a trio, park, not partners...
And stop abusing your goat...you can be charged with a crime, you know...
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
Its always goats and dogs with the bigots too...they never seem to worry anyone will want to marry their cow or iguana!
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Husker stop, you're killing me.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Sometimes they pick on the trees, too...
Seems to me they've been standing out under their trees for too long...
Oh, yeah, and then they mention dead deer...
How original they all are...NOT
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lest we forget sheep....the preferred animal of RT.
EXks (anonymous) says…
How about if 2 men, a woman, and a goat want to register as "partners"?
-----------------------
You fellers sure have an unatural obsessive compulsive fixation with goats, don't ya.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
Well, insanity kills another thread. Lovely...
In words that you can understand...
Well. There you go, again...
Well...
I am not a learned man you say
and I am not a tree
but leave my leaves
like men leave wives
to be or not to be
Well...
I stand before you naked
with a branch as bare as death
and wives that I have taken
breathe no more
of life towards that
Well...
the end is near I opine
ends of everything I love
or that's what hopeful prayers
I'm seeking now
of who's above
Well...
the end is breathing now I fear
or half of that at least
and smells of rotting corpses
and the ending
of our beast
Well...
a mind has left but I hear right
forever in my ears
the foolishness of men
is ever present
ever queer
---
I mean no offense...or anything, really...I'm just saying...
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
mick (Anonymous) says:
ksdivakat- the purpose has been stated by the homosexuals before; "This is just a start."
For the bazillionth time, it was I who posted that right after this registry was made legal. "It's a start" has been repeated out of context ad nauseum. I am not gay, so "the homosexuals" did not state this. I meant one thing and one thing only:
This registry does not give any rights to anyone. Everybody should have the right to legally declare a life partner and get benefits like health insurance, the ability to cosign on a loan, and the right to visit a partner in the hospital. This registry is all but meaningless because it guarantees no rights, but it is a start - a start toward the end I just described.
All of you taking this comment out of context are the same ones trying to scare everybody by claiming this will end with man-dog marriage and more. You're all nuts.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
RT is that the best you can do? Because you're not at all funny.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Ooohhh. 75X55 and O-Bob were right. This forum IS much better for cooking marshmallows.
Gotta love arrogantly held beliefs of superiority! What would a good thread be without "bigot" "moral majority" and comparing two homosexuals to animals?! Boring, that's what!
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
RT:
Say it. It couldn't be any more inane than what you normally post.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Whoops, Blue, not O-Bob. Gotta cite correctly.
purplesage (anonymous) says…
I wonder if Sodom had a "registry"? This is an abomination.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
Again...
We have gone off
target is self
destruct
sequence begun
these are the droids
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"I wonder if Sodom had a "registry"? This is an abomination."
It is indeed an abomination against fundie xtian dogma.
Fortunately, our country operates under the Constitution, which prohibits establishment of religion and guarantees equal protection under the law. This registry is fulfilling the promise of the Constitution.
I have no problem with the government being neutral toward marriage. However, if the government wishes to provide benefits to married couples, then domestic partners who cannot or choose not to be married must have access to the same benefits.
If you don't like our secular constitution, move to Iran.
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
And apparently, R_T so chooses. I wonder if he's the "bottom" with his goat?
jonas (anonymous) says…
"purplesage (Anonymous) says:
I wonder if Sodom had a "registry"? This is an abomination."
Say that with a deep voice. And, if you have some cymbals to crash or can get some thunder and lightning in the background, it would be better. Much more like movie over-acting than just words on white space, which I assume was the angle you were going for.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
"right_thinker (Anonymous) says: "
Well, basically nothing other than the usual third grade response of "oh, yeah? your mamma wears army boots." Does "right_thinker" mean that you only use the right side of the brain and are unable to use both hemispheres?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
This town is seriously in need of a sense of humor.
My dogs aren't getting married, or 'domestically registered'. A joke. sheesh.
Now, the one dog and the cat.... that's probably more likely, since it seems to offend all the canine sensibilities.
458casul (anonymous) says…
me my horse and my cattle dog will be there to go to walmart and register at target for RUNDLE
werekoala (anonymous) says…
I never failed to be amazed at how every thread about gay marriage invariably brings out the latent pedophiles and beastiophiles among our proud right-wing contingent.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Werekoala: Why are you surprised? Without that particular ridiculous slippery slope argument, the only thing left is that it offends god. Which, of course, it totally unprovable in any factual sense without referring to a book. Which is, of course, still not factual.
Still, it is disgusting how many people are willing to think that it is a fair comparison to equate a living, thinking adult human being with an animal, even in (cough) jest.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
Wow, lots of Christian bashing on here from the "open minded" and "tolerant" folks. Before you call someone a hypocrite try looking in the mirror.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
As for the question about how this affects those in heterosexual marriages....I think it cheapens the definition of marriage to open it up to any old possibility - incest, polygamy or whatever is then open to the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman who love one another, plan to raise a family and commit to be together "till death do us part". Rampant divorce cheapens marriage too and I think people who deliberately choose to marry and remain childless are cheapening marriage also. The same could be said for "common law" marriages. The point of marriage is to make a lifetime commitment to a person to love and care for one another to the point of becoming "one flesh" and to raise a family together. As for domestic registries I think they are just pointless ways for people to push their political agenda. Why bother? If you think you are truly right in sleeping with someone of the same sex, why is there a need to tell the world about it? If it is none of our business what you do in bed why do you insist on broadcasting that information?
mick (anonymous) says…
manyblessings- you are exactly 100% right on. Why the Christian bashing indeed.
jonas (anonymous) says…
That's a very limited view on what is a full marriage, in my opinion. I would say there is no Real or True purpose to a marriage beyond what the people involved put into it. Anything more is just your particular background or personal opinion, and has no necessary ring of truth past yourself.
And I think it has less to do with telling everybody about your behavior, than with trying to get some of the particular rights, such as shared decision and property-rights, that should really be anyone's choice whom they decide to give it to, but for some reason is within governmental authority.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
"If it is none of our business what you do in bed why do you insist on broadcasting that information?"
Only a very immature (possibly repressed?) mind could believe that two people seeking legal recognition of a lifelong commitment to each other (and all the social and legal benefits such recognition entails) could believe that the purpose of a domestic registry is to "broadcast information about what you do in the bedroom".
Tell me, do you look at the wedding announcements in the paper as a man and a woman broadcasting the information that they enjoy vaginal intercourse?
werekoala (anonymous) says…
"I think it cheapens the definition of marriage"
If your marriage is cheapened by what two total strangers do, well, you might not have had the most valuable marriage to begin with, is all I'm saying. But I wholeheartedly encourage you to go up to couples celebrating their silver or golden anniversaries tomorrow, and tell them that their lives spent together are now meaningless and cheap. Let me know how that works out for you.
"to open it up to any old possibility - incest, polygamy or whatever"
Hmm, don't think it does that, either, but thanks for playing. I do love it when you folks trot out the old chestnut about people marrying their six sisters and two dogs under this measure. Really goes to show just how far you have to stretch to get a reaction anymore. The public apathy toward the issue of gay marriage forces you to have to create new bogeymen to get them motivated. What you don't realize is that by having to do so, you've already lost the battle--gay marriage, by itself, doesn't scare people any more.
I am curious, do you really think a marriage between two drunken 18-year-old heterosexuals who just met in Las Vegas is somehow inherently more pure than that between two women who have lived and loved together for 15 years? Why?
lounger (anonymous) says…
Im proud of our city!
crazyks (anonymous) says…
It doesn't open it to all possibilities, manyblessings...but if you want to talk about cheapening marriage...
Straights who marry for money (and it happens all the time, you know) cheapens marriage. Straights who promise to be faithful and then spend all their time playing musical beds with anyone who catches their eye cheapens marriage. Straights who promise to love and cherish and then spend the majority of their time together physically, emotionally, or psychologically abusing their mate cheapens marriage. Straights who marry, have children, and then go on to sexually abuse those children cheapens marriage.
Would you like me to go on?
Yeah, heterosexuals have done such a fine job so far with marriage, and shown the world how morally upright (or is that uptight?) they are...
Why is there a need to tell the world about it? Perhaps because a lot of people in the world aren't bothering to listen to their concerns?
Tell the world about it? Tell me, when you got married, did you have an engagement announcement in the paper? Did you have a wedding, with friends and family present? Did you then have the wedding announced? Do you ever talk about your spouse at work? Have you ever held hands with your spouse in public? Have you ever kissed your spouse (even ever so briefly) in public?
Aren't all of those things "broadcasting" your sexual orientation?
KrazyJ (anonymous) says…
Lawrence = Sodom and Gomorrah
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
Look at it from this angle:
If you are under 18, you used to (not sure anymore, but possibly) need a parents consent to get married. So, If I give my dog consent to get married, is that any different? The government already recognizes that someone under 18 can't give consent, so they allow someone else to give consent for them....
i'm not one of the dog or sheep people. I don't really think it's the same at all, but the arguments against it I think are flawed by saying that they can't give consent...
Also, ihatelv does not mean I hate love........
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
Perhaps people would not (un)christian bash if (the un)christians did not continually spew s h i t e in their direction?
Some of us are willing to call a truce because we're so stupid as to believe that not doing so will prevent a heavenly afterlife.
Magpie (anonymous) says…
I am proud to live in a place that at least tries to acknowledge the realities of its citizens. But $75 is far above the going rate for such a contract. Lawrence can now claim the title of "Nation's Most Expensive Domestic Registry." It costs $25 more than a marriage license!
My old man and I are thinking about getting one, though. And no, he is not a sheep. What's with the stale old slippery slope argument of "What next, animals?" The college Republicans won't even use that one anymore. I'd like to see something a little fresher and more innovative out of the right--and no, "You are oppressing me by existing and not acting obsequious enough" doesn't cut it.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
Did any straight people on here get married for the insurance benefits? I sure didn't. I got married to proclaim in the eyes of God and man that we were committed for life to love, honor and cherish one another and to raise a family together. Marriage is a religious ceremony, required by God. For people who are not doing it for that reason to marry is sort of like someone who is not a Christian wanting to get baptized. It doesn't make any sense.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
" I got married to proclaim in the eyes of God and man that we were committed for life to love, honor and cherish one another and to raise a family together. "
Really? Then why did you get a marriage license from the state of Kansas when you did it, if it was just between your spouse and God?
Or maybe you could broaden your horizons enough to realize that it's possible that two women might want to make just the same commitment to each other, for just the same reasons?
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
I said in the eyes of God AND man.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
I got married at the courthouse and didn't see or seek any eyes of God. Marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. Throughout history it has been more of a business arrangement. Love is a totally separate entity. Marriage does not guarantee that love is there, is strong, will flourish or will last. That's up to the individuals involved.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
One of the purposes of marriage is reproduction. God states that this should not happen outside of marriage. Marriage legitimizes reproduction. Reproduction cannot happen between two people of the same sex. God did not create our bodies that way, for a reason.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
It would be so romantic if marriage were illegal. Don't you think, manyblessings?
"It's you and me (my peeps and God) against the world, babe!~)"
No?
Hmmm...
Anyway, can we keep your notion of God out of my life, please?
craigers (anonymous) says…
Sorry manyblessings, I have to say it...
As long as you keep your notion of "No God" out of mine.
craigers (anonymous) says…
And unless they lowered the marriage license fee, then the marriage license fee 5 years ago was $75.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"Marriage is a religious ceremony, required by God."
No, it is absolutely not. You can add it on as an afterthought if you want, but it's not required, and it's not necessary, and it is not central to the idea of marriage, whether past or present. As an institution, it's use is practiced in virtually all societies, not necessarily as a means of religious bonding, but as a legal recognition of unity. That is the crux of marriage, not religiosity. That is the reason that you can get married without stepping foot inside of a church, but you could have the ceremony at the church, but still not have it formalized until you go to the state to get the license.
Just because you think it is so, and want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
deec (anonymous) says…
" God states that this should not happen outside of marriage."
Please cite chapter and verse.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Not MORE bigots! Jesus, protect me from your followers.
Dear God: It's not you I have a problem with, it's your fan club.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Tycho, don't forget that you have a problem with what His Word says too.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Craigers, God said nothing about homosexuality. You can't cherrypick. Give me a different argument, one with substance.
Oh wait, you can't? Damn.
deec (anonymous) says…
Judge not....
craigers (anonymous) says…
His Word is the bible Tycho. It does speak about adultery, fornication, homosexuality.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
And selling your daughter into slavery, and being stoned to death for working on holy days, and touching the skin of a pig, and wearing clothes of different threads, and plowing fields of different grains.
Do I even need to mention the lobster? Or endorsed polygamy?
The bible was written by biased old white men, not God. I told you not to cherrypick, Craigers.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
The Bible was written by Jewish men who were inspired by and had a relationship with God. Some of the things you mention from the Old Testament (like not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, not eating certain foods, etc.) were part of the law that God gave to the Jewish people. Those laws were to set apart the Jewish nation as people who served the Lord and to show us all that it is impossible to be perfect and holy without the Lord. When Jesus came and died for us both Jew and Gentile could now be made sinless through his sacrifice and no longer had to follow all the restrictions of the law. Paul tells us in the New Testament that we are not bound by the dietary restrictions anymore. There was polygamy in the Bible, but there is no place where God endorsed it. In fact, it was the downfall of some prominent people in the Bible (Solomon, for example). The New Testament does tell us that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, along with several other things. Romans 1:26-28 says " For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting"
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
"and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Looks like God can't spell. Nice try, bigot.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Easy with the big words, scenebooster. Cut and Paste can only hold so many characters.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
Sorry I made a spelling error, I don't claim to be perfect. Receiving is one of the words I make mistakes with from time to time.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
"One of the purposes of marriage is reproduction"
So should my grandmother, (who remarried a nice old man in her 60s after her husband had been dead for 10 years) not have been allowed to do so, since they were no more capable of reproducing than 2 men would be?
And since the main reason for formalizing their affection had to do with financial, legal, and health care matters, she and David simply went down and got the marriage license from the justice of the peace -- they never invoked God or set foot in a church (though the extended family did mark the occasion by eating at Olive Garden).
So in your little pidgeon-holed mind, might I assume that Bev and David's marriage is illigitmate, and in your perfect world, would be illegal?
If not, why should it matter if their names were Steve and David instead of Beverly and David?
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
It is not entirely impossible that your grandmother and her husband could conceive children in their old age. It happened to Sarah in the Bible and I believe she was 90. They still have the same God given reproductive equipment that we all do.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Yes, it IS impossible. It's called menopause. You really believe that a 90-year-old woman got pregnant? My God.
Veritas (anonymous) says…
I have to reproduce if I get married??! Why didn't someone tell me sooner!!
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
manyblessings (Anonymous) says:
"It is not entirely impossible that your grandmother and her husband could conceive children in their old age. It happened to Sarah in the Bible and I believe she was 90. They still have the same God given reproductive equipment that we all do."
Wow...this is the kind of stuff the bible teaches. No wonder so many bible thumpers have such a twisted view of the world.
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
Will all the "crazy christians" stop posting... I do not want to be associated with you just because I am against this registry too........
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
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...
ihatejohntravolta (anonymous) says…
manyblessings: "One of the purposes of marriage is reproduction"
i can't have children and even if i could, i don't really want them...but i am going to get married someday...or do you have a problem with that?
werekoala (anonymous) says…
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Grandma Beverly had a hysterectomy in the 1970s. So the parts most certainly are NOT there.
A woman who has had a hysterectomy has no more chance of becoming pregnant than a man would -- so why should the former still be allowed to marry a man, but the latter not be?
Or are you going to say that women who are genetically infertile, have had hysterectomies, or suffered lower abdominal trauma all should not be allowed to marry, either?
werekoala (anonymous) says…
Guess that's a bit of a poser, then?
Take your time. . .
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
"Or are you going to say that women who are genetically infertile, have had hysterectomies, or suffered lower abdominal trauma all should not be allowed to marry, either?"
Werekoala
Of course not. That doesn't change that male and female and marriage were created to perpetuate the human race. If a person's reproductive organs are malfunctioning for some reason or another there is always the chance that God could heal them of their barrenness (excuse me if I spelled that wrong) as He has for many.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
I disagree with your assertion that marriage was created to perpetuate the human race. I think the word you are looking for is "vaginal intercourse", not "marriage". The vast majority of people, for the vast majority of human history, have not been part of a Christian marriage, and yet have managed to have descendants in the modern world. 1.6 billion Chinese, for instance, would beg to differ with you.
But this ignores the point that "God" has designed women to become infertile after a certain age, as well as to require a uterus and ovaries in order to conceive. Isn't the expectation that an infertile octogenarian missing the physical parts necessary to reproduce should become pregnant, just as much of a violation of the natural order of things as expecting that a man could do so?
Seems to me that as long as we're letting God wave a magic wand over things, he might just as well make her husband David pregnant, instead. Or are there limits on what God can accomplish?
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
The vast majority of people, in all cultures, get married and do not allow same sex marriages. This includes the Chinese, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make by mentioning them.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Werekoala: It would seem to me that trying to rationally argue with or question someone who believes that a 90 year old women had a baby because a book said it happened, and that missing or broken internal organs may suddenly be healed by god, and that it has happened many times, is going to be a fruitless exercise. The conversation has moved from rationality to mysticism, and mysticism is difficult to controvert. Not sure if that's the word I was looking for, but you probably get the idea.
At any rate, I think the numbers of people who think such things are steadily decreasing in the fact of reality, so it's probably just a matter of time, or at worst lifetimes, before such fundamentalist thinking is either gone, or adopts a new form. One can only hope that Christianity itself can exorcise that line of thought from its ranks of its own accord, as it severely damages the credibility of the faith as a whole, which still has some good things to say, and to offer the world.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
The point I am making is that most Chinese peasants (as most people throughout history) have never asked for nor received Jehovah's blessing on their union. Most people have been poor, and close to starvation, and have had little if any formal ceremonies. Maybe a feast, and the local nobility says some words. Maybe you just move into a hut together. Often there may be 2, 3 or more wives per husband, and the husband may also take concubines. The parties marrying often have never met, the marriage is arranged between families to create an alliance to help improve their positions. In most hunter-gatherer cultures, the tribal "wise men" are male shamans who dress and act as women do, yet are often accorded more social respect than the bravest hunters.
So the real point is that the idea of two people dating, falling madly in love, a guy getting down on one knee with a diamond ring, and a fancy church wedding, or any invocation of Jesus at all, is by far the rarity, rather than the norm in the sum total of human existence.
I'm trying to say that there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horrie me lad. And just because people do things differently than the way you do doesn't mean that they are depraved sociopaths bent on destroying all you hold dear. They are people like you. And like you, they want a home, a family, and someone to grow old with. I truly don't get how that can be so hard to understand.
I think the only thing that lets you feel this way is ignorance. You can keep the homosexuals as some monolithic, impersonal, implacable menace to your way of life only by avoiding them. Getting to know them, you would begin to see them as people, not perverts, and all your cherished assumptions would flounder on the human reality.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
Jonas,
Thanks for the input. I'm inclined to agree with you about the futility of communicating to someone who believes she has a magic wand in her pocket.
But I do enjoy the exchange of ideas, and I think that it is interesting to see how people who have taken a position based on emotional appeal are asked to think critically about the implications of their positions.
manyblessings (anonymous) says…
Jonas-
To discount miracles in the Bible is to completely ignore what the meaning of "faith" is. Of course a person who has faith in God is going to believe in the miracles He did (and still does).
Werekoala-
You are assuming that I don't know any homosexuals personally that I am close to, which is not true. However, just because they are people I care about does not mean I agree with their lifestyle or that it should be made legal for them to be married. The Chinese, despite all the things you have mentioned, have refused to acknowledge homosexual marriage as legal.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Not at all. It seems you have confused "faith" with "fundamentalism." Faith to my mind only requires a belief in a higher order of things, not the insistence that impossible things happen. If you require miracles to supplement your faith in a higher order or purpose, an upfront example to witness, then by all means hold on to them. I don't need them, and don't believe them.
Faith and the Bible are not inseparable, much less a literal interpretation of it. Faith requires both more, and less, than an absolute belief that a book largely written millenia ago by a superstitious society with little scientific or medical understanding, by modern standards, would somehow still remain literally true or accurate. Or that said society would have a sophisticated understanding of how natural events happened, or would not be prone to romantic exaggeration in recalling their own history and mythos.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"The Chinese, despite all the things you have mentioned, have refused to acknowledge homosexual marriage as legal."
The Chinese (government), until recently, refused to acknowledge privately owned property as legal. The point, which got rather blown out of proportion, being one line in a large post, was merely that your definition of a valid marriage is ethnocentric and only thinly applicable, not that the existing Chinese institutions have their philosophies and practices of individual rights and liberty in apple-pie working order. They don't, at least by larger international standards. (And, as far as my experience here in Beijing has taught me, by many of their own.)
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
It's amusing that some warn of a slippery slope as they push the conversation downslope with the greasiest of positing. I realize that it's fair season but that pig is too slippery to deal with in the ethers of this space.
manyblessings is a sweet innocent but she has proclaimed what she has to proclaim, as have we all. Time to move on, perhaps?~)
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
I find it really interesting that without "religion" as a fundamental part of the argument, everything seems to become moot. Like I said yesterday, let's take religion out of the mix and then talk about it.
This is probably a bit off the mark, but here's a note to those who commented on any couple being able to have children. I've always believed that couples who wish to conceive should go through the same home study that whose wishing to adopt must go through. I adopted and prior to the adoption spent 9 months of background checks, regular credit checks, and announced and unannounced home visits. Shouldn't a couple wishing to conceive also have to go through the same investigation process?
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
That makes sense, RalphReed, but becomes messy without foolproof, economical birth control and government subsidized investigation, doesn't it?
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
No resolution it is then, FT. Now go fiddle with your toaster. We know where you stand and that you haven't a leg to stand on.