Kinzer will try again to pre-empt Lawrence domestic registry with state law / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, June 25, 2007

‘I’m not by any stretch of the imagination considering this a done deal’

June 25, 2007

Topeka — The lawmaker who unsuccessfully sought to prevent Lawrence from approving a domestic partnership registry said Monday he will try to have it repealed by the Legislature.

"I'm not by any stretch of the imagination considering this a done deal," state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, said.

"We still have the authority to pre-empt what the city of Lawrence or other cities might be thinking about doing," Kinzer said.

Last month, the Lawrence City Commission approved establishing a domestic partnership registry that was wanted by gay and lesbian couples who said the registry could be used to help secure health insurance for their partners. The city expects to have the registry ready Aug. 1.

But Kinzer said he believes the registry could run afoul of the voter-approved state constitutional amendment in 2005 that recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman. Plus, he said, there shouldn't be different rules in different cities on partnerships.

During the 2007 legislative session that ended in May, Kinzer proposed a bill that would have prevented Lawrence from adopting a domestic partnership registry.

The measure was approved by a House committee but never got a vote before the full House. Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, put the brakes on the bill saying it would have consumed too much time during debate.

But Kinzer promised to revive the measure early in the 2008 legislative session, which starts in January.

Discussion

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.

25 June 2007
at 4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Let's hope that somehow we can still get this ridiculous registry stopped before August 1st.
25 June 2007
at 5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

Too bad the state amendment states that the State shall refrain from conferring marriage benefits to any couple besides a married man and woman. Lawrence isn't conferring any benefits, nor do they mention marriage anywhere. It's just a list. The benefits are provided by private 3rd party companies, and they've got all the legal rights to do it.

But hey, way to pass a bigoted, poorly written amendment that also managed to wipe our common law marriages at the same time.
25 June 2007
at 5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drewdun (Anonymous) says…

Its not surprising that this nut hails from Olathe.
25 June 2007
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KU_cynic (Anonymous) says…

Can anyone provide a piece of information:

Is there any reason why a validly married heterosexual couple couldn't sign up for the domestic partnership registry as a symbolic act of solidarity with the gay couples who are its real intended beneficiaries?
25 June 2007
at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

I'm a very conservative guy. I see nothing wrong with this registry. I have both gay and lesbian friends, I see the difficulties they face. I have been married 21 years and all the things I take for granted, they have real problems getting. Many times they can't have them at all. I don't think that's fair, especially since I believe that people are born the way they are. Due to my religion, I can't support marriage between people of the same sex. I do, however, think that they deserve a lot of the breaks in life that we have. They did not ask to be born the way they are, who in their right mind would want to be targets of hate mongers. So I support the registry. I would support it even more if it was statewide, implemented by the legislature, and gave these people many of the rights that we enjoy. Thank you, Lynn
25 June 2007
at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Another overreaching pawn of the hateful religious right. Last I looked, he didn't have any constituents in Lawrence. I'm halfway tempted to come back to KS just so I can run against/campaign against this tool.
25 June 2007
at 6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

It will be rembered that not once, but several times predicted this very action on this very forum; going so far as to tell you exactly how the “domestic registry” in Lawrence would be killed by the homophobes.

The Constirutional amendment is well written, it is clear and it prohibits what the registry is trying to do, which to confer on a civil union those “rights” which are accorded to the instituion of marriage.

Marriage in Kansas is defined as between a man and a woman ONLY and the city cannot enact a law which goes against the public policy of the State of Kansas or which clearly violates the Constitution of the State of Kansas, as does this registry.

I did not write this law and voted against it but this IS the way that it IS and it will take another constituional amendment to change it.

You should also remember that gay marriage was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of this state, so you ain't going to circumvent thte Constitution in a manner so transparent as a domestic registry.

I told you so and those of you who wrote that I was full of biolsolids can kiss Mmy Heinie A++!

25 June 2007
at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…

I commend Lynn731 on the great post. I wish more people would reflect on reality as you have done.
25 June 2007
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

I second the commendation to Lynn731. His approach to the issue is one that should mirror the larger debate. If a religious denomination is opposed to marrying same-sex couples, that's fine. No proposition has ever required religious authorities to violate their beliefs on this issue, just the the state's willingness to allow interfaith marriages does not require individual churches or clergy to recognize or perform those marriages. Allowing same-sex marriage still permits people to strongly express their personal distaste. Banning same-sex marriage, on the other hand, does not allow the same latitude of expression to those on the other side. It's an imposition of a singular view, and one that has no place in public policy.

When it comes to the registry itself, the debate should be even less nuanced. Following the passage of the amendment, Phill Kline (of all people!) said that it would not prohibit private employers from providing benefits to same-sex partners AND that governmental entities could still provide benefits (http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/04…). The only way this registry would violate the KS Constitution would be if enrollment in it was sufficient to confer some sort of benefit that is otherwise reserved by law to married couples. I don't know of any way the city of Lawrence benefits married couples uniquely, so there is no way that the city's registry could provide any benefit or right whatsoever. Only acts secondary to the act of registering (ie: a private employer extending benefits to a partner) would qualify as “rights or incidents”. Unless the state of Kansas has a statute on the books restricting the people to whom private employers may extend benefits, there is no violation of the Constitution.

In short, registering would not give a couple the ability to file taxes as married (obviously beyond the city's jurisdiction), registering would not confer succession of property (also beyond the city's jurisdiction), etc. Unless you can point to a benefit the city of Lawrence itself gives to married couples based on the fact of their marriage, then the city can't possibly violate the Constitution. Kinzer knows this, which is why he feels it necessary to go through legislative channels rather than letting the courts get a crack at it.
25 June 2007
at 8:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Two observations:

1. Who the heck brought religion into this? A: No one but those with an irrational paranoia of religion. C'mon guys, just because a few hack authors have written some books lately rehashing Nitsche's tired “God is dead” mantra doesn't mean you all have to jump on the bandwagon.

2. If being against homosexual marriage makes me a bigot, then I'm just one big bigot! In fact, I'm proud of it! I love being this degenerate society's “bigot.” From now on, whenever I see those little bumper stickers telling me how “bigoted” Kansas is, I'll know they're talking about me!
25 June 2007
at 8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

I'm hoping the city will hold its ground. The state can pass their law. Heck, it might actually be against the KS Constitutional amendment. But, the city can have its registry. Those opposed to the registry will have to find someone with standing… someone negatively impacted by the registry… to challenge the city in court. Who has standing? Anyone? Let me know when you find them.
25 June 2007
at 9:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Cynical wrote:

“Marion. explain where domestic registry equals marriage? Are you a paranoid christian? After all so-called christian divorce rate is above 50%? Therefore this registry will increase that rate? Think not. Are you a religious nut?”

Marion writes:

Jeez, Louise!

I voted against the constituional amendment, NOT for it!

I am NOT a Christian and you should try reading my posts; if you cannot read, have someone read them to you.

For the umpty-umpth time (Please take careful notes as there will be a test next period!):

(1) Kansas defines marriage as being ONLY between a man and a woman.

(2) Kansas prohibits the assignment of the rights normally accorded to marriage to any other realtionship.

(3) Kansas does not recognise “civil unions”.

(4) Therefore, under the current Kansas constitution a city may not recognise such relationships either; certainly not formally and possibly not even informally but in no case may such a registry be used to assign any of the rights of marriage to any other kind of relationship.

(5) Catch-22 (Some catch, that Catch-22!)

The domestic registry is an attempted end run around the constituion of the State of Kansas and the State of Kansas will not tolerate it!

The amendment is very clear on this and you must remember that the citizens of Kansas voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage so there is a real power base of opposition there.

Kansas can actually prohibit an insurance company from insuring the partner in any kind of “civil union”; at least the way the amendment is now worded.

Go read the amendment; you'll have to find it yourslf; I am bone-tired of hunting it up for folks!

It AIN'T me, Babe!

It's the constitutional amendment; I only told you how they would go about it and thus far, I have been 100% correct!
25 June 2007
at 9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

samuelisironman (Anonymous) says…

I agree with the above post. I think most people in Lawrence are just as bigoted towards conservatives and christians as the folks in those groups are towards gays, liberals, and their supporters. The bigotry goes equally both directions.
25 June 2007
at 9:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Sam, resistance is NOT bigotry. When the far-right stops its inceasant oppression via legislating of morality, we'll stop resisting.
25 June 2007
at 9:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

Marion:

I still think the matter of standing makes the state's constitutional amendment unenforceable.

If Lawrence wanted to declare gay couples “married (in the city's eyes)”, who has standing with injury in fact?

If Lawrence Memorial Hospital wanted to grant the “assignment of the rights normally accorded to marriage” (visitation) to registered partners, who has standing to challenge them as injured? Note that hetero couples can sign up for the registry.

If Aetna chooses to cover domestic partners in Kansas, despite your reading of the amendment (a different reading than even Phill Kline had), who has standing to challenge them? Possibly the shareholders, but I believe that Aetna could reasonably argue that providing partner coverage increases the number of policies sold and is positive P.R.

25 June 2007
at 9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

The domestic registry is not marriage. It confers absolutely no rights on its own. It is merely a way to make official a relationship in case some entity - an employer, a hospital, an insurer - might decide to recognize the relationship for the purposes of extending some right or benefit to a partner. The registry in no way requires any entity to extend any rights to a registered partner.

The registry doesn't threaten anybody. It doesn't conflict with the constitutional ban on gay marriage because it is not marriage and does not confer the legal rights of marriage.

People who oppose this either have serious problems they ought to look into, or they have too much time on their hands.
25 June 2007
at 10:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Blackwalnut:

You are missing a very citical point here and that is that the sTate of Kansas can, if it so chooses, prohibit exactly what you are saying the registry can do.

And now for the rest of the story…………………………………………………………………….

Because of the amendment, insurance companies can quite legally tell insured that there is no insurance for anyone outside of marriage as defined by the constituion, dependent children excepted.

You wrote:

“The domestic registry is not marriage. It confers absolutely no rights on its own. It is merely a way to make official a relationship in case some entity - an employer, a hospital, an insurer - might decide to recognize the relationship for the purposes of extending some right or benefit to a partner.”

Marion writes:

Yep, you are 100% on point; that is exactly what the registry is about and the amendment prohibits exactly that and a city cannot make that sort of end run around the constitution.

This is NOT going to be pretty.
25 June 2007
at 10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

average sez: “Those opposed to the registry will have to find someone with standing: someone negatively impacted by the registry: to challenge the city in court. Who has standing? Anyone? Let me know when you find them.”

I actually doubt that demonstrable injury would be necessary in a Constitutional challenge. Someone who is more qualified may correct me on this, but violation of the Constitution on its own would likely be sufficient grounds.

Marion sez: “Yep, you are 100% on point; that is exactly what the registry is about and the amendment prohibits exactly that and a city cannot make that sort of end run around the constitution.”

The Constitution prohibits rights and privileges accorded only to married couples going to people in any other sort of union. At what point (to reiterate my earlier question) does health insurance fall into that category? Neither the state nor the city gives anything to anyone who registers, no one who registers gets anything by virtue of registering, so what “rights or incidents” are you talking about? Be specific, or be quiet.
25 June 2007
at 10:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

samuelisironman (Anonymous) says…

Americorps and Azure - Bigorty has nothing to do with the whether or not the government is trying to create and enforce a policy. It has nothing to do with the other sides resistance of such policy. Bigotry is inside of a persons heart, regardless of the policy. I think if both sides of this arguement look inside of themself they'll find that each of them is angry, hateful, spiteful, etc of the other side's view and their enforcement or resistance to it.

I do agree that the time and money spent trying to ban what amounts to an insignificant registry that would really have little effect on anyone, is a waste that could better be spent on healthcare, education, feeding the hungry, etc.

Regardless of the outcome no policy or ban will ever prevent someone from being homosexual. On the flip side, any political bill or policy favoring or allowing homosexual marriages or the like will not spur any additional people to be gay. Homosexuals have existed for millenia in every civilization. The outcome will remain balanced regardless of any political statement. What matters is inside each person's heart when he or she meets Christ.
25 June 2007
at 10:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Acchhhh!, Bubbie!

The point is this:

If an insurance policy can provide health insurance to a SPOUSE and “SPOUSE” is defined as one of the partners in a “Marriage” (“Marriage being very specifically defined in the constitution as being between a man and a woman ONLY!) then an insurance company can quite legally deny coverage to the “spouse” in a non-marriage relationship, even heterosexual relationships.

Now, it might not be good business but sooner or later an insurance company will do this very thing and that company will have the full force of the Kansas Constitution behind it.

Insurance and the ability of a “spouse” to be insured under “family” plans is quite clearly one of the “rights and privileges” of “marriage” as defined and because of that definition, the State could quite legally ban insurance companies from extending such privilege to non-marriage unions of any and all kinds.

And you are also correct, no one need meet any sort of “legal standing” requirement in this sort of matter.

This is exactly why they wrote the amendment in the manner that they did; it kinda covers all the bases.
25 June 2007
at 10:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

Someone with legal standing is required to challenge the law. I cannot challenge the constitutionality of Lawrence's law against bees in my hat unless Chief Olin chooses to bust me for bees in my hat. Nor can the state. The state will have to find someone with standing (and 'the general taxpayer' is typically not enough, particularly since this registry is fee-funded). I'm not saying they won't find someone, but I think it will be a challenge.

Marion, don't I get a response? I feel left out.
25 June 2007
at 10:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dinglesmith (Anonymous) says…

“I think most people in Lawrence are just as bigoted towards conservatives and christians as the folks in those groups are towards gays, liberals, and their supporters. The bigotry goes equally both directions.”

I'm trying to figure out just what nasty things all these bigoted liberals are trying to do to the conservatives. I guess progressive Christians are really confused as according to your definition they are bigoted towards themselves. I don't find it bigoted to simply want to be left alone to make your own decisions about your own life free from governmental interference. In fact, I believe it used to be considered conservative. Being a Christian Nationalist is not the same as being a Conservative. At least it didn't used to be.
25 June 2007
at 10:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

Marion writes:
Yep, you are 100% on point; that is exactly what the registry is about and the amendment prohibits exactly that and a city cannot make that sort of end run around the constitution.

Still not marriage and does not confer any legal rights, not even close. Does not require any entity to recognize it.

I do not think the state can prevent an employer from voluntarily giving benefits for any reason. The state might be able to prevent an employer from selectively denying benefits based on discrimination, however.

Why does this freak everyone out? What exactly are you all afraid of? It's kinda weird.

25 June 2007
at 10:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

samuelisironman (Anonymous) says…

dinglesmith - I still don't think you get it. Imagine a world without a government trying to enact policies. A gay and a christian are neighbors. The gay knows that the christian believes that his lifestyle is wrong and dangerous. The christian knows that the gay is thinks he is a nut for praying to some strange God. As long as neither of them cares, they're not bigots. If they do, then it's a problem.
25 June 2007
at 10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

Marion says “…the State could quite legally ban insurance companies from extending such privilege to non-marriage unions of any and all kinds.”

I truly believe such a thing would end up in the Supreme Court of the U.S. That would be incredibly brazen.
25 June 2007
at 11:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, Average, sorry I missed you but here we go!

The STATE will be the aggrieved party in going after the City of Lawrence, in that the Attorney General, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the State need merely write a letter telling the City of Lawrence, “Hands off!” and “Don't do it no more!”

Also a legislator may ask the AG to opine on the matter and although that opinion may not be binding, it might as well be.

One way or another, the registry will not fly and the repercussions are going to set back the Gay Rights cause many years, sad to say.
25 June 2007
at 11:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Blackwalnut:

You may well be correct in your assertion regarding the Supreme Court and that may well be what it takes, The thing that concerns me is that there is no obvious protection for what we term “sexual preference” in the US Constitution and a whole lot of interpretation is going to be required.

I duuno; it is always very difficult to even speculate on what The Supremes will do in a given case.
25 June 2007
at 11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

If you expect a Kansas A.G. to write a letter or opine against it, it'll have to be at least 3.5 years or an impeachment from now. You even commented in the thread.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/apr…

The people elected Morrison to enforce state law as he sees fit. The people have spoken.

Whatever future A.G. might fight the registry, they'll still have to prove injury to the State's interests. Should be an interesting brief if it ever gets filed.
25 June 2007
at 11:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Averagea:

Yeah, this is going to be one REALL hoot and holler!

Too bad.

I expect Morrison to waffle but Morrison doesn't have a whole lot of discretion in enforcing existing law as he can easily be impeached if he fails to do so. The legislature and the people have spoken and Morrison has his eye on the Governor's office, what with that nice mansion and all.
25 June 2007
at 11:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

Just because a bunch of people are going to freak out and wage legal challenges does not mean this registry was the wrong thing to do.

Civil rights for non-white races were not won without many challenges in court. Starting the fight - even if that was not the intent - is the right thing to do. Losing a fight or two does not mean it's the wrong fight - just that prejudices are strong and hard to overcome.
26 June 2007
at 12:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Marion sez: “If an insurance policy can provide health insurance to a SPOUSE and “SPOUSE” is defined as one of the partners in a “Marriage” (“Marriage being very specifically defined in the constitution as being between a man and a woman ONLY!) then an insurance company can quite legally deny coverage to the “spouse” in a non-marriage relationship, even heterosexual relationships.”

Wow. Seriously, wow. What a convoluted army of strawpeople. Benefits are not necessarily contingent on a spousal relationships. If I were to rely on a policy such as the one you describe to insure my domestic partner, then I'd be pretty dumb. Not being dumb, I would find a policy that did not require a spousal relationship, like the ones provided to employees of Boeing and Sprint. Could the state ban private employers from providing domestic partner benefits? I guess they could try, but it would be bad for business and it would eventually be struck down (either overreaching at the state level or interstate commerce at the federal) . Moreover, they haven't, so the registry doesn't confer any benefit that is otherwise restricted to married folks. As for consulting the AG, they could ask both the current AG and the immediate past AG (as I pointed out above), and they would both say the amendment does not bar private employers from providing benefits. Given that those benefits can exist with or without the registry, the benefits themselves can't possible be your complaint. So, to repeat the question from before, what specific right or incident of marriage would the city registry provide that is otherwise restricted to married couples? I'll let the chirping crickets of your response lull me to sleep. 'Night all.

26 June 2007
at 12:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Bubbie, Mensch!

You wrote:

“Could the state ban private employers from providing domestic partner benefits?”

Marion writes:

Bubbie; the State has already effectively done so!

Go READ the amendment!

Oy!; I am so tired of doing research for others but here is the text of the amnedment in question!

READ it if you can, if not have someone read it to you!:

The Amendment:

“(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”

http://skyways.lib.ks.us/KSL/ref/cons…

Don't blame me!

I didn't do it but I can READ the darned thing and it gives the State all sorts of power over what is and what is not a right or incident of marriage.

I didn't write it but I can read it and I have been 100% correct so far on not only what they will do but how they will do it to further the homophobic cause, so get off MY a++ and write your representatives!
26 June 2007
at 1:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:
If being against homosexual marriage makes me a bigot, then I'm just one big bigot! In fact, I'm proud of it! I love being this degenerate society's “bigot.” From now on, whenever I see those little bumper stickers telling me how “bigoted” Kansas is, I'll know they're talking about me!”

Well, I would say that it's good that you've found such inner peace, except that I think you're probably not being honest. You're WAY too angry of a poster for me to believe that you're comfortable with who you are or what you stand for. Those people generally don't yell, curse, and insult as much as you.
26 June 2007
at 1:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Jonas!

You are being a wimp and supporting wimpery!

Of course, committed people yell and scream unless they are Moonies or Buddhists and then they clang on little bells and things, burn insense or chant odd things.

Say, what is the weather like there in RED China?

;)
26 June 2007
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

Number of uninsured Americans rises 6 percent from 2005 to 2006

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun…

In another part of the paper appears the linked story. Lawrence's registry would allow unmarried couples, gay or straight, to announce that they are domestic partners (not married). Then insurance companies who offer insurance to domestic partners will allow them to get domestic partner insurance (not family insurance) and increase the number of insured people without creating universal life insurance, something that most of you who are against the registry hate as much as you hate gays. Of course, generally the conservatives don't like to see anyone get ahead. They are such elitist, and only care about themselves. They think “I've got mine. If people aren't married, they don't deserve anything.” I have no problem with your right to do what you want in your life, but why do you want to deny insurance benefits to anyone?

When I was single I had a roomate, Kate, who was without health insurance for a time. Even though we are both straight, I would have been tempted to go on the list, just so she could have insurance. I don't know why insurance companies don't allow insured to add whoever they want to their insurance, if they are paying more for it. There aren't too many employees who pay for the family rate anymore, so an insured could pay the group rate for family insurance, and insure his uninsured friends or extended family members. It would increase the pool, which could increase the risk, but there are also a lot of healthy people out there who would cover the risks. Until then, a domestic registry can help increase the people who are insured. And it shouldn't depend on who you are having sex with.
26 June 2007
at 8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Marion, this isn't about you. So stop blowing your own horn about what you said or didn't say. “Told you so” is so juvenile.
The issue should be how to change state law so everyone has equal rights under it, and then move to the national level. The gay marriage amendment is so, well, dumb and yes, bigoted.
No harm will come to straight couples or the rest of the nation if gay marriage is allowed. There might be more people receiving health insurance, which may be what some legislators and business men are afraid of. But let's think of more than ourselves. Too bad we can't make the government read John Stuart Mill or Locke before they make a decision such as this, like the founding fathers are known to have done.
26 June 2007
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mick (Anonymous) says…

I think that a lot of people are sick of one religion holding sway over everything. What is this religion? It's Secular Humanism and its false prophet is Political Correctness.
26 June 2007
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Dear Mom:

Yep, the thread is indeed not about me but when I tell you how this is going to work and get pummelled and then the bad guys do exactly what I said they would do, I reserve the right to shout out, “I told you so!”, because I DID tell you so!
26 June 2007
at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Marion: Polluted. How's the weather there in wimpy pink America?

People only scream under 2 conditions: they're jerks with weak points, or they're trying to talk over jerks with weak points. Or a combination of the two.

And, unlike America, the people in China retain interest in learning and improving themselves. Getting less red by the year.

26 June 2007
at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Marion sez: “gives the State all sorts of power over what is and what is not a right or incident of marriage.”

And thus the crux of the matter. The amendment does not define the “rights and incidents” of marriage. Nothing at all. Some rights and incidents do exist, to be sure (filing joint taxes, for example), but this amendment does not define, enumerate, explain, point to, outline, or hint at any of them. Given that health insurance is not necessarily contingent on a spousal relationship, clearly it is not a right or incident of marriage, as noted by both our current and immediate past attorneys general. Short of additional legislation restricting co-insurance to a married couple, there is no basis to deny private employers and governmental entities the ability to provide benefits to domestic partners of employees.

Cruxing one step further, even if such legislation were passed and insurance were restricted, the registry itself provides no right or incident. Registering would not get me insurance, it would not get me a tax break, it would not get me a lollipop. The registry could not possibly be in violation of a plain-text reading of the Constitution, which is (again) why Kinzer is filing legislation, because he knows the courts won't take his side. Frankly, I'm amazed that after a good night's sleep, some breakfast and coffee, those crickets are still out.
26 June 2007
at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

It'll be tough for Kinzer to get past St. Peter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]” and “Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]”

Indeed, he's already been cast into hell, er … Olathe.
26 June 2007
at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Jonas;

Yes, you are correct. I have actuallky been doing a bit of business with some guys in China(Red) who are really quite like American businessmen except that thave to more things behind their boss's backs!

Nice guys.

Few scammers on the Mainland but watch out for HK!

Send us some pics!
26 June 2007
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

coneflower (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:
It will be rembered that not once, but several times predicted this very action on this very forum; going so far as to tell you exactly how the “domestic registry” in Lawrence would be killed by the homophobes.

Oh geez, Marion, any idiot knew that. Duh.
26 June 2007
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

And Hitler has to do with this thread because….?

Marion, play nice.

b3, this has nothing to do with the constitutional amendment. Do your frakking reading.

Secular humanism? I wish.
26 June 2007
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Tychoman, I didn't say anything about Adolf Hitler.
26 June 2007
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

I wasn't implying you did, I was speaking to max.
26 June 2007
at 1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MeeMa8 (Anonymous) says…

It doesn't matter whether you are married or not when it comes to insurance these days. When my husband and I got married I switched to his insurance. It just seemed simpler to be insured together. After a year his insurance company informed us that if insurance was available where I worked I had to take it, so we had to go back to separate insurance. So it won't matter, married, registered, or single, insurance companies control who they will insure, even married I can't take my husband's insurance.

26 June 2007
at 1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Souki (Anonymous) says…

Marion says “when I tell you how this is going to work and get pummelled and then the bad guys do exactly what I said they would do, I reserve the right to shout out, 'I told you so!,' because I DID tell you so!”

And I suppose that's right — but the “bad guys” haven't yet done what you've predicted. The registry has not been declared unconstitutional, which is the upshot of your predictions, Marion.

I don't think it will be, either, but I'm perfectly happy disagreeing in a civil way. You don't deserve pummeling. Although there are all sorts of things I disagree with you about, we do agree that the constitutional amendment was the wrong thing to do. But we have yet so see which of us will be correct on the question of whether the registry will bear constitutional scrutiny.
26 June 2007
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

coneflower (Anonymous) says…

scenebooster (Anonymous) says:
Howsabout Lance worries about what happens in Olathe, and leave Lawrence alone?

Probably gay, and covering up for it with his wacky activism. Otherwise, truly, why would he give a hoot? In what way could this possibly harm him? Or any of the rest of you who are freaked out about it?
26 June 2007
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

“I told you so” is still so juvenile. Anything to toot your own horn, and make yourself seem superior, but you always do!

It really doesn't matter what the domestic registry will actually accomplish, but the press it will create while the opposition fights it. It would be nice if it actually did something, but then it would be in opposition to the marriage amendment.
I still don't understand why this country thinks it's necessary to say a marriage is between a man and woman. What is it going to help or prove? Why do those, including Bush, feel so threatened? I would be more concerned over the divorce rate in this country, or the amount of children going hungry every day, than whether bob and john can get married. It's not going to affect me if they do or make my marriage any less legal.
For those who say it is against God's word - then don't do it!!!
26 June 2007
at 6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Marion: If you want, you're welcome to go to my myspace site and look at the ones I've posted there. There are about 50 by now.

www.myspace.com/jonasopines
26 June 2007
at 6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Now you've got me curious, Max…what was considered so wrong with Little Red Riding Hood?