Archive for Thursday, June 12, 2008
Kansas couple plan gay wedding in California
June 12, 2008
Advertisement
Lawrence residents Dave Greenbaum and Mike Silverman hope to be the first same-sex couple from Kansas to get married legally in California.
The two are planning on obtaining their marriage license at 8:15 a.m. June 17 in San Francisco as a California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage becomes effective.
Greenbaum, 37, and Silverman, 35, have been together for more than 12 years, and said they plan to wear Kansas University attire.
"We wanted to show that we are proud to be from Kansas, and we hope that our home state one day soon will live up to its founding values and recognize marriage for all its citizens," Silverman said.
The couple had a Jewish ceremony nine years ago recognizing their relationship. They said they wanted to get married in California to provide legal protections for their relationship and make a statement in favor of equality in Kansas.
In 2005, Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Greenbaum said he hopes one day that amendment will be repealed.
"We hope when people see the deep commitment we've made to each other, they'll understand why this is an important right and work toward changing the laws throughout this country," he said.
Silverman is a software quality assurance engineer and Greenbaum owns a computer support business.
Top ads RSS
- Wanted: Experienced home remodeled, Must have tools & transportation. Call ...
- Customer Service Full time position, Shawnee, KS location. Duties involve ...
- Asst. Property Manager needed ASAP! Full time, Good benefits. Fax ...
- Legal Assistant Barber Emerson law firm is in need of ...
- Project Director Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation University of ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Increased government control poses threat to America July 4, 2009 · 49 comments
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 111 comments
- Palin to resign as Alaska governor July 3, 2009 · 128 comments
- New law: Left lane only for passing July 2, 2009 · 194 comments
- Facts about the Fourth July 4, 2009 · 8 comments
- Franken attorneys sway election July 3, 2009 · 69 comments
- Poll: Do you consider yourself to be patriotic? July 4, 2009 · 26 comments
- School district needs to cut $500K more July 3, 2009 · 29 comments
- Blog: Your Favorite Patriotic Song - Songs That Make You Salute! July 2, 2009 · 112 comments
- On the street: What does ‘patriot’ mean? July 4, 2009 · 18 comments
- Facts about the Fourth July 4, 2009
- Increased government control poses threat to America July 4, 2009
- Coalition to gather input on aging issues July 4, 2009
- Kansas football rookies adjusting July 4, 2009
- School district needs to cut $500K more July 3, 2009
- 6News video: SLT opponents gather for forum June 15, 2008
- Housewares with presidential images put historical spin on collecting November 5, 2006
- Sunflowers blooming in local fields August 25, 2008
- Sunflower farm shows off state icon August 18, 2007
- New law: Left lane only for passing July 2, 2009
12 June 2008
at 4:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
AttaGirl (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations! Whether the marriage will be recognized in Bigoted Kansas or not, I still admire you for your long term relationship and your plans to be married in California. I always see in blogs and forums that someone quotes the Bible as their reason for denouncing Gays and lesbians. Seems people pick and choose scriptures to suit their needs and they also seem to pick scriptures from the Old Testament. Do you realize also that the Bible says it is an Abomination to eat Shellfish? I wonder if the same people who throw the scriptures at us also call Red Lobster and make crude and bigoted comments to them as well?
12 June 2008
at 6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gwjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations to both of them. I'm proud to know they'll be wearing KU attire as they make their commitment to one another offical!
12 June 2008
at 7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Ummm, didn't Scott Rothschild write about this yesterday?
12 June 2008
at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawk2000 (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations Dave & Mike!Who knows, maybe the rest of America is on its way to catching up with the enlightened world? It has been over 10 years now since the UK first gave non-British partners of UK citizens the right to come live in the UK. Since 2005, same-sex British couples have been allowed to marry through civil partnerships. I'm still waiting for the opportunity for my partner to come with me back to the USA not merely as a visitor but as my husband.Rob MacRae-McKie KU class of '96 - British resident since '98
12 June 2008
at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
So KU will be presented to the world as a gay-endorsed school?Way cool.
12 June 2008
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
iMaMoM (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations and best wishes!
12 June 2008
at 7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emily_litella (Anonymous) says…
I remember when Mike Silverman wrote a letter to The Pitch saying that as a stockholder in Hallmark he was disappointed that they didn't offer benefits for domestic partners. He didn't realize when he made that up that Hallmark was a private company and didn't have publicly traded stock. So, since he used his name and city, I gave him a call and asked if he was aware Hallmark didn't sell stock. His stammering was very funny to listen to. Mike used call-back and kept ringing my phone. Desperate that I wouldn't answer, he called the police and lied to them too. He told them that I had called him and made gay slurs and threats and that he had it on tape, The police came to my house and told them he was lying and that they should go call his bluff on the tapes. I reminded them that it is a crime to file a false report and that I had no idea what his orientation was nor did I careBottom line: he's a liar and he got caught multiple times.So Mike, if you're reading this, get real mad and call the police or your lawyer. I'm still laughing!!!Mike's letter to The Pitch:http://www.pitch.com/2001-05-10/news/letters/:Priceless
12 June 2008
at 8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
We have people dead from tornadoes in this state , not even mentioned in this rag, and this gay stuff is breaking is news LJW, what a joke!Same old song and dance!
12 June 2008
at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
AttaGirl, nice to see that ignorance is still alive and breathing. Keep thinking that those who morally disapprove of homosexuality are bigots, that's what you've been told to believe, so it must be true.
12 June 2008
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bcoleman (Anonymous) says…
emily_litella you have quite the axe to grind with Mr. Silverman, Three years it looks like. I'd call the police on you too if you called me at home to harass me about a error in the pitch. Sounds like you are a classic stalker, Ms. Phelps Congrats.
12 June 2008
at 8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations and best wishes!
12 June 2008
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Live and let live. There is too much hate and REAL problems in this world already to be worried about gay people making a commitment to each other. I've got no problem with it at all.Congrats!
12 June 2008
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Our society is based on the Constitution, not the Bible.
12 June 2008
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Ms Litella:I know several people who own Hallmark stock. They're called members of the Hall family. Maybe Mike Silverman is a member of the Hall family.
12 June 2008
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
ROFL @ Souki's post. Take a lesson in economics Souki.
12 June 2008
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
Just one thing to say on this:”Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” - Article IV, Section 1, United States Constitution.
12 June 2008
at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
jayhawk2000 (Anonymous) says:Congratulations Dave & Mike!Who knows, maybe the rest of America is on its way to catching up with the enlightened world?==============================================Yeah, I cant wait for the day where we all become gay! THAT, my friend, is true enlightenment!
12 June 2008
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
Sorry, but the loser button goes to Silverman and his lies!This paper is also a loser!
12 June 2008
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I don't know why some of you pick on emily_litella. You may not like her, but she brought up a legitimate topic. Whomever wrote the letter to the pitch and signed it, wrote an outright lie. If it wasn't who she claims it was, someone needs to say so.It may sound like a small issue, but where do you draw the line on deception? If someone wrote a letter to the editor about a hate crime based on a terrible beating that they claim they personally saw on Chestnut Street in North Lawrence, would you let them get by with such a false accusation? Lies hurt everybody including causes that might otherwise have legitimacy. This isn't a slip of the tongue or an accidental mix up of facts, this was a total fabrication. At minimum, there should be a printed apology for the deception.
12 June 2008
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
bd says:”We have people dead from tornadoes in this state , not even mentioned in this rag, and this gay stuff is breaking is news LJW, what a joke!This paper is also a loser!”–––––––––––––—Actually, your acting like the looser. If you want to get your name in the paper, then DO something and quit being a whiner. Sure there were tornadoes last night, and there is a story about it too. If you don't know how to browse internet or ljworld, ask any child. I'm sure they can help you. If stories like this get your juices flowing, then have the child teach you to how to use a search engine to find more of what interests you. If your problem is that English is a second language to you, then ask to find out more about English as a Second language courses. I believe the school district offers such classes.
12 June 2008
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SouthernBelle (Anonymous) says…
He could very well own stock if he is a former employee of Hallmark. As an employee, you can purchase stock thru payroll deduction and there is no clause that says you must give up or sell your stock if you leave the company.
12 June 2008
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
attagirl: Red Lobster is on my speed dial for just such a purpose.
12 June 2008
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
none2, The storm news story came out after this story by a couple of hours!You need to get your facts straight before running your mouth!
12 June 2008
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…
Mazel Tov, Dave and Mike!
12 June 2008
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
Nice try LS04, but dark skin pigmentation isn't a behavior. You can't morally disapprove of a physical trait. That's like saying you morally disapprove of noses or fingernails. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, and saying you morally disapprove of it is like saying you morally disapprove of pre-marital sex or adultery. You have proven that you are another victim of the propaganda campaign though;http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htmRemember, everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot!
12 June 2008
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, live and let live. I am sure none of you are bigoted hypocrites and also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults of course).
12 June 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I don't even know any bigots anymore because of my use of powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques. I've desensitized and jammed (??!!) all the bigots that I've ever come into contact with. In fact, I don't even know any straights any more because I've converted them all. I was about to reconsider my use of these techniques because mommy3 is so persuasive, but then I realized that things can go OUT and IN of the vajayjay. It's only fair that things be allowed to go OUT and IN of the b-hole. Especially in America. I'm so glad that GOD made me smart. I don't know why all these bigots are writing in. Why haven't they been converted? They must be Martians. We'll get there one day. You only have so much time left. Cue the scary music…
12 June 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I have some grammatical issues. I think the Martians are getting to me in powerful, sophisticated ways. I'm in fear of losing my homosexuality. Which means that I will begin wearing pleated khakis any minute now. Most importantly, I forgot to say congrats to the boys! Don't let the Martians ruin your day!
12 June 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
duplenty…”When you actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit, you become a bigot.”This is not the correct definition of bigot, but we will use it to prove my point. If you don't allow people to live their lives and be polygamous, or engage in group marriage or incestuous marriage you are a bigot. And if you support gay marriage but not the aforementioned marriage, you area hypocrite. I think many people who post supporting gay marriage, and bashing those they think are bigots, are themselves bigoted hypocrites.
12 June 2008
at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha…Hillarious post, kudos.But on a more serious matter, do you support (between consenting adults); polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages
12 June 2008
at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Today is Loving Day. Hopefully some day there will be something similar for homosexual unions.http://www.lovingday.org/holiday.htmhttp://www.lovingday.org/cases/loving_v_virginia_1967.htmIn 1998, a clause that prohibited “marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more Negro blood” was removed South Carolina's state constitution. According to a Mason-Dixon poll four months before the vote, 22% of South Carolina voters were opposed to the removal of this clause. It had been introduced in 1895.In Alabama, it took until 2000 to remove these laws. A referendum was passed that removed this article from the Alabama State Constitution:”The Legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or a descendant of a Negro.”Alabama State Constitution, Article IV, Section 102
12 June 2008
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, Loving Day should also apply to polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages. Go Loving!!
12 June 2008
at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
venusinfurs (Anonymous) says…
tanisha — i love you! but please, flat front khakis, ok? all kidding aside, a big shout out to dave and mike. all adults should be able to choose their spouses based on love, not gender.
12 June 2008
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Miss_Spent (Anonymous) says…
I find it amusing that there are people that do not realize that a company does not have to be publicly traded for someone to own stock in it. They may not go through the same processes, but stock is common in most large companies, public or private. It is a way to raise capital. Private companies have a need for capital as well and this is an option.Also, here is an article regarding Hallmark stock. http://content.benefitnews.com/retire… How can they be buying back common stock at this time and converting it to preferred stock if it doesn't exist in the first place?People should educate themselves before calling to harass people.Besides pointing out ignorance, I would like to congratulate Dave and Mike. I wish them the best. The acknowledgment from California will be a nice step. Hopefully, they will be recognized as any other married couple someday no matter what part of the country they are in.
12 June 2008
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MadAsHell (Anonymous) says…
Congrats Mike and Dave!All you morons need to get a life.
12 June 2008
at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mkrylee (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations Dave and Mike! I feel very proud to have you two making a stand for your love and representing our already proud gay family! I'm sure there will be many more of us to follow in your footsteps and many waiting for Kansas to step out of their comfort zone and face the inevitable! Whether these bigots want it or not, eventually gay marriage will be passed. And how do I know this you ask? Because “I” am one of your future leaders of this nation and “WE” will continue to fight for our right to LOVE! We are entering a new generation ladies and gentlemen, your children are being taught everyday to love one another for who they are not for their gender. I'm not going to be in your face, but I will say that I think you will be surprised what the future holds for our gay family! and if you dont believe me, then I guess you missed the 30,000+ people who attended kansas city gay pride earlier this month! Once again, congrats to Dave and Mike! Enjoy your beautiful wedding day!
12 June 2008
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04…But gays living together and having a relationship isn't restricted by the government, it just isn't recognized by law giving each member certain rights and obligations (marriage). Whereas polygamy and incest are illegal in every state, and the government restrict the relationship itself. So if that is the truly the position of most gay marriage advocates they should be even more upset and outraged at anti-polygamy and incest laws.
12 June 2008
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…
It looks like Satirical is back with the slippery slope argument. He/she doesn't have one post regarding same-sex marriage that doesn't mention polygamy. The argument is just a way to conceal bigotry.
12 June 2008
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I just ironed my pleats and put on a necklace with a shell or whatever on it. Didn't forget my flip-flops. All while listening to Toby Keith or whatever. Except that I turned Public Enemy up louder so that I could tolerate it. Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Not quite.Polygamy: I think us gays (oh, and tons of straights; there are more of them, right?) have shown that having multiple consenting partners can be fun and does not bring about Armageddon. My problem is the outfits. Those buns and 19th-century dresses don't work for me. In fact, I imagine that these people would be more accepted if they dressed more like the average American or whatever. Horribly. Just in a different way. I am clearly a bit of a bigot. GOD just told me not to call people names on the street or beat them. I find this to be a small price to pay for the pleasure of my bigotry. I would also be happier if all polygamists were feminists. Women SHOULD be able to have multiple husbands and wives. Reparation!GOD's Wrath: GOD will never be more mad at California than at us. They dress WAY better! God is so much more mad at flip-flops and pleats than he is at gays! god and Oprah told me.
12 June 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Hey jhwk2008…Nice to see you dodging my arguments again. Did you know some people make arguments to make people think, not to espouse personal beliefs or opinions? Though I like your attempt to label me as a bigot without any evidence.I wander why everyone else is dodging my question about whether they also strongly advocate for polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages.
12 June 2008
at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Jeez. OK!!! I strongly advocate for polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriages. As long as these adults are consenting, don't wear pleated khaki, don't listen to Toby Keith, don't do the hippy dance, don't have buns, and are feminists!
12 June 2008
at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Tanisha….Well done again. I agree that polygamists would be more accepted in America if they weren't portrayed by the media as strangely dressed. Because there are thousands of polygamist that dress, act, and are normal, but for some reason the media just shows the odd balls.Right-on, women should be allowed to have multiple spouses, just like men.
12 June 2008
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says:”logicsound04:But gays living together and having a relationship isn't restricted by the government, it just isn't recognized by law giving each member certain rights and obligations (marriage). Whereas polygamy and incest are illegal in every state, and the government restrict the relationship itself. So if that is the truly the position of most gay marriage advocates they should be even more upset and outraged at anti-polygamy and incest laws.”––––––––––––––-What wonderful logic. If a foundation for breast cancer research isn't also researching a cure for ovarian cancer, should we criticize their goals? If Bush isn't fighting in Iran as well as Iraq, should we criticize him until he has us fight in Iran also? If a tobacco store owner is pissed about the tobacco restrictions in Lawrence, should we criticize his right to gripe unless he also fights for the right to sell pot? I'm sure that when the day comes when gays have the right to marry, that there will be others out there that will help you fight for the right to marry your mom, dad, fluffy, and whom/what ever your heart longs for.
12 June 2008
at 12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Dear Satirical,You make me feel pretty.xoxoxoxo,tanisha
12 June 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
Incestuous marriage: If they want to do it, fine. Its sick, but whatever. But they shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Why punish a child so you can bang your sister…or brother. The biggest punishment that you can force on your child by being incestuous: Fewer presents on your birthday and christmas. Think about it. Your mother is also your aunt, your father is also your uncle, and you only have one set of grandparents. Not to mention that your brother is also your cousin. And if your brother were to have kids, would they be nieces and nephews or would they be second cousins? And second cousins…you can marry those. So at least you have that goin for you.
12 June 2008
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha…That is because you are a fox. Even a blind man can see.none2:Advocates for gay marriage, polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages are all fighting for the same thing, the right to have their loving relationship recognized by the government and get legal benefits therefrom. If you more strongly support gay marriage than the others it is either because: (1) You are a hypocrite, and don't really believe what you espouse except that you support gay marriage b/c it is popular, or homosexuals are more politically and socially influential; while the polygamist, etc., seem peculiar as depicted by the media. And even though you call people who don't agree with gay marriage 'bigots' b/c they think it is odd, you don't connect the two.Or (2) You are ignorant and think it is OK to not support causes that share identical goals, and really only care about what affects you (or someone you know). In the latter case why should anyone help support gay marriage if it doesn't affect them or someone they know. Perhaps b/c it is they fight for the idea mentioned above, which means you cannot separate the two, and if you do you are in reality either ignorant, selfish, a bigot, or a hypocrite.
12 June 2008
at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
That's true. Slight increase in the chance for genetic mutations. It is a recent study out of England, but it is only one study. Did not look at repeated instance of intergenerational breeding, either, from what I recall. There is also the power differential in many cases of parent/child incestuous relationships that standing alone can justify prohibition. Such considerations would not be present in a polygamous or group marriage scenario.
12 June 2008
at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:I am not making the argument that since we discriminate against one group we should discriminate against these other groups. I am making the point that there are a lot of hypocrites out there, who are quick to viciously attack anyone that disagrees with them and call them bigots, but fail to realize they are probably bigoted towards other groups, so maybe they shouldn't be so judgmental.Many people dont respond to my question who oppose the legalization of polygamy, incest, and group marriage probably becausethey feel there are negative social consequences to them but have a hard time articulating them, or have always thought or been taught they were wrong, or they seem peculiar. This is the exactly same stance many anti-gay marriage advocates have. Once people realize this they may not be so quick to attack someone for holding an opposing view. Maybe there are legitimate reasons why incest, polygamy, group marriage and even gay marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government. (Almost) No one is trying to stop gays from having a loving relationship and being free from persecution. The question is: If we are going to change the definition of marriage, and fundamental institution necessary for proper society, whom do we include and whom do we exclude, and most importantly WHY?
12 June 2008
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Right. The problem with incest is less the chance of deformities/birth defects and more the fact that the children will be destined to bad fashion and possibly a trailer park. I actually think all these groups should be allowed to marry. It should just be orchestrated in tiers according to fashion sense. Us gays can do it this year (unless you wear gold lame or sequins), the polygamists can do it in another forty years (when maybe their clothes will be back “in”), then the incestuous couples can do it in another forty (when global warming will have caused so many problems that we won't even care whether we all have mullets). Or maybe we should bring civil rights up to speed with technology and allow all these groups to get married this year. And try to dress with a little more pride before GOD gets REALLY upset.
12 June 2008
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha makes a valid and important point.
12 June 2008
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
vpete69:What would a lesson in economics teach me that has anything to do with my comment?
12 June 2008
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Civil unions should be open to everyone - except parent/child - or no one. I can see certain rights and privileges being limited to the number in union, e.g. taxes, DPOA. Number of partners is a choice and that only requires a rational basis. Pick your basis. I don't care. Or maybe there is no rational basis. Belgium doesn't seem to think so: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3… no circumstances can inherent differences be discriminated against. Color, gender, race, ethnicity: Poles marry Irish, black marries white, boy marries boy. Why parent/child? Promotes emotional, physical and sexual abuse. I think that limitation passes strict scrutiny.Marriage? Who cares? You have a religion that allows you to marry your dog, your sister, five guys and four girls? Go for it. Marry away, but it stays separate from the state sanctioned civil union.There is actually a vigorous and in-depth debate going on over just this issue within the EU legal community. I am not going to repeat here, though. It has been too long since I studied the issues and I have no desire to bone up on it now.
12 June 2008
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Satirical, you are simply have a screw loose, and want to argue a logic that you probably don't even follow yourself…A breast cancer foundation and a ovarian cancer foundation are fighting for the same thing: a cure for cancer that kills people. They are simply focusing on a particular one instead of all of them. Are these kinds of foundations being selfish, bigoted, ignorant, hypocritical?By your logic, we should not support anybody, anything, or any cause unless it is so watered down that it means nothing to anybody. Example: Lets not push for more jobs in Lawrence, unless we push for new jobs in EVERY community. Lawrence has the same goals as every community: better life, better pay, better schools. So it is hypocritical for Lawrence to want jobs to come here because, other communities want the SAME thing. If Lawrence does get the jobs it is probably because we had more clout, thus we must reject it and take the moral high ground otherwise we are being selfish, bigoted, or hypocritical. Think of how hard it is to get jobs in St Joe or Garnet or some other town where they don't have the clout that we do. They need jobs worse than here.
12 June 2008
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
56 comments and counting - who'd have thunk it ;-}bd, if you wonder why this article and ones like it are run, I think you have your answer.
12 June 2008
at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Where did all the really crazy people go? I don't even want to argue with Satirical because he makes me feel pretty and logic (whether good or bad) is inevitably BORING.
12 June 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OZinAK (Anonymous) says…
Congrats, Gentlemen!
12 June 2008
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
tanisha (Anonymous) says:Where did all the really crazy people go? I don't even want to argue with Satirical because he makes me feel pretty and logic (whether good or bad) is inevitably boring.–––––––––––––—California. They realized that if they don't get there soon, they won't be able to make it to the reception.
12 June 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Satirical's point has merit. As a matter of fact it remains one of the seminal issues being debated in family law courses around the country. Her attempt at the Socratic method on a public bbs is understandably irritating to most everyone here, but the issues surrounding gay marriage, interracial marriage, polygamy, bestiality and all the other intersections between malum in se, malum prohibitum, discrimination, and the role of the state are complex and require more than just a “yes/no vote.”
12 June 2008
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“However, there is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't rooted in religion.”Well, there is one, that marriage is a vehicle for families and the production of children, and that gay people can't have kids. I don't, though, think that we really need to worry about humanity's ability to have kids. Certainly the lifestyle changes brought on by industrialization and modernization have impacted our growth rate much more than allowing gay marriage would.
12 June 2008
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Well, there is one: that marriage is a vehicle for families and the production of children, and that gay people can't have kids.”Seriously? So divorced guys with vasectomies can't get married? Women over 50? Old Man Joe, the widower, and Widow Smith can't get hitched in Arizona at the Burp and Eat Buffet? The chick whose ectopic pregnancy blew out her one good tube - she is doomed to spinsterhood and shagging in sin?Well, shoot, we should just have a fertility test for all potential marriage applicants, then. Figure out who is really qualified to get married. And a genetic test to boot - that way we don't have to put up with all the defective people sucking off of welfare and taking my money.
12 June 2008
at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Baille got funny! Yeah.People who flirt online SHOULD be allowed to get married.
12 June 2008
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
People with hummingbird attention spans who like shiny things SHOULD be allowed to get married!
12 June 2008
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
None2…Some of the reasons you discriminate might of them might be selfish, such as you advocate for breast cancer research b/c you know someone who had breast cancer. The problem with your employment analogy is that job creation is not necessarily exclusive. You wouldn't oppose job creation elsewhere, and if it were exclusive it would be selfish. The argument that you did not articulate is a valid one: If you have a vested interest you are more likely to be stronger advocate for such position. I agree. However, you are being extremely selfish if there are people in similar circumstances such as yourself and you refuse to help them; and ignorant if by helping them you help your own cause but still refuse to do so. (Group 2 in my previous argument) . I never stated being selfish and/or ignorant is the same thing as being bigoted or hypocritical (group 1). You are confusing my separate and distinct arguments. A hypocrite rejects arguments against legalizing gay marriage (and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees), but uses the same arguments against polygamy, group marriage and incest. A bigot is “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”
12 June 2008
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
There is a global shortage on lace, silk, white shoes, tuxes, etc. In this country there is a shortage of priests, preachers, and rabis. The only fair thing to do is ban all weddings until we can figure out out to be fair to everybody. Where is Martha Steward when you need her.
12 June 2008
at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says: Please enlighten me to where it says, in a document that isn't religious in nature, that “marriage is a vehicle for families and the production of children”:I'll wait.**************************************Here are several articles on the purposes and manifestations of marriage, family, and kinship systems:Life Without Chiefs, Marvin Harris, New Age Journal, November/December 1989.When Brothers Share a Wife, Melvyn C. Goldstein, Natural History, March 1987.Death Without Weeping, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Natural History, October 1989.Our Babies, Ourselves, Meredith F. Small, Natural History, October 1997.Arranging a Marriage in India, Philip R. DeVita, Stumbling Toward Trust: Anthropologists at Work, Waveland Press, 2000.Dowry Deaths in India: 'Let Only Your Corpse Come Out of That House', Paul Mandelbaum, Commonweal, October 8, 1999.Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couple Don't, Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, February 11, 1996.Society and Sex Roles, Ernestine Fiedl, Human Nature, April 1978.A Woman's Curse?, Meredith F. Small, The Sciences, January/February 1999.Where Fat is a Mark of Beauty, Ann M. Simmons, Los Angeles Times, September 30, 1998.
12 June 2008
at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Duplenty:You defined bigot as “When you actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit, you become a bigot” This is different than “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”There are logical reasons to oppose gay marriage that aren't rooted in religion, such as social consequences, similar to the reasons why polygamy, incest and group marriage should not be legal.As I have stated before, the difference between (1) polygamy, incest and group marriage and (2) gay marriage are no greater than the difference between gay marriage and opposite sex marriage. Plus the goals are the same, being allowed to have your relationship recognized by the government and receive similar rights and obligations as other marriages.I have no problem with you personally, just your arguments and ability to comprehend what you read, and forget what you post.BTW Your personal opinion of what I do, and who I flirt with, is insignificant.
12 June 2008
at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says: You can believe whatever the hell you like. When you actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit, you become a bigot. See how that works?*******************************************You are confused. We are talking about the government sanctioning gay couples, not about any laws that “actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit.”
12 June 2008
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
duplenty:There are numerous cases (judge made law) which state the purpose of marriage is for the propogation of our civilization (children) and nurturing and raising of children. While this is not a requirement for marriage it is the reason the state gives preference for marriage and encourages it. Again the state isn't prohibiting gay relationship, just not recognizing gay marriage. It is hard to deny gay marriage, polygamy, incest, group marriage wouldn't have an impact on our society and children. Whether this impact is good or bad is up to debate.
12 June 2008
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“As I have stated before, the difference between (1) polygamy, incest and group marriage and (2) gay marriage are no greater than the difference between gay marriage and opposite sex marriage.”Except that's wrong. Like interracial marriage - one's gender and sexual orientation are inherent characteristics and should be afforded the highest protection from the state. Likewise the social impact of homosexual marriage is much different than polygamy (highly correlated with increased state support, e.g. all of the Texas families in the recent poorly executed CINC cases were receiving state support) and parent/child incest (highly correlated with sexual and emotional abuse); however, these policy considerations may or may not be enough to justify discriminating against polygamist, which may be afforded higher scrutiny than simple a rational basis for the discrimination.
12 June 2008
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
This judge made law also makes abundantly clear there is a strict fashion code for anyone who wants to get married. The social impact of bad fashion trends could have ramifications for generations to follow. Think of the children before you pick out your wardrobe!
12 June 2008
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
d_prowess (Anonymous) says…
I would like to encourage flirting on these message boards!
12 June 2008
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
There were a bunch of cases (judge found law according to Scalia) that stated that prohibited interracial marriages were justified, e.g. Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.(2d) 749, remanded 350 U.S. 891, aff'd. 197 Va. 734, 90 S.E.(2d) 849, app. dism. 350 U.S. 985 … 34, 36.It is clear that both society and the law regard the institution of marriage as involving procreation and the formation of families; however, it is equally clear that society values marriage for more than just its effect on reproduction and the state is limited in what it can do to place limits on one's access to the fundamental right to marry and the privileges that attach to a state recognized marriage..
12 June 2008
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Baille:Yeah, finally someone stepping up to the plate. It is not proven whether sexual orientation is immutable (can't be changed). Even if it were immutable doesn't guarantee strict scrutiny. The California Supreme Court did not consider this when making their decision. The Court determined it marriage is an individual right. This could very well apply to polygamy, group marriage or incest.If a group could be denied marriage based on whether they would receive government aid, then no indigent person could ever get married. Even if this wasn't against the law you could restrict polygamy to just the wealthy. Also, this correlation is based on a small group of polygamists in a certain area, and does not mean future polygamists would necessarily receive government aid. Polygamy as an institution doesn't lead to parent/child incest or sexual or emotional abuse. This is correlation, not causation. Your unproven evidence, even if true, would be the result of this particular religious group, or more accurately the members of this religious group, who also happen to practice polygamy. Strict scrutiny is often given to groups that are historically discriminated against and have very little political power. Odd that you advocate for homosexuals having strict scrutiny when they a great deal of political and social power, while polygamist are both politically powerless and historically discriminated against.
12 June 2008
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:Anything and everything can be debated, that does not mean everything should be made legal. If anything that could be debated is made legal then we wouldn't have debate, and political dialogue which makes this country great. There are debates over whether drilling in ANWAR is a good or bad. Simply b/c we don't KNOW it is bad (arguments are made on both sides) doesn't mean we should definitely do it. (Although on a separate note I strongly think we should drill, gas prices are ridiculous.)
12 June 2008
at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone else want to use logic to discuss abortion? This is like doing a crossword. My hummingbird attention span can't take it. Though I do like the shiny tip of my pen.I'm playing footsie with Satirical in my mind.
12 June 2008
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“It is not proven whether sexual orientation is immutable (can't be changed).”Yes it has. I didn't choose my orientation. No one I know chose their orientation. I guess I can't say with any certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow, either, but “men first, philosopher second,” right?A group can be denied marriage if there is a rational basis and the group is not part of a class that is afforded higher protection. You know this. Why are we even discussing it?If I remember right, there were two parts to the Loving decision. The first dealt with the unconstitutionality in regards to classes of people and the second discussed marriage as an individual right. The first part noted that race is afforded the highest level of scrutiny. As you know, polygamy is not. Inherent characteristics are part of that and homosexuals should be afforded the same level of protection as race, gender, and ethnicity. The outsider jurisprudence angle is interesting but you are mixing apples and oranges. The argument should be separated and dealt with individually. A little bit of Dworkin in my life, a little bit of Feinberg by my side, a little bit of Posner's all I need…In any case, if you had read my posts, you would see that I advocate for no difference in how polygamists are treated. Civil unions for most - homo, hetero, poly, and multi - and marriages TBD your own private catholicism.
12 June 2008
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Baille:.Society values marriage for more than the effects on reproduction and child rearing, but the state doesn't have to encourage every relationship. (Gay relationship aren't illegal, whereas polygamous and incestuous relationship are illegal. So they by far have a greater burden.) The state can choose which relationship to encourage and give benefits to. The state is not limited from placing the limit of “one man and one woman” to the fundamental right of marriage.
12 June 2008
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I can't believe my footsie is being ignored for logic (whether good or bad).
12 June 2008
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Never said they couldn't. But the state can not “choose which relationship to encourage and give benefits to” with impunity. There are obvious and well recognized limits on the power of the state to discriminate.”The state is not limited from placing the limit of “one man and one woman” to the fundamental right of marriage.”It may well be that the state has no power to say anything at all about marriage. That's a religious institution. The limits the state has in creating civil unions has yet to be determined in their entirety, but absent some circumstance that would warrant higher scrutiny, limiting a civil union to a specific number would seem to be simply a case of finding a rational basis.
12 June 2008
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
PapaB (Anonymous) says…
I completely agree with Satirical's logic. Any of you trying to argue against his logic or who attempt to label his beliefs, it's laughable. He hasn't revealed his personal beliefs, which makes your personal attacks baseless. I've discussed this same topic with close friends and relatives that are gay and have come up with a few conclusions that are designed to infuriate you all:I do not agree with gay marriage because I believe God instituted and defined marriage, not man. My gay friends don't seem to have such a problem with this stance. I also believe that one of the god-given purposes of marriage is to procreate. Unless provided some artificial means from an outside party, gay or lesbian relationships cannot produce offspring. Under this belief, I would be more partial to allowing types of relationships that can produce offspring to marry before gay marriages (except for this incest stuff - icky feeling I get about it is all I need to believe it's wrong). I don't even agree with people living together in a relationship before marriage. I had a Lesbian philosophy teacher ask about it and I said that people who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those that don't. The class turned on me and some people even yelled (yes, this was at KU), then the teacher calmly told everyone there have been multiple studies that say I was right. If you want to get married, jump in with both feet and fully commit.Call me whatever you want, but I love my kids and feel like they help me understand how God feels about us.
12 June 2008
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hallmarker (Anonymous) says…
Dear Miss_Spent, Hallmark has their assets valued as stock, none of which are publically traded. You can not buy Hallmark stock. The article you googled didn't explain that to you. If that isn't clear enough, let me know and I'll explain further.
12 June 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“I do not agree with gay marriage because I believe God instituted and defined marriage, not man.”Which is why marriage should be left to God and his spokesmodels and civil unions should be left to the state.
12 June 2008
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Baille:First you don't know whether your sexual orientation is a result of society and how you were nurtured or how you are hard wired. I have seen two (genetically) identical twins, one was a lesbian, the other wasn't. Does this mean one chose, or were there other facts? You can't say for sure. And even if some people are born with their sexual orientation doesn't mean others don't choose their sexual orientation. I am sure you have heard of gays who marry someone of the opposite sex but then divorce because they “discover” they are gay. If you believe they were born gay, then they chose to enter into an opposite sex relationship.Even if being homosexual is immutable doesn't mean it will afforded strict scrutiny. (Can't think of a case off the top of my head). Although we can debate con law, and whether homosexuality, or polygamy should be given strict scrutiny is not the main reason for our discussion. I am understand you think all relationship between consenting adults should be sanctioned by the government. I just decided to argue with you b/c it is fun; and to prove there are arguments which don't fall into the religious category, which most pro-gay marriage advocates claim is the only argument to be made against gay marriage.
12 June 2008
at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha…sorry, I felt your footsy. I am just busy jumping back between working and wasting my time making arguments on this board. They say winning an argument on the LJWorld comment board is like winning the Special Olympics, either way you are still retarded.
12 June 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Baille:”It may well be that the state has no power to say anything at all about marriage”Sorry Baille, you are wrong. The marriage is a civil union controlled by the state. This is discussed in Family Law. Religious beliefs have no impact on the validity or invalidity of a marriage or divorce.
12 June 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“First you don't know whether your sexual orientation is a result of society and how you were nurtured or how you are hard wired.” Yes, I do.”I have seen two (genetically) identical twins, one was a lesbian, the other wasn't. Does this mean one chose, or were there other facts? You can't say for sure.”Sure I can. Identical genetics mean little. The ultimate expression of orientation (what is produced v. what is on the helix) is dependant on many things, including but not limited to relative concentration of components of the amniotic fluid, temperature differences during critical periods of development, and differences in nutrient supply. Admittedly, we don't have it figured out one hundred percent, but frankly gravity is still mired in mystery and yet I know its existence to be true.”If you believe they were born gay, then they chose to enter into an opposite sex relationship.”Yep. I a gave a couple of gays who were shagging hetero for awhile, but they always knew they were gay.”Even if being homosexual is immutable doesn't mean it will afforded strict scrutiny. (Can't think of a case off the top of my head). Although we can debate con law, and whether homosexuality, or polygamy should be given strict scrutiny is not the main reason for our discussion.”Should be. No reason for it to be otherwise.”I just decided to argue with you b/c it is fun”You have a strange concept of fun. Admittedly it has been sometime since I sat in a class discussing family law, con law, and jurisprudence, but sure don't remember thinking it was fun. :)
12 June 2008
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Sorry Baille, you are wrong. The marriage is a civil union controlled by the state. This is discussed in Family Law. Religious beliefs have no impact on the validity or invalidity of a marriage or divorce.”It is now. The model can change. Look at the EU. My point is with a change in the way, we treat it we can separate the religion from the government. Government should have nothing to say about marriage at all. Civil unons? Now that's a different matter.
12 June 2008
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
brew_crew122 (Anonymous) says…
Thanks guys for giving the people in Manhattan more to talk about! How about you just move to California?
12 June 2008
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Hallmarket:Simply b/c the stock is not publically traded does not mean someone can't purchase the stock. Hallmark is likely a closely held corporation (I don't know for sure), which means you have to go directly to the stockholder to purchase the stock. But someone can purchase stock from a closely held corporation. However, depending on the articles of incorporation and by-laws it could limit who may purchase the stock.
12 June 2008
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“either way you are still retarded.”Nice. You had no reason to know this but I grew up with family members that were homosexual and family members that had Downs. It affected me in many ways, but for certain my skin wore very thin when it came to jokes and derogatory comments about “faggots” and “retards.” The conversation was fun while it lasted, but I have had enough.
12 June 2008
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I get icky feelings about pleated khakis and frosted hair. A law should be made! God, I promise you, agrees with me.Hallmark, at this point, is seriously boring. Hallmark (along with many other things) is why our country is a bit, at least, embarrassing. We need to learn to express ourselves with some adjectives besides “great.” Listening to most Americans speak to each other is like listening to a conversation between Hallmark cards. Obviously boring. Please, if you learn anything from me, be a little more creative with your dads this year. If I communicated like most Americans, I would surely cope with my clear emotional issues by overindulging in trans fats and shopping at Wal-Mart in my sweat pants and a tube top. With frosted hair. What's a good synonym for boring?
12 June 2008
at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Thanks guys for giving the people in Manhattan more to talk about! How about you just move to California?”Because my family has lived in Kansas for five generations not including the Native side and I find California to be congested and hot. What about you? Why don't you move to Manhattan?
12 June 2008
at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha…Boring: Arousing no interest or curiosity. Synonyms: drear, dreary, dry, dull, humdrum, irksome, monotonous, stuffy, tedious, tiresome, uninteresting, weariful, wearisome, weary
12 June 2008
at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
This thread lost my interest at about post #3. I have paint to watch dry. Bye.
12 June 2008
at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Satirical, Most job creations are pretty exclusive. Seldom do you have a company that is looking for multiple locations. Granted, cities don't restrict where the prospective employees live, but the benefit is first and foremost for the selected city — any benefit to the surrounding communities usually pales in comparison. As to advocacy for any cause, at some level all have some level of selfishness. Very few rise to the level of pure 100% unselfishness. As to the arguments for the various living arrangements, arguements for and against one or the others of the ones you listed do not necessarily overlap unless they invoke religious or emotional arguments. While gays may argue that the reason to allow gay marriage is because they cannot help their orientation/preference and thus should have rights, I cannot relate to such arguments. If an older person can marry a younger person, a tall person marry a short person, a person marry someone from another race, or an attractive person marry an un-attractive person, etc., none of them have to prove that there was some physical or environmental reason that caused their selection to be beyond their control. Nevertheless, if their selection causes someone to raise an eye brow as an oddity of their selection, the law is behind them. To me the whole “I cannot help it, I'm this way” comes across as a pity plea for rights.On the other hand, the basis for gay marriage should be that unless there is a compelling reason for marriage based on gender roles, then the state has ho right to deny marriage rights. Unless the law specifically states that marriage must be for procreation and/or that certain roles and responsibilities of the members of the marriage must be carried out based on their gender, then what is the basis for denying this right? If marriage is truly only for procreation, then in all fairness, those that cannot/will not fulfill their roles and responsibilities of their marriage license (infertile couples, couples who do not want kids) should have to forfeit it. Basically, the only change for allowing gay marriage is the removing the gender specifications in the law IF they do not apply to some rules and responsibilities specific to that gender. Are there be any such rules/responsibilities gender specific in the laws today? There are none that I'm aware of. Thus, any two females or two males that want to follow all current rules and responsibilities that are also required of a man and a woman, would thus be granted the same rights.(continued)
12 June 2008
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I am watching the paint on my nails dry while I get Botox injections. I think it's fun, though, the way my nails shine while I type.
12 June 2008
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Baille…You do realize I was not directing the joke to you, about winning an argument on LJWorld? I considered changing the word to handicapped, but then it wasn't nearly as funny, and my duty to make tanisha smile is more important than worrying about unintentionally offending someone. Even so, I apoligize if truly did offend anyone.
12 June 2008
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Another tornado watch. God is not happy about the pleated khakis.
12 June 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“You do realize I was not directing the joke to you, about winning an argument on LJWorld?”Yep. I just have a thin skin when it comes to using the term “retarded” like that. No worries. Go on about your business.
12 June 2008
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hallmarker (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,The point is this Hallmark does not sell shares of stock. None have ever been for sale. No one can buy their stock. Feel free to call (816) 274-5111 and ask for Julie O'Dell. She'll be glad to answer any questions.
12 June 2008
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
Why does this couple feel compelled to have this on the front page of the local paper? Is this news in Lawrence?? Will there be a parade when they return??
12 June 2008
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Anyone who calls Hallmark to verify is a “drear, dreary, dry, dull, humdrum, irksome, monotonous, stuffy, tedious, tiresome, uninteresting, weariful, wearisome, weary” nerd.
12 June 2008
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
(continued)As to incest, I have heard of situations where the relationship was not forced to be terminated by legal officials, but rather they insisted that such a couple make precautions to avoid procreation. If genetic research does show that the offspring of such relationships lead to horrible birth defects, then the state could show an interest in controlling that portion of the relationship. As to group marriage or polygamy, the changes to the laws go beyond removing gender specifications as in the case of gay marriage. What about all the permutations that these situations in and of themselves poses What if the relationship consists of ABC individuals. individual “A” wants to divorce individual B, but not C? What if individual C wants to add individual D? You can try to map out all the permutations of marriage, and divorce among multiple partners, but this also goes into other areas as well - such as employer benefits. What if a employer has an employee who decides to marry 20 other people. Is the employer violating labor codes if benefits are not provided to all 20 people? Granted one could consider them dependents, but how many people have that many children in this day and age? If one of them looses a job, which other employed spouse's employer should take up needed benefits when enrollment comes around again? If a form has a field for spouses SS, work #, etc., do they list them all? What about zoning codes in single family residences? How do you keep a residential zone with a certain population size/control, if you have fairly large groups in living arrangements? The list goes on and on, and not once did I mention evil (burn in hell) or unnatural or gross. What about the most common form of non-monogamy: one man with several wives? Especially as practiced at least in this country, it is normally an entire subgroup devoted to that way of life. Should the state be obligated to pay for all the children if the man and his wives do not make enough to support them? When it appears that there is a disproportional number of male offspring for this traditional one man with many wives scenario within their subgroup, should the state encourage these males to embrase homosexuality to balance out the sex ratios?
12 June 2008
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Lawrence is an oasis of fashion (barring the KU outfits). Western Kansans dress like polygamists (only if they're bigots).
12 June 2008
at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Is this news in Lawrence??”Yes. It is. It's news in a lot of places. “Will there be a parade when they return??”There may be. That's a great idea. Unfortunately, we have not had much luck with parades lately, but I think so long as we keep the KU Athletics Dept out of it we may be able to pull this one off without Jim Marchiony trying to wheedle money out of the deal.
12 June 2008
at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
None2:Most of what you wrote doesn't contradict anything I say and therefore I will not respond due to time concerns.Let me help you understand how laws are made and federalism. Thinking or wishing things were done differently doesn't change how this is done in America. The state MAY limit who it allows to get married. The legislature makes statutes, which are a law, as long as they don't conflict with the constitution. The State Constitution can only be overridden by the U.S. Constitution. The legislature generally only needs a rational basis for making a law, and it will not be overturned. There are many non-religious and non-emotional basis for limiting marriage to only one man and one woman. I have stated a few in my previous posts. All of the “issues” you point to regarding polygamy are logistical issues that can be easily solved if anyone cared to, and even if never solved, do not provide sufficient justification for denying the fundamental right of marriage. Similar, but separate, logistical concerns are raised with gay marriage. The 'too few females' argument against polygamy is hilariously naÃive. But I only have time for one counter-argument. To solve your make-believe problem, have one woman with multiple husbands.
12 June 2008
at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tanisha…I have to go now, not sure if I will be able to play later.
12 June 2008
at 4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
Hopefully these posts will start getting shorter. Miss you…
12 June 2008
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…
let the gays begin!!!!
12 June 2008
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…
haha, wasnt that funny? let the gays begin! you know, instead of let the games begin, let the gays….. ok, i'll stop being retarded. sorry.
12 June 2008
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I think we've established that using the term “retarded” is insensitive.
12 June 2008
at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says:”None2:Most of what you wrote doesn't contradict anything I say and therefore I will not respond due to time concerns.Let me help you understand how laws are made and federalism….There are many non-religious and non-emotional basis for limiting marriage to only one man and one woman. I have stated a few in my previous posts.”––––––––––––Don't you think most people know state's rights versus federal? When was the discussion narrowed down to the right to marry in Kansas or the right in California or for that matter keeping full faith and credit between states? The discussion was whether the right should be granted period — a particular state wasn't mentioned other than the fact that the couple in the article is traveling to California. As to “non-emotional” basis for denying gay marriage, about all you have done is made vague generalities such as “social consequences”? Could you be a little less vague, and a little more specific? ––––––––––––––—”All of the “issues” you point to regarding polygamy are logistical issues that can be easily solved if anyone cared to, and even if never solved, do not provide sufficient justification for denying the fundamental right of marriage.”––––––––––––––-Ok, you seemed to have figured it all out. Please humor us with how legalized polygamy and group marriage would look on the books. ––––––––––––––-“The 'too few females' argument against polygamy is hilariously naÃive. But I only have time for one counter-argument. To solve your make-believe problem, have one woman with multiple husbands.”–––––––––—Actually, you simply cannot seem to think situations through. With in the particular subculture that I was hinting at , they typically like to stick together. Extra males are simply kicked out. You won't find females with in their group that would be allowed to marry multiple partners even if they wanted to as they are already taken and only men can have multiple partners. If the solution is that there are women out there who want multiple husbands, where are they all hiding? Why is it that there are so few cultures where that arrangement has been observed and studied?
12 June 2008
at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
I always go to the LJW website and check the “Most Discussed” articles so that I can chime in. This one should be labeled….”Most Discussed”ing
12 June 2008
at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Bone777 (Anonymous) says:”I always go to the LJW website and check the “Most Discussed” articles so that I can chime in. This one should be labeled:.”Most Discussed”ing”––––––––––––––It didn't have to be that way. If you had only sent a second pair of white pants for the couple, everything would have been kept very tasteful.
12 June 2008
at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
I saw where comments were made referring to them wearing KU attire. I don't think the rest of the country will be surprised by this, after watching the national championship game, KU should be known for….coming from behind.
12 June 2008
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I think that is because the coaches make sure they have a lot of practice dribbling down the court.
12 June 2008
at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
none2 - thanks for the advice. I was too busy laughing at myself and waiting to see how long it would take GLAAD to assail me, or to get the dreaded LJW red letter removal.
12 June 2008
at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
“Red letter” When they care to send the very best!Hallmark
12 June 2008
at 5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jackbinkelman (Anonymous) says…
BIGOTS, how will history judge you?
12 June 2008
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
jackbinkelman (Anonymous) says:BIGOTS, how will history judge you?–––––––––––––––It won't. Nobody is that important on this board.
12 June 2008
at 7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
I don't think BIGOT would be the proper term for my beliefs. I would prefer stauchly heterosexual…and I am entitled to my disgust, just as they are entitled to their man-love. If they would like to comment on their aversion to the female as a sex object, I will not take offense. Now lesbians are a different story. I can totally relate to them.
12 June 2008
at 8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
duplenty: Be careful with your assumptions on my position in this argument. Your poorly-veiled accusations tell me that you're reacting based on one post, and I don't recommend it.I am, of course, well aware of that following train of thought, but couples who don't wish to have children can still change their mind and do so, for the most part, whereas gay people do not have that ability. None of this is absolute, of course, as say a lesbian couple can be artificially inseminated, and a married couple can find itself infertile, but it rings pretty solidly true nonetheless. It's not bigotry or religiosity to say that gay people generally can't bear kids, though it can be said that they can adopt them. But c'mon, whether or not it says explicitly in any document, it is very clear that the government offers marriage benefits as an incentive to nudge citizens into one particular method of living, and it offers child credits for the same. These mechanisms and their purposes substantially predate this rights-movement, and they won't be countered simply by claiming bigotry or religious-bias.
12 June 2008
at 8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Damian666 (Anonymous) says…
Just so everyone is aware…Hell is full; there is no more room in HellThank you
12 June 2008
at 8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Damian666 (Anonymous) says:”Just so everyone is aware:Hell is full; there is no more room in HellThank you”––––––––––––––—Does that mean we have to start loading sinners up on the T?
12 June 2008
at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Mmmm, Tanisha you have got me all twitterpated. Let's shag!I like shiny things too. Satirical, you do have a point. If the government is going to discriminate against gay, polygamy et all, then why don't we ban hetero/breeder marriage also. What is the government poking it's secular nose into a religious thing like marriage. I mean isn't this like those old Reses Peanut Butter Cup ads? Hey! You got PB in my Chocolate, Hey you got government in my religion!Civil marriage equality is only a matter of time. Look a chicken.Tanisha lets try to have a baby. If it doesn't take we can try again and again and ag…www.KansasEqualityCoalition.org
13 June 2008
at 12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TacoBob (Anonymous) says…
So the centuries old tradition of marraige, between a man and a women, has been accepted for all this time and has recently been appropriated by non-traditional parties. Am I a bigot for supporting this tradition, founded on Christian principles? Of course not. Many religions/cultures.countries/societies have supported this concept for hundreds of years with no outcry. But now others want in, and those of us supporting the historial non-biased pure origins are to be blamed? Please!And don't compare marriage to slavery or racism, blah, blah. That is comparing apples to hamburgers. Both of those practices are wrong, and are rooted in wrong thinking. Marraige was created with a purpose and design and has worked well. If non-herteos want a union, they should not try to hijack what society has supported as right and just for the intended parties for 2000 + years.Don't call me names because I uphold the tenants that built our society and made flourish. And don't dump your trailer park logic on me that I am a bigot or narrowminded, a racist, ad nauseum. Your argument falls flat.You want to stand up for your principles? So don't be surprised when I stand up for mine. Situational ethics and warping the intent of the Constitution are just few of the faux paus going on here.
13 June 2008
at 12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I think it's funny when people aren't even smart enough to know that they're not very smart. Satirical, venusinfurs, and gayokay are the only men?/women?/trannies?worthy of me.
13 June 2008
at 12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TacoBob (Anonymous) says…
P.S. I want to be gay. Okay, I guess I am now. But….I change my mind, I want to go back, Okay, I;m back, I made a choice, Okay, I want to be Asian. Oops, can really choose that.I want to be a lawyer. What, I can't do that? Why not? Didn't pass the bar, so I can;t be in the club. Darn. So, I will be a American Indian. What? Can't do that, there are 'rules'. Why can't I just barge into whatever institution I feel like? Who says there is absolute truth? Perhaps that stop sign is arbitrary…..until I got my bell rung.I want to marry my 13 year old cousin. Ur, maybe not a good idea, but I guess there is no absoiute truth so why not? The hold that holds me is the hand that holds me down. I am oppressed!!!!Time for the tale to stop wagging the dog.
13 June 2008
at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TacoBob (Anonymous) says…
P.S. I want to be gay. Okay, I guess I am now. But….I change my mind, I want to go back, Okay, I;m back, I made a choice, Okay, I want to be Asian. Oops, can really choose that.I want to be a lawyer. What, I can't do that? Why not? Didn't pass the bar, so I can;t be in the club. Darn. So, I will be a American Indian. What? Can't do that, there are 'rules'. Why can't I just barge into whatever institution I feel like? Who says there is absolute truth? Perhaps that stop sign is arbitrary…..until I got my bell rung.I want to marry my 13 year old cousin. Ur, maybe not a good idea, but I guess there is no absoiute truth so why not? The hand that holds me is the hand that holds me down. I am oppressed!!!!Time for the tale to stop wagging the dog.
13 June 2008
at 1 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
people aren't even smart enough to know that they're not very smart = tanisha
13 June 2008
at 1:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bone777 (Anonymous) says…
logical person, who makes a ton of sense = TacoBob
13 June 2008
at 2:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RomanNose (Anonymous) says…
I don't get it. What's all this fuss about a happy wedding?
13 June 2008
at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
TacoBob (Anonymous) says:”So the centuries old tradition of marraige, between a man and a women, has been accepted for all this time and has recently been appropriated by non-traditional parties. Am I a bigot for supporting this tradition, founded on Christian principles? Of course not.” Marriage predates Christianity. It would be a mistake to allow Christianity to take so much credit for it. I would also consider it a mistake to justify your viewpoint by tradition. The developments of the last 200 years or so have made quite a number of traditional things more irrelevant, and not necessary for the original tasks they were created for. “Many religions/cultures.countries/societies have supported this concept for hundreds of years with no outcry. But now others want in, and those of us supporting the historial non-biased pure origins are to be blamed? Please!”Non-biased? Pure? Please, don't get carried away with your own piety. You can't call yourself pure without being biased, it's practically a definition statement. “And don't compare marriage to slavery or racism, blah, blah. That is comparing apples to hamburgers. Both of those practices are wrong, and are rooted in wrong thinking.”I don't think anyone is comparing marriage to slavery or racism. Some might be comparing segregation to the current situation, but you fail if you think you've counteracted that just by saying that this current situation is immoral, since immoral is another biased phrasing.”Marraige was created with a purpose and design and has worked well.”Has it? Perhaps if you identified the purpose you had in mind, then we could discuss marriage's effectiveness. As it is, you leave an empty shell for an argument.
13 June 2008
at 6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“If non-herteos want a union, they should not try to hijack what society has supported as right and just for the intended parties for 2000 + years.”More like 5000+ years, but our current time is virtually incomparable to any of them. All of the purposes for marriage are, frankly, less important than they were in the past. Children live in developed nations to 90th percentile survival rates, we have highly developed property rights, men and women are more equal, there is less passing of family work to children, etc. Problems with those aspects are, I would say, the primary reasons marriage was created in the first place, and the lack is perhaps the primary reason that the institution currently has a 50% fail rate in our modern society. “Don't call me names because I uphold the tenants that built our society and made flourish.”What, marriage? Don't make me laugh. It was such an integral part of agrarian society that I doubt anyone even thought of it. I looked the constitution up a minute ago and the word “marriage” did not even occur. It brought nothing new to our society, which has flourished mainly due to the ability of our people to make informed decisions and take action, whether in business, development, expansion, etc.”And don't dump your trailer park logic on me that I am a bigot or narrowminded, a racist, ad nauseum. Your argument falls flat.”No, I tend to find those terms destructive to debate, leading to nothing more than trading insults. I will however, stick you with one name, that seems appropriate. closed-minded. From everything you write, it seems clear that you have no doubt in your mind that you are right, and that you're way is just, and that your opposition is wrong. There are many flaws in your argument, and little of anything real at the center to allow for justification, so your inability to consider that you might not be as Right as you think shows you to be close-minded. I don't bring this up to make you angry, but with the strong suggestion that you actually consider the possibility of it being a justifiable opinion.
13 June 2008
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
i am a lesbian trapped in a mans body!!!!!!
13 June 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
duplenty: I am fully aware of the some of the potential weaknesses in the argument, as I've pieced it together more or less to see where it can be debunked. But if you'll recall, the original point wasn't to make a thoroughly sound argument, but to show that there are arguments that are not rooted in religion, but in the (somewhat) logical perception of what our species needs to do to survive. Marriage, as a social institution, has one of its key implicit purposes as procreation and continuation of the species, though wrapped up in other social customs, and to include this type of union in that setting would require a redefinition of the institution itself. The problem, as I see it, is that marriage is not a fundamental or even explicit right conveyed by our documented government charters. In many respects it is simply a benefit given by the government to, as I said, encourage a specific type of behavior. Personally, I think the real problem is that the rights given by the government to married couples aren't really the government's right to give. It is, at its base, a system of inequality, so it becomes illogical to assume that it will be evenly implemented, at least in the way that it has been set up in our society.
13 June 2008
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
Marriage is a way for divorce lawyers to make money. I imagine that the Bar Association is all in favor of gay marriage. I don't care one way or the other regarding this…just observing.
13 June 2008
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
They had a good thing going. Now they have got to go ahead and ruin it by getting married?So much for being unique.
13 June 2008
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
duplenty: “But indeed, one who says that marriage should or shouldn't be the exclusive domain of one group should pretty well make a sound argument, no? I feel I have done that, based on the laws of our country.”Ideally, it would seem so. Practically, however, all through our history it has been the duty of those advocating change (especially when in a severe minority) to answer all points in question in order to effect that change. The simple fact is that numbers are against us, which is often fatal with the way our current society is constructed. There are a great number of people who oppose the measure out of reasons not necessarily rooted in religion or bigotry, at least to their own perspective, and if you deligitimize them and their opinions by claiming religiousity and bigotry then they'll swing the other way, and nothing will get accomplished. “We're cavemen married? Yes, no, we don't know.”Well, that hardly matters. Marriage and it's benefits are constructs of developed societies, to address issues and problems of developed societies. Property rights, decision rights, and heirage we're likely matters the cavemen had no time for until they created communities for greater personal safety.”The idea that one has to be married in order for our species to survive is patently ludicrous, especially given the fact our where we are socially and scientifically today.”Yes, there's the rub. Procreation and (perhaps more importantly) legitimate heirs to pass family property to are no longer as vital for protection of social order and stability, but that has been a relatively new development in humanity's history, and there is still some obvious friction with the past. On the other hand, that itself is an assumption. The legality of gay-marriage would be, as far as I'm aware, a new social experiment, and there is no way to tell with certainty whether it will have a positive or negative impact. “Except that, outside of religious documents, there exists no definition of marriage that includes a mandate to have children:how can you redefine a definition that isn't defined?”An implicit social definition is still a definition. You can hardly deny that it is an incredibly prevalent viewpoint in current society. I think you'd find that infertile families and couples who don't want to have children often feel the need or pressure to justify themselves and their choices, while in general you hardly have to justify your decision to have a kid when you're married. I would say that such an implicit definition would, in fact, be much, much more difficult to change than one just written down somewhere.
13 June 2008
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Man, I'm wordy today. Sorry.
13 June 2008
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/… above link addresses another view of what adversaries to marriage equality promote as gospel truthiness.www.KansasEqualityCoalitio…
13 June 2008
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“Now we are bound by “implicit social definition” and not written law?”Clearly, we are bound by both, but both are subject to change. It's foolishly naive to suggest that only written law is binding upon us as humans within a society, and its a horrendously over-simplification to suggest, as you seem to, that it is the ultimate justification for anything.The other point I'll concede somewhat, my wording was poor. Perhaps “survival of the species” should be deferred somewhat to “survival of our social order and stability.” At any rate, again, cavemen are irrelevant to our discussion. As you pointed out, there's no way of knowing the particulars of the social order at the time, but as our species has developed within society, marriage has been one of the institutions that has developed along with it, with one of its purposes the establishment of the family unit, including the birthing and raising of children. Certainly not the only purpose, but clearly an important one. For at least the past few millenia, the family unit, based on marriage, has been a key building block to the continuance of our type of society, largely by the birthing, raising, and educating of children. I would bet, though, that even primitive humans did have some method that they used to create families and raise children, or they probably wouldn't have survived, and they certainly wouldn't have developed.
13 June 2008
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HootyWho (Anonymous) says…
I support marriage between anybody that wants to get married,,,but if they are married in CA, and live here in KS,,,and we don't recgonized same sex marriage,,,then what would be the point of getting married? not a bigot,,just don't understand? somebody please explain?
13 June 2008
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Hootywho: State authority versus federal authority… now if you could fix that satisfactorily, you'd probably win a Nobel prize.
13 June 2008
at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
gayokay,Thanks for the Mel White discussion of homosexuality and the Bible. Nice reference to have.Anyway, I'm slightly in love with you for using the word “twitterpated,” especially in reference to me. I'd never heard it before. It's definitely my new favorite.Shag anytime. But only after I'm convincingly treated like the Queen I clearly am.Smart is the new stupid.
13 June 2008
at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
This two day old news is just that-old news, can this news rag post anything more important to talk about???
13 June 2008
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Tanisha, it makes me randy if you quote leviticus to me. My Queen, I found this bit of information about “Biblical Marriage”. Proponants of so called traditional marriage should be careful what they ask for unless you really like your brother's wife.Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21) A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)(Original author unknown.)
13 June 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Left_handed (Anonymous) says…
Hey LJ World, learn subject-verb agreement. “Couple” is singular, so the headline should read “Kansas Couple Plans Gay Wedding in California”.That being said, I hope the perverts stay there.
13 June 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanisha (Anonymous) says…
I guess this is about dietary restrictions, but I think it's WAY HOT: “Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.”Just makes me want to partake. I think GOD likes us together, gayokay. I think I like what I'm seeing.Perverts are the new missionaries!
13 June 2008
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bolshavik_vw (Anonymous) says…
let them be free and happy! It is awesome that they are together and I just wish Kansas would get up and stop all of the Bigotry that it has became known for. If people wish to have Bigotry then they need to go elsewhere. Especially if they have came up from the South. Go back we don't need you! It is time that people put the Pre-historic beliefs away. And get with the current times. I hate to tell you this, but Racism needs to die. Everyone has to be different otherwise the world would get to be boring. Learning about different types of people makes life fun. And to be a biggot, means to be uneducated about the unknown. True Christians are not racists!!!!!
13 June 2008
at 9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says:”one who says that marriage should or shouldn't be the exclusive domain of one group should pretty well make a sound argument, no? I feel I have done that, based on the laws of our country.”Actually, no. Because marriage is not the exclusive domain of one group. Anyone can get married, although they may not be able to marry the particular person they want.For all those that keep throwing out the comparison to interracial marriage, the two situations are not the same. In the case of a ban on interracial marriage, two groups of people (e.g. black men and white men) have two *different*, *separate* 'pools' of acceptable marriage candidates dictated to them by law - that is, black men can only choose from among black women and white men can only choose from among white women. That is *not* the case with a ban on same sex marriage - everyone can choose from among the *same* 'pool.' Gay men and straight men can both choose any woman, gay women and straight women can both choose any man. Neither gay nor straight men can marry a man, neither gay nor straight women can marry a woman. In other words, a ban on marrying someone of the same sex is not discriminatory because it applies to all people equally.The Supreme Court ruled that you can't force whites and blacks to use separate mens rooms, but there's nothing illegal about saying all males have to use the mens room and all females have to use the womens room.Now, it may *seem* discriminatory to say that not everyone can choose the person they love to marry. But in the infamous lyrics from a song, “What's love got to do with it?” There is no guaranteed right to marry the person you love. Nothing in the Constitution, the law, the decisions by the courts, even the arguments made in those decisions, or in the definition of marriage itself have anything to do with love. People have been getting married for reasons having nothing to do with romance as long as people have been getting married. And while that may sound cynical, I'd like to point out that many of the arguments being put forth in favor of same sex marriage don't have much to do with love either. If we're talking about the law, about civil contracts, about the economic/tax advantages, health benefits, inheritance rights, the ability to direct hospital care, etc., those things have little if anything to do with love.And everyone has the exact same access to those things: All they have to do is marry someone - of the opposite sex.
13 June 2008
at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Please define “man” and “woman”. Once you do this, we can talk.Otherwise, shut the feck up.
13 June 2008
at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
” Gay men and straight men can both choose any woman, gay women and straight women can both choose any man.”Feck ya, like that shet bag plan is kewl…Not.Now what about this BS is sanctifying and protecting the foundational institution of marriage? You all can marry anyone you want as long as it's not someone you want to shag. So you on board with me marrying your sister? You can buy her some Ever Ready size D's for her wedding gift. Cause she fur shur an gonna get a ride my pony no matter how many quarters she put in my slot.Not a Jayhawk, put the pumps on the other foot. Do you think that straight people would go for marrying someone they don't love/find attractive sexually. You do know that arranged marriages went out of style a few hundred years ago. Perhaps arranged marriages went away because there was not that spark to keep things hot. Most of them had their piece on the side anyway. You know the madonna vs. the whore syndrome. Oh sorry, not that madonna Tanisha.Tanisha did you ever wonder why God created “unclean animals” and if they were unclean then why did Noah have to gather them up onto his Princess Cruise?You would have thought that God would have learned that if you tell people you can't have something they are going to want it all the more. That forbidden fruit thing and all. But in the Big Bible Buffet that the RRR select and choose which sins are “abominations” and which ones God was just kidding about, somehow gay people are the chosen ones.Well, Tanisha I guess if we're going to hell we may as well enjoy the ride. Let's go to Red Lobster eat shrimp cocktails out of each others belly buttons and tease the straight waiter about his pleated kahki pants made out of “mixed fibers”. Of course we will be smug in the knowledge that our violations of Leviticus are OKAY but those Poly/Cotton pleated kahki pants…I say a NO NO NO.www.KansasEqualityCoalition.org
14 June 2008
at 1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
gayokay (Anonymous) says: “Not a Jayhawk, put the pumps on the other foot. Do you think that straight people would go for marrying someone they don't love/find attractive sexually. You do know that arranged marriages went out of style a few hundred years ago. Perhaps arranged marriages went away because there was not that spark to keep things hot.”Well, you might have a point, gayokay - or at least you would, if you could tell me - honestly - that no gay man or woman has ever gotten married to a person of the opposite sex. Is that the case, gayokay?Nobody is telling anyone who they can or can't love. Nobody is telling anyone who they can or can't live with and share their life with. But it doesn't sound as if that's the issue. You don't need to be married to be in love any more than you need to be in love to be married. Just make up your mind - is it about love or money? Because if it's about love, as I said, nobody is telling you that you can't love the person, any person, of your choice. But if it's about the money, the tax breaks, the insurance benefits, the inheritance rights, then it has nothing to do with love and you have the exact same opportunity to get those things as I - or anyone else - has.If you're going to claim that you're being discriminated against, you have to prove you're being deprived of something that someone else can have. And you're not. You can marry a woman the same as I can. I can't marry a man any more than you can. The fact that you want to marry a man and I don't is irrelevant and does not make the law discriminatory. If a state passes a helmet law, it isn't discriminatory just because some motorcycle riders don't want to wear helmets and others do.
14 June 2008
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
I say enjoy and celebrate big time!!!!
14 June 2008
at 10:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Five words:AllMenAreCreatedEqualwww.Kansas…
15 June 2008
at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Klusterfawkoftheusa (Anonymous) says:”I'm with God.”God's an irritating little twit who prefers vulgarity and profanity over discussion, and lacks the respect for others that would prevent him from getting booted over and over again? Doesn't sound too likely to me.
15 June 2008
at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Have you ever noticed how dogs like things that smell really good as much as things that smell really gross and disgusting? Dogs can sense odors at concentrations nearly 100 million times lower than humans can. Their sense of smell is amazing and should be studied more. Some trained dogs can even smell cancer.Is it the increased sense of smell that makes them oblivious to nasty smells? Do they detect something good in rotting roadkill or kaka?
15 June 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Sorry, wrong article.
15 June 2008
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
hahahahahaha. Sorry, not laughing at you Bigprune. Maybe it's just so funny because without your disclaimer I wouldn't have thought much of it, I've seen bigger non-sequiters given out intentionally in here before.
17 June 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
boxturtle (Anonymous) says…
Congrats guys. Although idiots disagree, You make me proud to be a kansan.