Archive for Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Domestic registry approved
4-1 vote makes Lawrence only city in state to recognize gay partnerships
May 23, 2007
Advertisement
Domestic partnership registry
- Domesticregistry debate set for tonight (05-22-07)
- Domesticpartnership ordinance
- Chatabout Lawrence's potential to enact a domestic partner registry(03-15-07)
- Panelanswers questions on domestic registry (05-04-07)
- Domesticregistry gets nod from AG (04-07-07)
- KansasAttorney General's opinion on the domestic partnership registry(.pdf)
- Banon domestic registry put on hold (03-28-07)
- Committeestands against partnership registry (03-23-07)
Reader poll
Commission approves domestic registry 4-1
Lawrence becomes the first city in the state to create a way to publicly recognize gay and lesbian couples. Enlarge video
Lawrence soon will be unlike any other community in the state in how it treats gay couples.
Commissioners on a 4-1 vote agreed to make Lawrence the first city in the state to create a domestic partnership registry that will provide some official recognition to gay couples, who are prohibited by state law from marrying.
"This is the right thing to do," the Rev. Peter Luckey, senior pastor at Plymouth Congregational Church, told commissioners. "It is good for Lawrence. It is good for humanity."
The registry, which could be operational by Aug. 1, will allow unmarried couples to file paperwork at the City Clerk's Office that will recognize their domestic partnership.
The registry will require both partners to be 18 years or older and "live together in a relationship of indefinite duration with a mutual commitment in which the partners share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent." A registration fee, which hasn't been set, will be charged to cover the administrative costs of the program.
Supporters of the registry, which was proposed by members of the Kansas Equality Coalition, have said some companies offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of employees, but the companies require some proof of the relationship. A registry run by the city could fill that requirement, they say.
The registry will not require any company to offer benefits to domestic partners. Heterosexual couples who choose not to marry also will be allowed to register.
A state issue?
Commissioner Mike Amyx was the lone commissioner to vote against the registry idea.
"I'm not sure this is the way to do this," said Amyx, who said he thought creating such a registry is something the state is better suited to do.
Other commissioners, though, said Lawrence couldn't afford to wait.
"I think this is really something more appropriate for the state to take care of," Commissioner Boog Highberger said. "But the state has failed us on this issue, and the federal government has failed us. If we are to have the type of city and type of life we want, we have to deal with this."
Concerns had been raised by some members of the Kansas Legislature that such registries were an attempt to create a loophole to the state's constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages. Mayor Sue Hack disagreed.
"When we are recognizing people who have committed their lives to someone, we are not circumventing anything," Hack said.
A legal opinion from the attorney general said the city's registry would not violate the constitutional amendment. But the ban on same-sex marriage did weigh on the minds of some commissioners.
"As part of the faith community and as a devoted Christian, I do support the Kansas marriage amendment," Commissioner Rob Chestnut said of the ban on same-sex marriages. "But it is clear to me that this registry does not equate to marriage."
Instead, Chestnut said he thought the registry could be useful in helping some people gain access to health insurance.
"To that end, I think it is worthwhile," he said.
Plenty of interest
The commission meeting room was overflowing with spectators. Commissioners heard about an hour's worth of public comment, with supporters outnumbering opponents 15 to four.
"It isn't your job to tell me if my life is correct," said Kelly Barth, a Lawrence resident who is a lesbian. "It is your job to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly and equitably."
Opponents of the registry expressed concerns that the city was being irresponsible by not requiring gay couples to submit to an HIV test, and that the city was harming the institution of marriage by promoting homosexuality. Others said they feared the registry was just the first step by activists to push for special rights for gay individuals.
"The city is going to be hurt by this," said Ray Mehl, a Lawrence resident. "The city will find litigation down the road on this. I think I represent a lot of traditional families in the city that feel the same way."
More like this
- Panel answers questions on domestic registry 8 comments / May 4, 2007
- Olathe legislator tries to head off Lawrence domestic partnership registry 83 comments / February 1, 2007
- Domestic registry debate set for tonight 82 comments / May 22, 2007
- Domestic registry gets nod from AG 59 comments / April 7, 2007
- Domestic partnership registry opens today 228 comments / August 1, 2007
Top ads RSS
- Unarmed Security Officers FT/PT License Preferred $13/hr. + Benefits Application ...
- Janitorial Position. Looking for someone with at least one year ...
- Federal Home Loan Bank
- Director of Development and Director of Program Operations. Two full-time ...
- Factory Outlet $1800/Mo. Starting Pay Its the holidays and we ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Parental duties November 10, 2009 · 59 comments
- Blog: Being A Stripper: 10 Things I'Ve Learned So Far November 10, 2009 · 76 comments
- Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won't present 'necessity' defense November 10, 2009 · 20 comments
- Blog: Who Is To Blame For Inaction On Climate Change? November 9, 2009 · 26 comments
- Thanks to Moore November 10, 2009 · 64 comments
- On the street: Did you watch 'Sesame Street' when you were a child? November 10, 2009 · 54 comments
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 204 comments
- Blog: Song Titles And Lyrics: Nonsensical Non Word Songs! November 9, 2009 · 113 comments
- Tania Jackson will red-shirt for KU women November 10, 2009 · 3 comments
- Education commission challenges elected leaders to enhance funding for Kansas schools November 9, 2009 · 16 comments
- Business development taking shape November 10, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Cats are independent but trainable November 10, 2009
- Season's greetings: Photographer’s book explores Kansas nature November 10, 2009
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- Lecompton man still in serious condition after motorcycle accident November 9, 2009
- Unemployed Kansans eligible for additional benefits November 10, 2009
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- KU fraternity members to collect food, money this weekend at Clinton Parkway Hy-Vee November 10, 2009
- Food Inc. documentary to be shown at KU November 10, 2009
23 May 2007
at 5:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirtyprettythings (Anonymous) says…
I applaud this decision and the move towards equality that it represents!
23 May 2007
at 5:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
That's right. This has nothing to do with insurance coverage or anything at all except incrimentally desensitizing us to the notion of gay marriage. They got us used to homosexuality in general, didn't they? And, It won't be long before Cletus can marry his goat. Who is going to step up and be the next Rev. Falwell? Hurry up whoever you are, we need you now!
23 May 2007
at 5:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Ronald, if you have a goat obsession, maybe you need to see a counselor. As to nutty xians, you still have your friend Fred.
23 May 2007
at 6:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Ah, the ignorance-driven wit of some of the Reader Reaction responders makes my breakfast that much more enjoyable!
I will take full advantage of the registry, thank you. Falwell must be spinning right about now…
23 May 2007
at 6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lonestar1 (Anonymous) says…
I did not know this registry was necessary because of all the employers that did not offer health insurance. If the State had universal health care, then no one would need to worry about it. Problem solved…. But it's not about health care, now is it.
23 May 2007
at 6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I'm just glad I keep my dog & cat in the house or in sight at all times and that my refrigerator is located in my house. It shocks me the number of nuts from the right wing that are interested in animals and appliances.
I always thought it was so silly how grocery stores now have handy wipes for the carts. I guess I need to start grabbing some. That way if I see a right wing nut in the frozen freezer section, I can use them.
23 May 2007
at 6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
all4universal_healthcare (Anonymous) says…
It would be great if we could get the State, heck the even City, to provide universal health care. But then some of the posters above would be afraid they'd have to see a goat when they went to the Dr.
23 May 2007
at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
All of the Westboro Baptist wannabes are going to be out in force here today.
23 May 2007
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
promitida (Anonymous) says…
Why shouldn't people be able to sign up a goat or one of their hands? In case you were too ignorant to note, this isn't all about sex. It's about a person's right to have their relationship recognized. Trying to devalue that by joking about relationships with appliances and “loves” for inanimate objects is just silly. It passed, get over it.
23 May 2007
at 7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SFA (Anonymous) says…
“Opponents of the registry expressed concerns that the city was being irresponsible by not requiring gay couples to submit to an HIV test,”
We don't require hetero couples to submit to an HIV test before getting married. Why would we require a couple to submit to one for this registry?
23 May 2007
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Once again let me deny any allegiance to Fred Phelps that was implied by posters above. I knew the guy was nuts before any of you even heard of him. He is no Rev. Falwell.
23 May 2007
at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigAl (Anonymous) says…
The difference between Falwell and Phelps is that Falwell didn't carry signs.
23 May 2007
at 7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
The healthcare issue for this registry is a farce!
It is just annother way for them to justify their own existance.
Looks like they are wanting special treatment!
What a joke!
23 May 2007
at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
I wonder what will happen the first time that a gay couple face a horrible decision concerning the others medical care??? For example, the partner is dying and the other partner, enforces their “rights” under this registry….IF the registry isnt a “law” then it hold sno water in court. The partners family can then step up and sue, not only the medical facility but the city as well, and when that happens the registry goes out the window. Im not exactly opposed to this registry, I just think that the people of kansas spoke when it was time to vote, and to arbitrarily pretend like the votes dont matter is a sign of a bad thing to come. When your vote doesnt count for anything we then become a dictorship, and thats what i fear. Perhaps the council memebers who approved this, need to feel some heat at election time, I know Im certainly not voting for them, and i will do whatever i can to campaign against them, I voted, and to throw that out as if it didnt matter, and ultimately it didnt matter, just pisses me off! I still dont think that this registry is gonna do what the gay/lesbian community thinks its gonna do and ultimately its gonna be a regretable decision. The registry cannot “force” businesses to offer same sex insurance, it also cannot “force” the community to recognize it…althought it might be recognized among the gay community, you cant force it down the rest of the communities throat and expect us to accept it…so what have you really won?? Just curious……………
23 May 2007
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
promitida, how do you get your refrigerator to consent? Does it drop an ice cube when you call it “honey”? Have you found out a way to get it to sign its name? I trust your refrigerator is a really old one as it just wouldn't be right if your refrigerator is under 18. I've learned something new this morning. I had no idea of the right-wing frigerphile community in Lawrence.
23 May 2007
at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
BigAl, there is another difference. Fred doesn't have nearly the mental skills that Falwell had. Falwell was a genius in that, for example, he was able to con Jim & Tammy Fae out of their entire xian empire: media and theme park. He also twisted their words and used it in the media to make it sound like they were only in it for the money instead of for xian piety as the POOR humble servent of God Falwell was. All the fundy xians bought into it…
Just think if Mother Theresa had possessed Falwells skills, we wouldn't have poor in Calcutta. Instead they would have millions $$$.
23 May 2007
at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toby (Anonymous) says…
To be competitive, Lawrence businesses, KU, real estate sales need to demonstrate a progressive state of culture. Recruiting good professors, business people, artists is challenging. Community open-mindedness is important. Look at the measures….Office vacancy rates are high, KU's academic ratings falling, crime is high, etc. The passage of domestic registry hurts no one. It helps all.
23 May 2007
at 8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EvaTrujillo (Anonymous) says…
Because marriage is a religious sacrament, it should not even be recognized by the States. Never, ever. Therefore, if Ronald or Cletus can find a religion that allows them to marry eachother or their goats, then they should join that religion and get married. The State should not recognize their relationship nor anyone else's because after all it's a religious sacrament.
23 May 2007
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
what if?:::..what if, in the future, when the democratic party's numbers have dwindled and they go the route of a military coup and take over, and their new leader is a fascist (since the democratic party is more fascist leaning by far than republican), and this new leader happens to favor those nazi principles and decides to do some ethnic cleansing - all they have to do is go down to city hall and get names?
after all, the democrats were in favor of slavery in the day, and of course they believe in infanticide by any means, censorship, promoting a godless society, etc., it only fits that they would be more “open minded” to accept an overthrow of the US government in a military coup.
my trolling is done for the day.
23 May 2007
at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DaveR (Anonymous) says…
Myself, I've always wondered why legislative bodies were messing around with new & untried legal code (as noted in the remarks above), when variations of corporate LLC's would probably work better & have more immediate force of law. To say nothing of living trusts, etc. If the problem is legal recognition, there are lots of possible solutions. Picking only those guaranteed to inflame others is just poor judgment.
23 May 2007
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
My lunacy detector just went off.
23 May 2007
at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
I'm saddened that this passed. As Robert Bork put it, we are slouching toward Gommorah.
23 May 2007
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidnta (Anonymous) says…
Actually if you look at a political spectrum, Democrats will probably more going to lean towards socialism, whereas the Republicans will head towards fascism. So what you said there was dishonest, lunacydetector.
The Democratic party during the slave era lean towards small government and individual state rights, kinda like the Republican Party today. I don't understand why conservatives aren't praising this because it's the city not the state or federal government that decided this.
When women were given the right to vote, weren't a lot of people outraged? Progressing towards civil equality isn't easy for some people, but it's the right thing to do. Pissing people along the way is just a natural reaction, and people will get over themselves eventually.
23 May 2007
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
The city commission did the right thing. Bigotry has no place in government.
23 May 2007
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
karensisson (Anonymous) says…
To all who express horror over this:
Name one single way in which this hurts you. I don't mean some imagined problem, I mean a real one. How does it hurt any single man, woman or child in Lawrence?
Not a single one of you will even notice this has occurred, after today's newspaper wraps tomorrow's fish entrails - unless gay haters and homophobes feel compelled to fill the media with anti-gay rantings. You're all riled up over nothing.
23 May 2007
at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
“That's our word for makin' fun of them! Right, Ronald?”
Speak for yourself, Dude. You are the one always making fun of people. Although, as I've said before, it really does make me laugh. I am being total serious. If you weren't such a wacky nut lefty, we'd be best buds. As it is, I still enjoy your rhetoric. I still crack up about, “Mom, another Pepsi!” But, I don't use the word queer. I prefer to say Rump Ranger. (Just kidding around, homos, no offense.)
23 May 2007
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
Like one of the gays or lesbians posted yesterday, “This is just a start.” What next? These people will never be satisfied. The commission blew it.
23 May 2007
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
No company is going to be forced to provide insurance to gay couples by this registration.
geez, people, read the article first.
I think it's great.
23 May 2007
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
introversion (Anonymous) says…
Like I said in response to the last article, All these right-wing marriage advocates are like children. They fought so hard to keep marriage to themselves like a child would with a toy that they didn't want to share.
Well, the rest of the world, namely “those gay people,” went and made way for something new, called the domestic registry.
You all can have your “marriage.” Everyone should be happy, but no, again, like children, the right-wing marriage advocates are angry that there's something new out there, and they don't want to share that either.
Keep your sacred “marriage.” Now there's a domestic registry.
23 May 2007
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
scenebooster, it is much worse than what you describe. There have been reports of pink and lavender colored helicopters with the “United Nations” written on them in some fruity font typeface. This is the beginning of the end of the universe as we know it.
On the bright side, maybe this means that the UN will be sending in refrigerators and goats to calm the nutty right wingers. They'll be happy and the rest of us can get back to real issues.
23 May 2007
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Well, maybe I'll have to be the first conservative to say I have no problem with this. Frankly I guess I could care less. It costs me no money and no harm.
But perhaps this isn't even enough to avoid bigotry. Polygamy isn't allowed here. Shouldn't nuts that want to be married to more than one woman have the right to use this as well?
23 May 2007
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Yeah smurf, the Nazis were real leftists. Now I've heard everything. Up is down. Right is left. Black is white. Good is evil. Jeez. The BS that people spew!
Congrats to the commission for doing right by the citizens of Lawrence with this registry. Commissioner Amyx will never get my vote, by the way, for standing in the way of this tiny measure of progress and tolerance.
23 May 2007
at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
1, Emancipation Proclamation–1863
2, Women given the right to VOTE (in Kansas) —1912
3, Social Security Act – 1935
4, MLK I Have a Dream speech — 1963
5, Voting Rights Act – 1965
6, Domestic Registry in Lawrence, Kansas — 2007
Wow, social progress in Kansas! There is hope after all.
23 May 2007
at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
To those who are against the commission's decision, send your dollars to Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka. Fred's always looking for new members.
23 May 2007
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
I got your point, it just too rediculous to respond to. Like all of your points.
I was just letting you know that you every once in a while you have a jewel of wit amongst all of the bile that flows from your keyboard, every rare once in a while. Don't assume people don't “get it” just because they find it too inane to waste time responding to.
23 May 2007
at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
OH - universal health care isn't the answer either. People are only held back with handouts. Look at the curent state of minorities in the US for further proof.
23 May 2007
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
none2…read promitida's post again…he/she agrees with you…
Factor…is your right hand not already attached to you? If not, you might want to see a doctor…
As for your fridge…is it 18? Can it speak? Can it think? Can it sign a legal document? If not, you might want to loan your right hand to it for awhile…
Seriously…if your fridge can do all those things, you might want to warn your neighbors…because I suspect your fridge is more of a danger to them than any gay person ever will be.
Do you live under a lot of high power lines?
Ronald Wilson…you have to be sensitive first before you can be desensitized…you don't qualify.
I applaud this decision. I hope that the state and the federal government will follow suit.
And by the way, for all you people out there who are anti-gay…this registry also applies to heterosexuals who are not married.
SFA…there are soooo many misguided souls out there who believe that only gay people get hiv/aids. If it was required for gay people to get tested for it, then it should also be required for straight people to get tested for it.
This does bring up an interesting point, though…the state used to require blood tests before they would issue a marriage license. This practice was stopped many years ago. Why?
23 May 2007
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
You see, the very things which this registry are prohibited by the Constituiton of The State of Kansas and this fact is not going un-noticed by those who oppose the registry.
As a test case, the registry will work very well and be shown as a poor alternative to the real thing.
You must remember that over 70% of Kansas voters voted FOR the Amendment and that 70-plus per cent will never allow this unconstitutional piece of biosolids to stand.
Thanks.
Marion.
23 May 2007
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
What will be required to prove that “both partners to be 18 years or older and “live together in a relationship of indefinite duration with a mutual commitment in which the partners share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent.”? Who will make the determination? What happens if the “determiner” decides the couple do not meet this requirement? Or is this just a joke, and any two people can register for any reason whatsoever?
And, why age 18? Is that not discriminating against the 16 and 17 year olds who, if they were hetero, could be married?
23 May 2007
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bullmoose06 (Anonymous) says…
You all missed the key point here. Civil unions will cost you. You will be paying for what is already yours.
23 May 2007
at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirtyprettythings (Anonymous) says…
I'm genuinely surprised that anyone is bothered by this as it is just introducing similar legislation to that which is already present in several other countries (including the UK). Regardless of whether you approve of how someone else lives their life, two consenting adults who are not blood relatives should have the right to have their relationship acknowledged. I'm all for promoting long-term monogamy.
And I think the age-limit of heterosexual couples should be raised to 18 too.
23 May 2007
at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Shocking but true!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/…
23 May 2007
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
brass_tacks (Anonymous) says…
seems to me that instead of talking so much about fred phelps, we ought to be talking more about ted haggard. He hated gays and used them to consolidate his power, and we all know how that turned out. Had any good massages lately, pastor? How about you, RonaldWilson?
23 May 2007
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
bullmoose06 (Anonymous) says:
You all missed the key point here. Civil unions will cost you. You will be paying for what is already yours.
First, if it costs me, I'm ok with that.
Second, it will not cost me.
Third, all people have been paying the shared cost of benefits for married couples all along - even those people who could never hope to claim any of the benefits for themselves. Now they have a chance for a tiny piece of that - a minority of them, who work for the few companies that recognize them.
How do you think gay people have felt all along, while paying for benefits that only heterosexual married people could claim?
Lawrence has risen above both bigotry and selfishness. We're in for a rocky road as homophobes weigh in. I hope this will stand.
Sometimes there is a price for doing the right thing.
23 May 2007
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidnta (Anonymous) says…
smurf_daddy:
National Socialism is a far-right ideology that purged anything that goes against its ideology, and symbols, such as the swastika, can be taken and redefined by others to serve their purpose.
With that said, there is still no destruction of Lawrence as of yet. The sanctity of marriage has already been destroyed by unintelligent people who lack the mental capacity for making sound decisions. The average anti-gay heterosexual marriage has probably not been affected by this, and please let there be a story where a marriage has been ruined by couples arguing over something that doesn't really apply to them.
23 May 2007
at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
I'm with EvaTrujillo. I find it disturbing that so many responses can paraphrased as, “…as a Christian…”. What does that have to do with anything? For instance, Episcopals are Christians and they don't seem to have an issue with homosexuality. I suspect the issue crosses Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. lines.
Simple questions:
Is marriage more of a spiritual union or a secular partnership?
In my mind, it is a spiritial union that is recognized as having secular partnership effects (such as the ability to file taxes jointly, etc.) by the state.
If you believe it to be spiritual, do you really want the government to be making rules about the practice of religion?
Or, are you simply willing to sacrifice the constitution in order to impose the majority's religious beliefs upon the minority?
I would love to see a priest perform a marriage and then have that challenged/forbidden by law enforcement. That would be a nice, clean head-butting of law versus constitution, or state constitution versus national constitution if you prefer it that way.
For those of you making 'funny' remarks about marrying animals or inanimate objects, let's just assume that a union or partnership does not exist without mutual consent of the parties. Or, you can read Huckleberry Finn and apply Jim's argument about natural languages to this subject.
23 May 2007
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kujayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Wow, a pastor thinks this is a good idea?
Good for Lawrence.
23 May 2007
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
The righties who post here have a lot of trouble understanding the concept of consent.
23 May 2007
at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
I propose we get back to Bible basics, and pass an ordinance banning divorce.
Bible explicitly forbids divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
Let's not just pick and choose which parts of the Bible we like and don't like.
23 May 2007
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
So true, white_mountain.
It's funny how a lot of Xtians pick and choose what they see is right in the Bible and then expect non-Xtrians to take them seriously.
Pack your bags, bigots, if you don't like the registry. If you think it will destroy the town, you might want to leave now before it's too late. Don't worry, there's lots of places in Kansas and the midwest that accept bigotry so please move there…you won't be missed here.
23 May 2007
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
If this registry has enough authority to force employers to provide medical insurance to “partners” then is should require the same legal process as a divorce to desolve the registry commitment. What is good for the hetro is good for the homo.
23 May 2007
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nbnozzy (Anonymous) says…
This moderate Republican applauds the city commision for doing the right thing. Call it what you want…. a registry…. marriage….. union…. when 2 people fall in love and want to spend their lives together and wished to be recognized as a couple, I wish them well. Not enough love and compassion in this world, or even on this board. This registry does apply to me as I feel no need to have a religious ceremony to express my love for my girlfriend. So even heterosexuals can benefit.
23 May 2007
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
b3,
Which group do you believe is getting preferred treatment, those who tolerate only heterosexuals, those who tolerate only homosexuals, or those who tolerate heterosexuals and homosexuals?
Please identify what preferred treatment there is to this registry when it is open to all.
23 May 2007
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Finally all of us dog lovers will be able to proudly walk around with heads held high, confidant in the knowledge that our love has finally been accepted in Lawrence. Now can we get this beastiality word legally stricken from every book and record?
23 May 2007
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
Consent. Its about consent. Please explain how your dog can read and sign the registry.
23 May 2007
at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
Whew!!Glad we put off getting married.
Thanks Toontown.
For those who didn't.Sorry 'bout your luck!!
23 May 2007
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
How dare you question whether my dog can or cannot give consent! Have you never seen a dog wag its tail? That my friend is consent!
23 May 2007
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Remember, kids, when you make an unfounded reducto ad absurdum, the only thing that looks absurd is you.
23 May 2007
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
My dog and I got quite a laugh out of that one and we'll laugh all the way to the registry.
23 May 2007
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Hold it a minute! Only gay couples can register? What's the difference? Why they're discriminating against a certain types of couple. Not gays now but other couples just the same!
23 May 2007
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
My fellow Americans, dog marriages must be prevented. That is why I stand in opposition to this bill.
Goats? Dogs? yes, we have seen over and over again in countries with gay marriage and states with civil unions how the farm animals are being forced to sign pre-nuptials and go to the altar.
I now yield the balance of my time to those creative colleagues of mine who wish to dredge up more absurd hypotheticals.
23 May 2007
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DaveR (Anonymous) says…
crazyks wrote:
This does bring up an interesting point, though:the state used to require blood tests before they would issue a marriage license. This practice was stopped many years ago. Why?
The blood test was to prevent the transmission of syphilis. Which was a nasty, horrible disease. Because of those tests it is now quite rare.
Otherwise the arguments spin round & round, going nowhere. Talking points show no sign of independent thought. The are taken, whole cloth, off the national shelf and are merely repeated, over & over again.
Quite frankly, anal sex results in fecal contamination, and not of your own, but of someone else's. (Do you know where his anus has been?) That's a serious sanitation problem. I've never heard gay advocates explain this, and I would really like to know.
23 May 2007
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
What about all the other couples out here who don't fit into the gay category? My dog and I are being discriminated against!
23 May 2007
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
fecal contamination really has nothing to do with this ruling. Hetero couples may also contaminate each other fecally. Often times a warm rag with a little soap may take care of this problem that you've brought to our attention.
23 May 2007
at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Topeka paper said 1824 households of the total 31,435 in Lawrence are homosexual households. That seems like a lot of people engaged in this particular type of aberration in one population.
23 May 2007
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ArmyBrat25 (Anonymous) says…
It's just to have their relationship recognized to have the same rights as anyone else. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting their love recognized. What is marriage to anybody these days anyways? Marriage isn't what it used to be. With the way divources are an everyday thing, gays would probably last longer than most straight people anyways.
And for the people who say…”as a christian”…isn't it…only God can judge…? So let Him be the judge when their time comes. In the meen time just let people, gay or straight, love the way the want to love and live the way they want to live as long as they (we) aren't hurting anyone.
23 May 2007
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
acg (Anonymous) says…
Man I can barely see thru the hate and homophobia today. I truly enjoy laughing at the bible thumpers and hate mongers. Boy, ya'll sure are wasting a lot of space in your heads about a registry that won't affect you in any way, shape or form. But ya'll go ahead and hate. It's a waste of time and energy but I've found that the thumpers are generally not happy people unless they're pissed off about something.
I hope that Lawrence has a massive gay pride parade in the middle of downtown and I pray that every gay man puts on a pink tutu and does the watusi. That would rock!!!
23 May 2007
at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
How many of us dog/human couples are in Lawrence? I would be interested in reading the statistics on this. I've heard that quite a large number of households do have a dog in this town. Possibly even higher than the national average!?
23 May 2007
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Hmmm…I kind of wonder how old some of you are. The comparison of homosexuality to beastiality is reaching so far, all I can do is shake my head.
I know we only use around 12% of our brain, but let's try to use some of that percentage on common sense.
Also, I couldn't tell if you were joking or not, minko224, but you mentioned that “only gay couples can register?” The article states that heterosexuals are eligible to sign up for this registry too.
23 May 2007
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I would also like to point out that I have no problem with gay marriage. I simply want to put an end to discrimination. Who are you to tell me I can't marry my dog? Her tail wags when I ask for her hand. She always gives it to me. She even licks my face.
23 May 2007
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“(Do you know where his anus has been?) ”
This is the kind of inane comment that shows the only knowledge many people have of gay people is gladiator movies, Deliverance, Will & Grace, and homoerotic fantasies.
I might as well ask you if you know where your wife's vagina has been.
23 May 2007
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I'm not comparing homosexuality to beastiality. I'm simply saying what is the difference?
Some people are against homosexuality. Others are for it.
Some people are agains beastiality. Others are for it.
Why is one gaining recognition over the other? Is it because my dog has no voice of her own!??
23 May 2007
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
minko224:
You know the answer to your question, you just don't want to hear it.
One is about two adult human beings. The other is about an adult human being and some other non-sentient life form. If you can't see the difference between a person and an animal, I don't know what I can say for you.
The only thing I can think of is: for the same reason it's okay to eat cow flesh but not human flesh.
23 May 2007
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
When you got no other cover for your homophobia, you might as well get down with your beastial self.
23 May 2007
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“I'm not comparing homosexuality to beastiality. I'm simply saying what is the difference? ”
Well, it sounds like you just compared it.
Anyway, if anyone wants to go through the trouble of trying to get beastiality recognized, I say go for it. I'd actually pay to see that town meeting…talk about good comedy.
23 May 2007
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
So we've now determined that two human beings ot the same sex can register as a couple.
Why draw the line there?
23 May 2007
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill_Rob
You know the answer to your question, you just don't want to hear it.
One is about two adult human beings. The other is about an adult human being and some other non-sentient life form. If you can't see the difference between a person and an animal, I don't know what I can say for you.
The only thing I can think of is: for the same reason it's okay to eat cow flesh but not human flesh.
23 May 2007
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
It's not ok to eat cow flesh in all other countries. Some even eat God forbid Daaawwwgs!
23 May 2007
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“Why draw the line there?”
For the same reason that we draw the line and say that two people can sell a house or other piece of property to each other, but a person cannot buy from or sell to a dog.
I don't know if you're naturally stupid about this, or if your homophobia is forcing you into such contortions of logic.
23 May 2007
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
No the registry won't hurt anybody but being gay is still not right. God didn't make men to be with men or women to be with women. The anatomy doesn't fit. Sheesh I bet some of you are terrible at Tetris and jigsaw puzzles. How do you plug your appliances in?
BYW, Fred Phelps is a loser. At this point he just protests everything because he can.
23 May 2007
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
werekoala,
I think you're getting me confused with minko224. I was quoting a question from his/her previous post.
Read my 10:47 post.
23 May 2007
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
What does the ability to make money and make purchases have to do with this? So a mentally challenged person who is unable to buy and or sell a house is not deserving of being half of a couple?
23 May 2007
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
If a registrant leaves the other registrant and subsequently takes up with another of like persuasion, can he/she register again? Can one be registered with 2 different people?
23 May 2007
at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
Why not Jim, anything can be justified if you work at it long enough! :)
23 May 2007
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“It's not ok to eat cow flesh in all other countries. Some even eat God forbid Daaawwwgs!”
Way to completely miss the point there, ace.
Allow me to change the form of the verbiage that will doubtless sail over your head and break out a window:
The reason people are treated differently from animals in terms of marriage is the same reason they are treated differently in terms of food sources (starvation & death cults aside). Because there is a clear distinction between a sentient human being an an unthinking animal.
23 May 2007
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill_Rob :
You are right, I was wrong, and I apologize for that.
I just get so tired of seeing people beating a dead straw man every time this comes up (to mix my metaphors).
23 May 2007
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
spacystaci8,
If God didn't want homosexuality, why are there so many? If you believe it's a choice, why would anybody choose to invite harrassment into their life?
My personal theory is that homosexuality is nature's way of implementing population control.
23 May 2007
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
We need to come up with a divorce registry for these loving couples. That should enable them to switch registerees when they break up as with heteros do in divorce.
23 May 2007
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ModerateOne (Anonymous) says…
“karensisson (Anonymous) says:
To all who express horror over this: Name one single way in which this hurts you. I don't mean some imagined problem, I mean a real one. How does it hurt any single man, woman or child in Lawrence?”
********
Although I make no comment on whether the harm outweighs the benefit, here are a couple ways in which the ordinance harms me directly:
1. It will probably be necessary to use my tax dollars to pay attorneys to defend this ordinance from legal challenges.
2. It will probably be harder to lobby the state legislature to allocate money to KU, thereby decreasing the tax base in my town.
23 May 2007
at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
23 May 2007 at 8:16 a.m.
nutcase (Anonymous) says:
this is going to be a very active site today, every right-wing nut will be ranting and raving. bet post count will top 200 by early afternoon.
_______________________________________________________________
Right on target, you are!
—Ag
23 May 2007
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
No problem, werekoala, I understand your frustration.
23 May 2007
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
“The reason people are treated differently from animals in terms of marriage is the same reason they are treated differently in terms of food sources (starvation & death cults aside). Because there is a clear distinction between a sentient human being an an unthinking animal.”
Other than the species difference, cannot both feel love?
23 May 2007
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
Same old crap!
They want their own registry that nobody else can be on???
Special right for people that want equal rights??????????
Trying to circumvent the real issue that will never happen in Kansas!
“Kansas as bigoted as it is”, get used to it!
23 May 2007
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“Other than the species difference, cannot both feel love?”
No, not in the same way. Human emotions are not the same as animal emotions. Is this a foreign concept to you?
But, like I said minko224, if you strongly believe that you should be able to register you and your dog, feel free. I don't have a problem with it if you feel that passionately about it.
23 May 2007
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
minko224 (Anonymous) says::
“What does the ability to make money and make purchases have to do with this? So a mentally challenged person who is unable to buy and or sell a house is not deserving of being half of a couple”
Actually, if a person is found to be mentally incompetent, he/she is appointed a legal guardian, because they are NOT able to make sentient decisions. And that speaks to the entire ethics of this thing. You people try to pretend that there is no difference between a man and a dog when you go on about people marrying their dogs and the like.
I also think it actually does a great deal of credit to our social progress that by and large, people like you are no longer able to effectively argue against gay people. You can no longer rile people by saying “Gay people! BOO!!!” People know that gays are just like you and me. They have jobs, mortgages, families, and deep loving relationships.
Instead of being able to attack gays directly, you're forced to try and equate homosexuality to bestiality, and attacking bestiality. In other words, by the very arguments you've chosen, you've proven yourself to be on the losing side in the long run.
23 May 2007
at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
bd,
Re-read the article. Heterosexuals who don't want to marry can register too. So, not only can you marry, but you can register if you choose not to marry. Sounds like we were all awarded an extra right in the process. Here is an excerpt from the article:
“The registry will not require any company to offer benefits to domestic partners. Heterosexual couples who choose not to marry also will be allowed to register.”
23 May 2007
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Two who are of the same sex have different emotions than two of the opposite sex. Heck every single one of us has different emotions than the other. That means nothing in this argument.
23 May 2007
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“Other than the species difference, cannot both feel love?”
No. Not as humans love. At the fundamental level, a human relationship is about communication, sharing your life, your feelings, your thoughts, hopes, and fears. And I'm got a good damn dog; I love that stupid mutt.
But I'd kill him in an instant to save a human life.
23 May 2007
at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
What makes you think my dog isn't able to defend herself? She would make mincemeat out of you.
23 May 2007
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
This is appalling. I come on here and try to have a serious conversation and the love of my life is threatened by werekoala.
23 May 2007
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
good point. It all comes down to opinion. Your opinion, My opinion. Everybody's got one!
23 May 2007
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Has anyone noticed that when you don't agree with a member of the communist Lawrence clerisy, they either attempt to insult you personally or accuse you of “not getting it?” They are so perspicacious, yet obnoxious.
23 May 2007
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alicenevada (Anonymous) says…
I am very pleased to see that our consciousness is being raised, albeit slowly, and that every human being is allowed the respect and compassion they and their partners deserve. As a liberal Christian, I am saddened by the conservative religious right who so rudely and heartlessly ignore the message of Christ: to love on another. Not play spiritual police. Not play God. Just love. I support gay marriage, gay adoption and gays and lesbians having every right that a heterosexual couple would have. I love my God and believe that He feels the same.
Peace!
23 May 2007
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I thank God that my girl isn't a Pit Bull. When you see us walking around town please give us the consideration you would give to say any other gay registered couple.
23 May 2007
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
minko224
“This is appalling. I come on here and try to have a serious conversation and the love of my life is threatened by werekoala.”
“good point. It all comes down to opinion. Your opinion, My opinion. Everybody's got one!”
Given your replies being a non sequitor and appeal to indeterminacy, I'm going to go ahead and assume that's as close as you're going to get to admitting that your points are illogical and unfounded. I suppose it's too much to hope, though, that you and your ilk will refrain from posting similar drivel the next time this subject comes up.
sigh.
23 May 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I admit at first I had trouble seeing people of the same sex as couples, as you have trouble seeing Lassie and I as a couple. Get a grip and come to terms. I love my dog! Awooooooo!
23 May 2007
at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
smurf_daddy (Anonymous) says:
“werekoala,
human life? Can you qualify that for me please. Human being outside the womb?”
I'd be happy to discuss that with you some other time. But I think one can of worms is enough to open today, and an abortion discussion would just derail the tenuous train of thought we've been developing here.
23 May 2007
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
RW wrote:
“…when you don't agree with a member of the communist Lawrence clerisy, they either attempt to insult you personally…”
However, in another article titled “Falwell's Flaws”, here's what RW wrote in regards to the anti-Falwell article:
“Scenebooster, did you write this? Or, was it you KawValleyKid? Oh, I know it was Roadkill. No, too many big words. Well, anyway it's garbage.”
Now, who's insulting who? Your hypocricy knows no bounds.
23 May 2007
at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
murphy59 (Anonymous) says…
“Same old crap!
They want their own registry that nobody else can be on???”
Huh? Gay couples and straight couples can register. Did you even read the article?
23 May 2007
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says:
“Has anyone noticed that when you don't agree with a member of the communist Lawrence clerisy, they either attempt to insult you personally or accuse you of “not getting it?” They are so perspicacious, yet obnoxious.”
Ooh, not being sarcastic, I really do enjoy people who use large words correctly.
That being said, I am certainly not trying to insult you or any other poster. However, trying to morally equate the legal status of a man and a dog seems intellectually dishonest.
If you don't like gay people, just say so. If you wish they would all go away, or stay in the closet, or whatever, say that. But the attempt to attack the registry by claiming it will lead to beastiality certainly seems like someone “doesn't get” the distinction between two adults and one adult and one animal.
23 May 2007
at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
uhhh
It is against the law in some states for two of the same sex to engage in certain sexual practices.
It is against the law in most states for two of different species to engage in sex.
23 May 2007
at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
I propose a Lawrence bigots' registry. Wait, no… I see all the bigots have already registered as LJ World users and are posting their bigotry here. A bigots' registry would be redundant.
23 May 2007
at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuhusker (Anonymous) says…
“It is against the law in some states for two of the same sex to engage in certain sexual practices.”
No it's not. The supreme court overturned all those laws years ago.
23 May 2007
at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I said certain sexual practices. Sodomy is against the law in some states.
23 May 2007
at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
For those who don't understand sodomy laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
23 May 2007
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Wow - 134 comments. Don't know if I can read all of them.
Just wanted to say (if it hasn't been said already) that if the theocrats feared by so many in Lawrence ever take power, the information on this registry will be a nice handy way of locating people whom they want to target for “Special” treatment……
If it were me, and there weren't insurance benefits etc. to be gained, I'd not sign up for that reason alone!
23 May 2007
at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
minko:
Helps if you actually read the article you posted:
“The remaining anti-homosexual laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (see above). The United States Supreme Court also implied that the age of consent must be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals when it ordered the Kansas courts to review the constitutionality of the state's Romeo and Juliet Law.”
You lose at the Internets.
23 May 2007
at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Yes in some states they consider sex with someone of the same sex a crime against nature.
Yes in some states they consider sex with a different species as a crime against nature.
23 May 2007
at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
My point is not when they overturned these laws. My point is these were laws.
23 May 2007
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LittleMissFlea (Anonymous) says…
@ Oracle_of_Rhode: That's frickin' hilarious.
23 May 2007
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
And as these laws against gay sex have changed, so will the laws against Lassie and I having sex change.
23 May 2007
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
minko:
They might consider the sky to be pink, but the law of the United States, as determined by constitutional process is that same-sex intercourse is NOT a crime, in any state in the union.
See also, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas
I can lead you to water, but I can't stop you from drinking Kool-Aid.
23 May 2007
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“My point is not when they overturned these laws. My point is these were laws”
WTF? Then by your “logic”, in some states, blacks are considered slaves.
Seriously, keep posting. You're hysterical.
23 May 2007
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Read farther boo boo brain.
“However, some states still attempt to enforce their laws. See Virginia, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. The U.S. Military enforces its sodomy regulation without regard to Lawrence.”
I win
23 May 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
You can twist it around all you want.
My point is laws change.
Sodomy laws.
Why not change the Sodomy law for us dog lovers like they did for the same sexers?
23 May 2007
at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
minko,
If you want to rally all the Pro-bestiality constituents to adopt a bestiality registry, what's stopping you?
23 May 2007
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I have trouble talking with you Roadkill. Your name pokes fun at my dear Lassies mother who was in fact road kill. How bout I change my name to Deadladyonhighway_Rob?
23 May 2007
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
I Ctrl+F'd that entire page for the text you posted in quotes. It's not there, unless you've gone in and edited that since when you first posted the link (haven't refreshed).
The UCMJ is an entirely different legal situation, not applicable to civilians by any stretch of the imagination. And I'd be curious to see a link to any new case regarding sodomy law since Lawrence v. Texas.
Not that it matters. A DA can try and enforce old anti-miscegenation laws, too. And, just like any other invalidated law, it'll get tossed out of court.
23 May 2007
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says:
“RW wrote:
“:when you don't agree with a member of the communist Lawrence clerisy, they either attempt to insult you personally:”
However, in another article titled “Falwell's Flaws”, here's what RW wrote in regards to the anti-Falwell article:
“Scenebooster, did you write this? Or, was it you KawValleyKid? Oh, I know it was Roadkill. No, too many big words. Well, anyway it's garbage.”
Now, who's insulting who? Your hypocricy knows no bounds.”
It's spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. See, I told you that you have trouble with those big words.
23 May 2007
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Everywhere I turn I see or read people making fun of Lassie and I? Do you not know that God put the animals here for us to do with as we choose? As God created Woman for Man. From our rib. Say speaking of ribs, Lassie loves em!
23 May 2007
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Good Lord I just realized God didn't create man for man. He created woman for man. He also put the animals here for us to do with as we so choose. Well if you go by that I should be able to register Lassie and the gays should still be considered Sodomizers! ha
23 May 2007
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Glad I was able to solve all of this.
23 May 2007
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“My point is laws change.”
Oh, is THAT your new point? Because first, it was that there was no difference between a man and a dog. Then it was that you wanted to marry a dog. Then it was that sodomy was illegal.
Spin, spin, spin, little beanie hat.
I'm pretty comfortable that unlike yourself, the vast majority of our citizens and judiciary will continue to be able to distinguish between a legal adult of sound mind and a puppy dog, well into the foreseeable future.
23 May 2007
at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Sure a Puppy is way to young to marry. That would be puppy abuse.
23 May 2007
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
And what exactly is sound about two guys going at it? To me that is no different than Lassie and I. or Joe and the hole in the tree. Joe is considering registering his tree as his signifigant other.
23 May 2007
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
RW,
Keep on playing the victim and pointing out spelling errors. I'll keep on challenging you with reason and facts which you're unable to do.
23 May 2007
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
Good news Lawrence. I just got back from lunch and the sky hasn't fallen after the CC meeting last night. You got me all worried for nothing.
23 May 2007
at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Big words, small words, they are all the same. How can you seriously believe other than the size, that there's any difference between the two. A word is a word. Some words go better with other words but who are we to like one combination of woreds over another? After all it's equality we strive for.
23 May 2007
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
and who says words can't be spelled woreds? it reads sorta the same. this belief that one way of spelling is correct over another is a form of discrimination. We should try to avoid this.
23 May 2007
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Roady,
I was just proving my point that it wasn't an insult. What I originally stated was proven out to be fact. Besides, you know my original post was a joke. Come on, are we being a little thin skinned? Suck it up, Buttercup!
23 May 2007
at 12:41 p.m.
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
23 May 2007
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Those of us who are married should now have the option of cancelling our marriage licenses if we sign the registry. Kind of bypass that whole divorce thingy.
23 May 2007
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
DonQuipunch wrote:
“I HATE the way all the pro-gay “activists” love throwing the “bigot” word around. Really undermines legitimate civil rights.
But of course what can one expect from a city that would approve something like this? For once I'm rooting for the Phelps group.”
Wouldn't you say Fred Phelps is the perfect example of a bigot? And you say you're “rooting” for him? Um, way to prove your point.
23 May 2007
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
Good one minko! Way to get your licks in!
23 May 2007
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Get over the gay thing. It's not about gays. It's about laws. It's about the erosion of them? The changing of them? The evolving of them? Who decides what is right or wrong? Who decides what consenting adults can and can't do? It's all freeking opinions. Evolving opinions. Majority of opinions, minority of opinions. Nothing factual is involved.
23 May 2007
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Ronnie,
So you say you weren't insulting me and then you go ahead and insult me again by saying that your intended joke was “proven out to be fact.” Either you have a hard time understanding the definition of insult, you need to work on your jokes, or you're just altogether confused.
23 May 2007
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
My joke that was removed is considered by some not be that bad. others consider it bad. it was removed. opinions were involved. Rules were involved. Rules that are opinions. Nothing factual in the removal of my joke. Majority rules. Majority of opinions rule.
23 May 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
timebomb66 (Anonymous) says…
This is rich. What a bunch of jerks. RonaldWilson to your mother.
23 May 2007
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
radarlove (Anonymous) says…
okay, we've had nazis, ignorance, and beastiality all compared to the subject, along with a need for flameproof knickers and random biblical quotes.
Teh thread is complete, folks.
23 May 2007
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
we haven't had ignorance. difference of opinion is not the determining factor for ignorance. We've had varying opinions. None right, none wrong. Just different
23 May 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Every Christian knows the difference between the old testament and the new. What does the bible say about homosexuality in the new testament?
23 May 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“In the old testament Gods word declares homosexuality to be an abomination. It is the harshest rebuke in the Bible. How do you reconcile your faith, you believe a little bit of the Bible?”
How much of the Old Testament do follow Smurf_Daddy? I'm sure you follow Leviticus word-for-word.
23 May 2007
at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
The old testament also tells how if you're a man and not circumsized you will not get into heaven. Do we really believe all men who do not have this operation will not go to heaven?
23 May 2007
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Opinions. And Pauls words are of divine origin?
23 May 2007
at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Because according to the Bible the “circumsizion rule” is coming from God.
And Pauls opinion was his opinion.
23 May 2007
at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
so DonQuiwhatever I see you are able to take things out of context also with the ability to twist them around to fit your opinion.
23 May 2007
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
I doubt if any two human beings have duplicate moral doctrines. They all boil down to that particular persons beliefs, actions and or opinions.
23 May 2007
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
It's too bad the reader forum wasn't around in 1995. If it had been, we could look back at all the comments surrounding the adoption of Simply Equal, which added sexual orientation to the city's nondiscrimination ordinance.
Even without the forum, all sorts of people back then ranted about many of the same issues that are being overworked here. They worried the city would be mired in expensive litigation. They worried employers and landlords would be constantly defending their actions in court and in the press. They worried that Lawrence might attract more than its share of homosexuals. They worried that it would become illegal to discriminate against all sorts of abominations.
But none of that happened. And it won't happen now.
23 May 2007
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
Good day boys and girls. Has any of you taken note of the fact that this thread is not listed on the forum list? This thread is the monkey house!! Most of us really don't give a gd mofo sobing A about the register, non-gay or gay. You'e have to excuse me, I had goat for lunch.
23 May 2007
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Do you Christians follow this command from the Bible?:
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
If not, why not?
Reads to me as a pretty clear instruction to kill Gay/Les/Bi/TGD people !
Brothers and Sisters!
testify!
Thanks.
Marion.
23 May 2007
at 1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
Whoops, it seems I had too many queer beers for lunch. this was ust down on the list way beyond expectations.
23 May 2007
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
werekoala (Anonymous) says:
“and an abortion discussion would just derail the tenuous train of thought we've been developing here”
“tenuous train of thought we've been developing here”? derewerekoala, they are just playing with you! Probably to see how long you will continue to whine about them and their ignorant ways.
We may get to 200 posts today, but in reality it seems more like a few posts repeated over and over and over and over and over – ad nauseum.
23 May 2007
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
This would all be easier - and the debate would be over - if we would just become a Theocracy and let the Bible be the Law of the Land.
It will be so, God willing.
23 May 2007
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Good one minko! Way to get your licks in!”
spacistaci, have you read the Bible? Especially the Ten Commandments, you know, about hating others? Just one of the things you burn in hell for.
And minko, admitting to breaking the law (sexually abusing your dog) in a public forum is a great way to end up in jail. Enjoy yourself there.
23 May 2007
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
Marion,
Do you know when that was added (they call it a revision) to the Bible. I'm sure you know there was no mention of homosexuality in the Bible pre-1940 and that the “Bible” has undergone thousands of revisions.
23 May 2007
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“How do you reconcile your faith, you believe a little bit of the Bible?”
How do you reconcile yours, smurf_daddy? Do you eat shellfish? Ever been divorced? Circumsized? Eaten some ham, or bacon, or pork chops? Wow, you're idiotic argument backfired on you, didn't it?
23 May 2007
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
wwwd (Anonymous) says:
“there was no mention of homosexuality in the Bible pre-1940 and that the “Bible” has undergone thousands of revisions.”
Please share the reference material substantiating this one!
23 May 2007
at 2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
This would all be easier - and the debate would be over - if we would just become a Theocracy and let the Bible be the Law of the Land.
It will be so, God willing.
––––––
This statement and others on this site, reinforces the fact that religious fundamentalists are the greatest threat to U.S. national security, our Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
23 May 2007
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
Can you believe the gall of people like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uBAPb…
23 May 2007
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DaveR (Anonymous) says…
Myself, I used to support the gays. That changed when they wanted marriage. I had previously studied marriage as one of the sacraments & gays getting the Church's blessing was a red line. Just as you don't hand out heroin in high schools. Gay advocates will say, well, what's the problem, can you tell us? Sure. But I have to go down five levels of gibberish to do it. You won't survive the first two, which are: 1. Black magicians (male) commonly use anal sex as means to gain power over others, as the act involves all three of the traditional black materials: blood, semen & fecal matter. 2. It is impossible to distinguish these magicians from ordinary homosexual couples. The very last thing such couples should get is grace from god above, as that is merely fuel for their enginesm, which is exactly what such magicians crave. - So how many of you did I lose? Remind me not to go this way again.
It is the unfortunate habit of all advocates, of whatever stripe, to hide their own shortcomings. Back in the 1970's, when this was a lot more open & a lot less emotionally charged, I subscribed to the Village Voice. Read it in my basement apartment at 23rd & Mass. The VV has been heavily gay ever since it was started back in the 1950's, or so I suppose. Gays writing about gays, for the benefit of other gays, is eye opening. Power relationships among gays is a given. Get over it, people. What else would you expect with groups of young, healthy, testosterone-laden males?
So every now & then it helps to remind people that anal sex means fecal comtamination, and to further remind of the diseases & parasites that traditionally spread by that means. Gays will do anything to avoid facing up to that. They've made the same excuses, century after century. They have no choice.
It helps to remind people that although there is the love of one man for another - something I feel from time to time - and though there is the frustration about not having any way to express it physically (see D.H. Lawrence, Sons & Lovers), there is in the gay community the larger problem of male-on-male power & dominance, as expressed, or not expressed, sexually.
Ordinarily, in any fight to the death with fundamentalist religion, religion will win. Normally, that's not even in doubt. Ordinarily one must be an heroic idiot to stand up to those brusing bullies. But the 20th & 21st centuries are not like the 18th or 19th. The Aquarian Age is inherently Gay, and it's just getting started. So I don't really know what the outcome will be, other than the general observation that if the gays win, not even they will like it. Because love has nothing to do with it.
23 May 2007
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
some cultures consider dogs unclean and parts of the world raise dogs as livestock to produce dog meat for human consumption. other places the consumption and use of dog meat as food is discouraged by social conventions or taboo. that is except for a few Lawrence restaurants, Lawrence tends to be more liberal in allowing the eating of dog meat. No tobacco is involved in the cooking of it.
23 May 2007
at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
1derer…No, I don't have reference material for you. My bet is it wouldn't matter anyway because we all (myself included) choose to believe what we believe regardless of what we are told or what we read. I am not gay but I have friends who are. No, I do not choose to believe sexual orientation is a choice. I also do not believe this DP Registry will have any impact on my life one way or the other. I do, however, get a real kick out of reading the reactions on this forum. What fun it is to live in Lawrence!
23 May 2007
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
With the word carousing being misspelled in the previous post, this completely invalidates the opinion expressed. :)
23 May 2007
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
Minko224 - When you see words following “Dambudzo,” they are completely invalidated. It's just easier to not bother reading and moving on to the next task in your day.
23 May 2007
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crispysyn (Anonymous) says…
You do all hopefully realize that the bible is nothing but a book of short stories based off of a main character don't you. And before you start bashing away at me, I have read the bible twice, went to church until I was 19 then realized how big of a scam it truly is.
I agree and don't agree with the registry.
I agree with it because, it is a step in the right direction. Everyone should have the same equal rights.
I disagree with it because it shouldn't have to be that was. Homosexual people should be allowed to marry just like straight couples. If people would start using their brains and their hearts and realize that the only final solution is equality, only then will things change for the better.
23 May 2007
at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
It took more than 200 posts but crispysyn finally said it in a clear concise way.
23 May 2007
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
wwwd (Anonymous) says:
1derer:No, I don't have reference material for you. My bet is it wouldn't matter anyway because we all (myself included) choose to believe what we believe regardless of what we are told or what we read. I am not gay but I have friends who are. No, I do not choose to believe sexual orientation is a choice. I also do not believe this DP Registry will have any impact on my life one way or the other. I do, however, get a real kick out of reading the reactions on this forum. What fun it is to live in Lawrence!
______________________
wwwd…Whooptedoo!! I too am not gay but have friends who are! My concern did not include what you choose to believe, or for that matter, what I choose to believe. You made a statement, presenting as fact, something you “believe,” with no sound reason for believing. If you want to believe that, fine, just don't present it as an established fact that others should know and believe. You even gave the year!!
23 May 2007
at 2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
DaveR writes: “So every now & then it helps to remind people that anal sex means fecal comtamination [sic], and to further remind of the diseases & parasites that traditionally spread by that means. Gays will do anything to avoid facing up to that.”
Yes, and there are a lot of straight couples who enjoy anal sex that are in denial about it as well. I think you should expand your crusade against anyone who strays beyond missionary positionality. Maybe next time you could sprinkle in some Paul Cameron hate-science into your helpful reminders.
DaveR: “Myself, I used to support the gays. That changed when they wanted marriage.”
translated: “Myself, I used to support The Gays when they kept in their place. That changed when they wanted to be treated like humans. I'm a big bigot.”
23 May 2007
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
Marriage was a civil action until a pope changed that in the 1200's, there is no tradition of it being a religious activity before that.
in the dozens of cities, counties, states and countries that have some level of domestic partnership or marriage, never has there been a case where anyone other than a consenting adult been allowed to enter into such a contract
____________________________________
references, americorps, references!!!
23 May 2007
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
megmcc75 (Anonymous) says…
bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big*ot*ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big*ot*ed*ly adverb
insult
Pronunciation: in-'s<
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French insulter, from Latin insultare, literally, to spring upon, from in- + saltare to leap — more at saltation
intransitive verb, archaic : to behave with pride or arrogance : VAUNT
transitive verb : to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly
synonym see OFFEND
- in*sult*er noun
23 May 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
DonQuipunch,
Like I said to the bestiality supporters above, if you want to organize a group of necropheliacs to demand equal rights, go ahead. That's what gay-rights advocates did and that's why they were able to get this registry approved. I'm anti-necropheliac, but if there are enough necropheliacs to get it on a ballot and pass it, what can I do?
23 May 2007
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ihatejohntravolta (Laura Watkins) says…
DonQuipunch, you are such a funny guy! Oh yeah, and the day that necrophilia is no longer a crime and dead people can (at the time of intercourse) consent to having sex, i will support your little registry. Does that make you happy?
23 May 2007
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“B____f__ng is neither a race nor an ethnic group.”
You're right there, but homosexuals are a group that recieves a lot of intolerance and hatred. Those that practice intolerance and hatred are bigots. I rest my case.
23 May 2007
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Gay marriage=Highest Priority
Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority
Gay marriage=Highest Priority
Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority
Gay marriage=Highest Priority
Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority
right_thinker
–––––––––––—
Well said r_t! As Barry Goldwater, the godfather of true conservatism said it best
“I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.” 1994 Washington Post
23 May 2007
at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
warthog (Anonymous) says…
Oh goodie…
23 May 2007
at 2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Pedophelia is against the law too, unllke homosexuality. Now, if you want to try and change that law, I'm sure you'll run into a lot of resistance except from Catholic priests.
23 May 2007
at 2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ihatejohntravolta (Laura Watkins) says…
I wasn't aware that a verb could constitute an ethnic group.
23 May 2007
at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
That's what gay-rights advocates did and that's why they were able to get this registry approved. I'm anti-necropheliac, but if there are enough necropheliacs to get it on a ballot and pass it, what can I do?
__________________
R_R, when did they “get it on a ballot and pass it”? Was this voted on by the city – or just approved by the commission?
23 May 2007
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
Defender- Get over yourself, it was a joke! God forbid anyone tell a joke on this ultra serious, all knowing, board of libs who know it all. The only spewing hate is you dude!
scene- someday you will know the existence of God hopefully not too late. THis board isn't a party until you show up to bash people. Glad we weren't disappointed
23 May 2007
at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Hey Wrong Thinker:
As for your complaint, “Gay marriage=Highest Priority
Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority”
My question for you is: what's the most likely act of terrorism here in Lawrence?
A gay bashing? Or an Al-Qeada attack?
Is YOUR priority to terrorize your neighbor or make your neighbor safe?
23 May 2007
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
1derer,
Sorry, wrong choice of words…gay rights advocates pushed for the commission to vote on it. I'm not sure how they went about it but it obviously worked.
My point was that there was a group with significant support that pushed to get it approved.
23 May 2007
at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LittleMissFlea (Anonymous) says…
@DaveR:
Are you implying that when gays can marry, Lord Voldemort wins?
23 May 2007
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
americorps (Anonymous) says:
“Marriage was a civil action until a pope changed that in the 1200's, there is no tradition of it being a religious activity before that.”
Don't you think 800 years of tradition stands for something? And, honestly, the truly devout, faithful people that I know don't going around calling themselves “real christians.” Strange…
And, DaveR, tone down the rhetoric. Or else, you are going to take my place as the lefties' whipping boy.
23 May 2007
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
What Would Ted Haggard Do?
23 May 2007
at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
It's amazing how nothing brings out the fiscal hawks like an issue such as a domestic registry..
.. at least it's good to know it has nothing to do with disliking gay people!
23 May 2007
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
hawkperched:
This is from the article:
>>The registry will require both partners to be 18 years or older and “live together in a relationship of indefinite duration with a mutual commitment in which the partners share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent.” <<
It sounds like you have to prove to an extent that your relationship isn't platonic. I admit that this can get tricky but I don't know of a heterosexual who would take part in your hypothetical situation…in other words, I don't know any straight guys who would pretend to be gay just to be able to get city employee perks.
23 May 2007
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Which leads us back to how do you consumate a gay marriage?
23 May 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
A marriage isn't legal until it is consummated
23 May 2007
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
Can you be common law registered?
23 May 2007
at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
The legal definition of consumation is co-habitation and intercourse.
23 May 2007
at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
U mean I win?
23 May 2007
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minko224 (Anonymous) says…
oh everybody must be getting off of work about now.
I win.
Final word is mine.
23 May 2007
at 4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Nope, I'm the last one. I win.
23 May 2007
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LittleMissFlea (Anonymous) says…
No, Lord Voldemort wins!
23 May 2007
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
So scene you are admitting there is God? Otherwise you wouldn't be offended of my so called arrogance. Give it up God exists. Denial of God is just a way for people to rationalize bad things that have happened to them and live immorally and not feel guilty. I know I opened a can of worms with that one…
23 May 2007
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
rt — “(Fighting) Gay marriage=Highest Priority
(Correctly) Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority”
I couldn't have summed up the Republican party any better if I tried.
23 May 2007
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crispysyn (Anonymous) says…
I find it funny, as in EXks post above, they mentioned seperation of church and state which I am all for, but KEEP it that way across the board. All or nothing. Our political “leaders” everytime a state or federal issue comes up they don't like, suddenly it goes against the bible and must be stopped. It is not just the leaders, it is citizens doing the same thing. Such as the case with the registry and last years gay amendment ban. Seperation of church and state unless it goes against their personal beliefs. If you are not sure what I am talking about go to youtube, search for Eric Schwartz, and watch his video for “Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis” That song is basically like taking the words out of my mouth.
23 May 2007
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
LittleMissFlea,
You can get sued for revealing the end of the next Potter book.
23 May 2007
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LittleMissFlea (Anonymous) says…
Ah, if only I knew the ending.
23 May 2007
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
” Denial of God is just a way for people to rationalize bad things that have happened to them and live immorally and not feel guilty.”
Staci, you could say the same about Christians. It seems to me a lot of Christians live immorally but use Christianity to take responsibility for their actions. I've found atheists and agnostics tend to take responsibility for their own actions and mistakes more often, but that's just my personal experience.
23 May 2007
at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ahenry (Amanda Henry) says…
This registry is a blessing. I am a heterosexual female in a long term monogamous relationship. My partner and I (yes, he is a Man) have chosen not to marry due to our personal objections to the concept of marriage in its current state in our society. Neither of us are people of faith, yet we have a strong and firm commitment to each other. Fortunately, with us being female and male, we are permitted to claim common law marriage so that we may reap the benefits of a fully married couple for issues of tax benefit and insurances. Our dearest friends, many of whom are homosexual, do not have this option. They have had no option at all. This registry simply levels the playing field a bit.
I applaud the commission and hope the rest of the world can somehow forget about all of the other incredibly ignorant things that have come from our State.
23 May 2007
at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
rt - “(Fighting) Gay marriage=Highest Priority
(Correctly) Fighting Terrorism=Lowest Priority”
I couldn't have summed up the Republican party any better if I tried.
–-beatrice
The party of Lincoln, Everett Dirksen, and Barry Goldwater has been hijacked by religious fundamentalist fanatics. Until rational free thinking individuals rescue the party, those who control the Republican party will continue their stupid cultural wars which will be their top priority, no matter the national security risks and cost to our great country!!
23 May 2007
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Gootsie (Anonymous) says…
OMFG
23 May 2007
at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
PA,
I think she's saying that she disagrees with the current discrimination in the institution of marriage and is boycotting it…that's how I interpreted it anyway.
23 May 2007
at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crispysyn (Anonymous) says…
” Denial of God is just a way for people to rationalize bad things that have happened to them and live immorally and not feel guilty.”
WRONG! I deny God because I am not blind. I am not a sheep just following the flock. My decision has nothing to do with bad thing or immorallity or guilt. And it sounds like you are judging people because of their beliefs. Is it just me are as a “christian” are you not supposed to judge?
23 May 2007
at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
crispysyn,
Duh, your supposed to practice hypocrisy if you're a Christian. You're also supposed to play the victim even though you have more rights in this country than everyone else.
23 May 2007
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Ben Franklin said, “Beer is proof there is a God, and he wants us to be happy.”
23 May 2007
at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
And while we're at it, I know this guy who's a dislexic agnostic insomniac. He stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.
23 May 2007
at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
all4universal_healthcare (Anonymous) says…
Would fighting gay terrorists be a medium priority?
23 May 2007
at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
The difference between Phelps and Falwell is that Falwell actually knew what his cause was.
23 May 2007
at 5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
There go the gays, destroying western civilization again.
23 May 2007
at 5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marxisnotdead (Anonymous) says…
Another unnecessary act paid for by the taxpayers. Maybe we should also have a registry for preferred sexual positions.
23 May 2007
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
crazyks,
You are right. I took Promitida's response to be a facetious comment. Perhaps because the first statment wasn't in quotes, I thought it was Promitida's own words.
Promitida,
I apologize for mis-reading your statement.
23 May 2007
at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
white_mountain (Anonymous) says…
Lord, please elect Sam Brownback, so that our marriages can be protected from this registry.
23 May 2007
at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marxisnotdead (Anonymous) says…
Why is it that some posters on this site view any disagreement to the registry as “right-wing”. How shallow and unimaginative. I am very much a liberal but unlike many Larryville-ites do not “jump” on every bandwagon that appears to be “giving someone the rights” they deserve or seem to want. What happened to the doing what is good for society at the time and not increasing bureaucracy and cost for creating unnecessary registries, policies etc. It truly is as necessary from a analytical point as registering your beer fridges.
23 May 2007
at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marxisnotdead (Anonymous) says…
karensisson-You most definately are not aware of the tremendous legal and politcal costs financially that has erupted when other cities and/or states have implemented these types of registries centered around healthcare etc. The costs are passed on in the form of taxes to maintain the registry etc. Gay diseases are shown in medical research journals to be 2-3 times more prevelant and 3-20 times more expensive. This translates to higher insurance premiums etc. There are arguments that this initiative is not about insurance etc. Well wake up. If one is knowledgable in social movements and social action….the one step at a time motive is definately in the works.
23 May 2007
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Actually, marxisnotdead, if you were a little more informed, you would know that l lesbians have a lower rate of diseases than men of any persuasion. So perhaps you should actually be encouraging lesbian registries.
“Why is it that some posters on this site view any disagreement to the registry as “right-wing”. How shallow and unimaginative.”
What is really shallow is your line of thought, but it is imaginative as are most ideas that pick and choose just a few facts and ignore the rest in order to create a unique set of nonsense. Your ideas may not be identical verbatim to the fundy right wing comments, but it is similar with just a pinch of goofiness thrown in.
23 May 2007
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
The only thing godless is the xians and the right wingers who spend more time concerned with what everybody is doing in the bedroom then doing the two big commandments:
1) Love God with all your heart
2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.
. If it wasn't for the resurrection, we could say Jesus would be rolling over in his grave with the modern xian and right wing movements. Luckily, some people actually follow Christ's teachings, but unfortunately it appears that xians outnumber Christians.
23 May 2007
at 7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Contemplate the following:
1, Over eighty u.s. servicemen and women DEAD in Iraq so far in May 2007
2, Total DEAD since the start of the war, 3,431 and counting….
3, Total wounded, 26,188 and counting…..
Where's the outrage and hysteria!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a pity that such a non-issue as a domestic registery creates more outrage than men and women dieing Iraq.
23 May 2007
at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
With some of the the turnpike entrances closed to Lawrence during construction, the only way into town will be from the rear entrance.
23 May 2007
at 7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…
The ignorance is plentiful on this message board “elect Sam Brownback to protect our marriages” and “marrying goats” and all sorts of fun crap! I'm not even sure if there is an appropriate response to the incorrect assumptions that two consenting adults entering into an institution of love and commitment is comparable to marrying an animal or an appliance. I know there is no appropriate response to straight people reaping the benefits of my tax dollars while gay people are basically screwed. I also know that there is no appropriate response to the incorrect assumption that certain sects (because mind you, most sects of this particular religion can't even agree with each other) of christianity should govern how people live their lives. Arguing about homosexuality as a choice holds no more weight that arguing that being heterosexual is a choice. Get past the sinner crap, get past the fact that most of you opposed are so uncomfortable with yourselves that you have to try an exert some type of “authority” over other people and realize that we are dealing with people. People have the RIGHT to enter a commitment of love/relationship status regardless of sex.
23 May 2007
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
I posted earlier that Topeka paper carried article that Lawrence 2000 census indicated 1841 of 31,435 households there were homosexual………..1 in 20 households! Wonder what San Francisco census indicated?
23 May 2007
at 8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Excuse me!……………1 in 17+- households in lawrence are indicated as aberrations!
Is Lawrence the San Francisco of the heartland?
23 May 2007
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
jimincountry, I do not recall a question about sexual orientation being in the 2000 census. Furthermore, if the question had been asked, I would have lied.
23 May 2007
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Nutcase, 2000 too long ago for me ……….that's what TCJ printed online.
23 May 2007
at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
No one has answered my pertinent question: can my partner and I cash in our marriage license for a spot on the domestic registry? After all, we are two consenting adults over 18 who are economically dependent upon one another. oh, boy, are we. then, some time in the future, we can just take our names off the registry if it does not work out. That would be cool.
23 May 2007
at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
americorps, I have not challenged others for posting irrational and yes, oftimes illogical, claims because I have not been at a computer since my last post. Unlike some, my job does not always allow me time to post to community forums/boards all day long. It seems you focus a lot on Catholicism and it appears when referencing the Church you actually mean the Catholic Church. In fact, the Church did not begin with the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it began with the original followers of the Christ. Marriage was a church/synagogue sanctioned covenant long before Catholicism, emperors or popes.
As I mentioned earlier I too have gay friends. In fact, members of my family are openly homosexual and remain loved and accepted by all of us who have different beliefs/opinions. People can disagree with each other's choices or beliefs without hating one another.
______________________
No, americorps, you do not need to google anything for me – I am not the one making wild statements and declaring that anyone who does not take them as truth is a bigot, you are. Therefore, you should google or do whatever it is you do to find your information and let others decide if it indeed has credibility.
______________________
“The churches that are anti-choice never discuss the parts of the bible where directions are given to priests on to how to induce abortions in adulterous women who are pregnant.”
Now this one I can't let go — before I can buy this I need to see book, chapter, verse, americorps, book, chapter, verse. I will check back for your reference in the morning, I've already given this subject way too much of my day.
23 May 2007
at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Nutcase………….http://www.cjonline.com/stories/052307/kan_172046478.shtml
23 May 2007
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/05230…
23 May 2007
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Good point……….I'm not homophobic though, just prefer that aberrations not be made mainstream and promoted as such!
I too know homosexuals are not bad people!
23 May 2007
at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Considering all the roommate households in Lawrence, 20% unmarried is a major undercount.
23 May 2007
at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
perkins (Anonymous) says…
Marion yesterday said the registry violated the constitution of the state of Kansas but has not responded to the challenge of citing the words/phrases in our consitution that support such a position.
23 May 2007
at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Perkins:
Sorry, I was working an just can't read every post.
Now bear in mind that I support marriage/civil unioins for heterosexuals and Gay/Bi/Les/TGD folks, so don't blow a gasket on me just quite yet!
Here's the deal……………………………………………………………………………
Kansas recognises marriage as being ONLY between a man and a woman.
Kansas prohibits civil unions.
Kansas prohibits granting the accroutrements of marriage to any realtionship other than marriage as defined in the Kansas constitution.
Under this amendment, the State of Kansas has the right to, as a third party, abrogate any agreements or registries set up as well as invalidate such things as insurance rights, inheritance rights; in short, everything that the rigistry is supposed to do is clearly prohibited by the constitution.
In other words, the registry is pointless and a sham and the bad guys know it and are just waiting for such idiocy to be implemented so that they can drop the hammer once and for all!
Now this does not come from me, Kids but rather straight from a pretty decent constitutional lawyer so get off MY a++ about it!
I didn't write the amendment and voted against it!
The registry is a bad deal and will go down in flames.
While we're on the subject, I am really tired of pseudo-conservatives comparing Gay/Bi/Les/TGD realtionships to beastialty.
That is a pretty chickenbiosolid thing to do so let's let it be clearly known that I disavow any sort of brotherhood, comraderie or shared thinking with such absolutely mentally incapacitated types who engage in such ridiculous crap.
Those who make such comparisons are NOT true conservatives but merely narrow minded a++holes!
Thanks.
Marion.
23 May 2007
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Oh.
You “liberals” should remember that is was SlickWilleKlinTon, the now disgraced husband of Presidential Candidate Hillarybeeste who came up with the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell!” policy for th eUS Armed Forces which has resulted in this sort of idiocy:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2…
It will also be remembered that barry goldwater said, criticising the policy of the reprobate KlinTon, “You don't have be straight; you just have to shoot straight!”
Thanks.
Marion.
24 May 2007
at 6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
Jimincountry: Maybe you should talk to the gays and lesbians that you know so well and ask them what they think of being referred to as “aberrations.” Then, ask them to evaluate the idea that you're “not homophobic.”
Marion: Do you have any evidence that they're going to pounce on domestic registry and declare it unconstitutional? Evidence from other states? Or is this just the opinion of an educated friend? I'm not getting on your case, just wondering if you can point to articles etc. that this is the plan in Lawrence, or that this has happened in other locales that have implemented domestic registry.
Marxisnotdead: What's a “gay disease?” Show-Tunes-Mania? Seriously, your anti-gay rhetoric is from the 1980s and the statistics you cite are made from whole cloth. Homophobes of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your bigotry!
24 May 2007
at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Temperance:
I don't know about other states but none of them worded their prohibitons quite like Kansas.
I do know that this is only one of the approaches being discussed to kill off the Lawrence registry but any of those approaches will work as it is very clearly quite unconstitutional for a city to enact a law curcumventing public policy; that policy being the constitution of the State.
Thanks.
Marion.
24 May 2007
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
orchid (Anonymous) says…
I cannot believe that some of these posts are written by adults. This registry is not limited to gay couples—heterosexual couples who do not want to marry can also register. This is about human decency and equality. The “where will it stop” argument (i.e. animal partners & multiple partners) is the last pathetic attempt of bigoted Americans to keep this nation's laws unequal. Don't try to equate the love that homosexual couples share and want to have recognized with some sicko who wants to have a relationship with an animal. Quit playing the spiritual card, or is that political card, the two seem to have merged over the last few years? Leaders like Jerry Falwell who spread hate-filled messages, represent what is wrong with humanity.
Stop being afraid of differences. Maybe that concept is too difficult for Kansans. But, it can't be that because I am from Kansas, I'm heterosexual, and I'm not scared of the gay man or the lesbian woman. Worry about real issues that are important and concern the welfare of the state and our nation rather than focus on preventing marriage to part of the population. Go fight another battle.
24 May 2007
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bullmoose06 (Anonymous) says…
The cost I was refering to was the fee.of the Domestic Registry. You are being charged a fee for what you are already doing. It doesn't make sense to me to pay the City of Lawrence for something with no standing and little meaning.
24 May 2007
at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
karensisson (Anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
marxisnotdead (Anonymous) says:
karensisson-You most definately are not aware of the tremendous legal and politcal costs financially that has erupted when other cities and/or states have implemented these types of registries centered around healthcare etc. The costs are passed on in the form of taxes to maintain the registry etc. Gay diseases are shown in medical research journals to be 2-3 times more prevelant and 3-20 times more expensive. This translates to higher insurance premiums etc. There are arguments that this initiative is not about insurance etc. Well wake up. If one is knowledgable in social movements and social action:.the one step at a time motive is definately in the works.
–––––––
Where do I even begin?
How do you think the registry is going to affect gay diseases? Isn't monogamy a good thing? Shouldn't we encourage it? Wouldn't monogamy reduce “gay” diseases? (By the way, there are no “gay diseases” that are not also borne by straight people. None. It's promiscuity that spreads disease, by both orientations.)
Married people have reproductive-related medical expenses. They produce children who create medical expenses. This translates to higher insurance premiums. Gay people do not have many children. They have to pay anyway.
Gay people have not been able to get insurance for their partner like married people can. Gay people have to pay anyway. Their benefit package at work is not adjusted for this fact.
Married people produce children who need to be educated. This creates the huge expense of public education. Gay people do not produce many children but they have to pay for education anyway.
There are costs to maintain records for married people, process licenses, etc. Gay people have to pay for this.
Do you see where I'm going? Do I even have to go on?
Why should gay people pay for married people all their lives, and never hope to have any benefits for themselves? Are you really so selfish you cannot see this?
24 May 2007
at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
Is the conversation over?
24 May 2007
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
americorps, I read the passage in three versions, English Standard, New King James, and New American Standard, in case you had one in which the wording led you to that conclusion. That passage is straight forwardly a test of adulterous behavior. I could find no instance when pregnancy was even hinted at … just adultery. To misconstrue this passage to being the priest performing an abortion on the woman is just wrong. It definitely depicts the status of women in that culture, but never names or insinuates that she was pregnant, just that she “may” have lain with a man other than her husband. The status of women changed dramatically with the coming of the Christ. He was the first and only true liberator of women. I know that many who call themselves Christians have continued to abuse and misuse women throughout the centuries, but they did/do so against the true teachings of the Christ.
24 May 2007
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
For those interested, different versions of the Bible can be accessed at
http://www.biblegateway.org
24 May 2007
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
temp: i mean no animosity, In my opinion perforating one's body to facilitate hanging/inserting ornaments is also an aberration, as are tattoos and other maming.
24 May 2007
at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1derer (Anonymous) says…
Enough said. I truly hope you find the peace in your faith that I have found in mine.
25 May 2007
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
turdinablanket (Anonymous) says…
This is a perfect example of why Lawrence sucks. Why don't we just recognize the druggies and the rapists too!? I mean sure if they love each other then its ok, cuz child molesters love children so its all good. I wish Qauntrill would have never burnt the town down. Because before then, Lawrence stood for something good, abolition and Christianity. Oh and by the way Fred Phelps is the most disgusting person in the world, and I mean it.
25 May 2007
at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Because before then, Lawrence stood for something good, abolition and Christianity.”
Sez 'turdinablanket'. You're kidding, right? Turdinablanket? How very Christian.
25 May 2007
at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
mick (Anonymous) says:
Like one of the gays or lesbians posted yesterday, “This is just a start.” What next? These people will never be satisfied. The commission blew it.
I said that. “It's a start.” I'm not gay or lesbian. I meant I hope other towns will likewise give people a way to get insurance. Don't make too much of it. You're panicking over nothing. Really.
25 May 2007
at 11:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
peppermint (Anonymous) says…
mick (Anonymous) says:
Like one of the gays or lesbians posted yesterday, “This is just a start.” What next? These people will never be satisfied. The commission blew it.
Yeah, they'll never be satisfied until they get the same rights everyone else has. The benefits they pay for as employees, citizens and taxpayers but can never hope to collect. Black people are like that, too. How dare they. How dare they.
26 May 2007
at 1:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
turdinablanket (Anonymous) says…
oh wow “turd”…get a life
26 May 2007
at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
PeteJayhawk (Anonymous) says…
It's pathetic though not surprising how many of the “anti” arguments are reductio ad absurdium. Then again, fundamential christianity and reason don't exactly mesh well.
26 May 2007
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“As part of the faith community and as a devoted Christian, I do support the Kansas marriage amendment,” Commissioner Rob Chestnut said of the ban on same-sex marriages. “But it is clear to me that this registry does not equate to marriage.”
A useful, politically astute smudging of the point seeing that EVERY voting precinct in Lawrence voted against the marriage amendment.
Its also a little galling that most proponent of same-sex marriage rights are also “part of the faith community” and “devoted Christians.”
26 May 2007
at 2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“Once again let me deny any allegiance to Fred Phelps that was implied by posters above. I knew the guy was nuts before any of you even heard of him. He is no Rev. Falwell.”
True enough. Phelps is honest and straightforward in his hatred and bigotry, unlike the hypocritical, dishonest Falwell who made the occasional galling claim to “love the sinner.”
28 May 2007
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
turdinablanket (Anonymous) says…
so i guess if a christian actually is against homosexuality, then they are a fundamentalist. so basically if you side with god on anything you are a fundamentalist. its real cute of you non christians to classify christians. you could make fun of muslims too, but no thats politically incorrect. Just make fun of the christians who earned you the freedom and rights of America.
29 May 2007
at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
“Opponents of the registry expressed concerns that the city was being irresponsible by not requiring gay couples to submit to an HIV test.”
I missed this Commish meeting— anyone know *who* said that? That is absolutely the most ignorant and bigoted thing I have heard in this town in a long time; I can't believe someone would say it in public, much less in this forum.
Would this individual suggest an IQ test for straight couples before they marry, since they run the risk of accidentally producing offspring?
29 May 2007
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
“True reason would dictate that the only coitus allowed is for the regeneration of the species.”
Really, Factor?
So, when you have sex with your wife/husband, do you only do it once and then stop? Do you not have sex again until you determine whether that time resulted in pregnancy?
By your logic, you can only have sex if it results in pregnancy. And if it does, you can't have sex again until the pregnancy is over. It wouldn't be allowed, because if the woman is already pregnant, then you automatically know that having sex won't result in any additional “regeneration of the species.”
And what of heterosexual couples where one or both partners are sterile? They're not allowed to have sex at all?
What about older people who marry again after their first spouse dies. They're not allowed to have sex either, because they're too old to have children?
What twisted logic you have…
29 May 2007
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Emily:
It was Carl Burkhead, who quite regularly writes burkheaded letters to the editor, like this one:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/apr…