Archive for Friday, June 24, 2011

Gay rights group protests Brownback’s decision to attend Texas prayer rally

June 24, 2011, 2:19 p.m. Updated June 24, 2011, 6:56 p.m.

Advertisement

— Gay rights supporters in Kansas are demanding that Gov. Sam Brownback cancel plans to participate in an August prayer rally in Texas organized by a conservative evangelical Christian group.

About 30 people participated in a rally Friday at the Statehouse.

Brownback has accepted an invitation from fellow Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas to attend the Aug. 6 event in Houston.

It's organized by the American Family Association, a Mississippi group best known for objecting to what it sees as indecency on television. The group opposes gay marriage and protests actions it views as promoting homosexuality.

Brownback spokeswoman Sherriene (shuh-REEN') Jones-Sontag says the governor will go to the rally if his schedule permits it. As for Friday's protest, she says Brownback respects the right of Kansans to demonstrate peacefully.

Comments

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

This sounds like anti-religious and anti-christian bigotry from the gay group. They do not have the right to try to use political correctness to prevent other Americans from holding conservative religious beliefs. In fact, most Christian churches hold that homosexual conduct is immoral and a sin against nature and a sin against God. It is a choice that people make to engage in such behavior and only Christ can lift the sinner out of this evil lifestyle. Receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and he will deliver you from this sin ask God to forgive you for it and he will wash it away. Why should Christians be attacked for hold the same view on this sin as we hold against any type of sexual immorality? Brownback is standing up for the family unit by upholding a culture of life!

jhawkinsf 3 years, 10 months ago

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Your religious beliefs are your own and should not be attacked. I have spoken out in this forum about my perception that there is an undercurrent of anti-Christian rhetoric. And I am very much against that anti-Christian talk. All that said, What you may not do is impose your beliefs on others. You may believe whatever you want, but when you go over the line and begin to impose your beliefs on others, then it's you who have crossed the line, that line that separates freedom of religion from imposing your religion on others. Gays, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccan, Everyone, is entitled to live their lives as they see fit, free from my interference, free from your interference. I support Gov. Brownback's right to attend the event in Texas. I support your right to believe gays should turn to Jesus. And I support gays' right to live their lives however they choose, with full rights and with the full respect that we all deserve. Gays are not now getting that respect and they do not have full rights. If you want continued support for your full freedoms, you must support their rights as well.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

If your view is correct why would they care if Brownback goes to an event that supports his view? By the way I don't believe anything about homosexualtiy is on the agenda it is a prayer rally! I think these homosexuals were misguided to attack Mr. Brownbacks personal rights to attend a prayer rally!

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Because he will try (and probably succeed) in imposing his views through legislation.

As you want him to do.

Satirical 3 years, 10 months ago

Jafs,

Then oppose the hypothetical legislation, not whether an elected official is allowed in his individual capacity to attend a religious event. This is a separation of church and state issue. Citizens should not tell their elected officials (or vice versa) whether or not they can or should attend religious services.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

I agree, actually.

As long as he's not using any public money to get there, eat there, get back, etc.

Is he?

llama726 3 years, 10 months ago

It depends.

His salary for the last several years has been paid by taxpayers. His current salary is paid by taxpayers.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@Satirical: You make it sound like people are interfering with Brownback going to his neighborhood church on Sunday.

This is a political-religious event in a stadium receiving national press for Rick Perry's potential presidential campaign.

In that context, it is not unreasonable for people to ask an elected official who represents a diverse citizenry to not attend an event organized by people who discriminate.

Kathy Getto 3 years, 10 months ago

Because when he steps out of the governor's realm and into that of religion, he has failed in his job. Pretty simple that.

50YearResident 3 years, 10 months ago

jhawhinsf, then you agree that Pediphiles of America, are entitled to thier own beliefs and should be left alone to do whatever they believe in without interferance from religious and other groups?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 10 months ago

The operative meaning is that anyone can believe anything they want. But it's their actions that count. No one can control another persons fantasies. But when they cross the line and become actions, then yes, that behavior can be controlled. Christian fundamentalists may believe that homosexuality is wrong, but when they act upon that belief in a way that imposes their morality on others, then they are violating other people's civil rights. I might believe Christianity is just superstition and I'm entitled to my belief. But it would be wrong for me to deny Christians their religious freedom.

aryastark1984 3 years, 10 months ago

Homosexual relationships between consenting adults is legal. Pedophilia is not legal because one of the parties is not legally able to consent.

Equating the two is completely dishonest. The most recent Catholic Priest scandal involved little girls. Does that mean that heterosexual sex is therefor the same as pedophilia? I think not.

Corey Williams 3 years, 10 months ago

What did Jesus say about being gay? Oh, that's right. Absolutely nothing.

ScottyMac 3 years, 10 months ago

Funny you should mention that. And on a related note: What did Jesus say about prayer? Oh, that's right. He advised his followers to put on a big show. You know, make sure there are plenty of television cameras whirring and photographers snapping. After all, what good is prayer if it's not a public relations gimmick?

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@kansanjayhawk:

"This sounds like anti-religious and anti-christian bigotry from the gay group."

Actually, it's a response to bigotry. The Texas rally is coorganized by the American Family Association and people from Lou Engle's church in Kansas City. AFA employees have said publicly that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. Engle has called on martyrs to avenge the homosexual agenda. He was also involved in legislation in Uganda that would punish homosexual acts with the death penalty. Having a civil protest outside a state legislature seems measured in response to calls for executing gays.

"They do not have the right to try to use political correctness to prevent other Americans from holding conservative religious beliefs."

They aren't asking people to give up religion. They're asking an elected public official not to publicly associate with people who promote discrimination against some Kansans. If Brownback were not an elected public official, it wouldn't be controversial.

"It is a choice that people make to engage in such behavior . . ."

Evidence doesn't support that claim. Both genetics and hormone exposure in the womb are correlated with homosexuality. Many gay people would tell you they felt they had no choice in their sexual orientation (straight people too). Just this weekend there was a N.Y. Times magazine profile of ex-gay therapists. Many ex-gays actually become ex-ex-gays, i.e., they are unable to "pray the gay away."

"Brownback is standing up for the family unit . . ."

There are gay families in Kansas too. The U.S. Census released 2010 data Thursday. Approximately 6,200 same-sex couples live in Kansas. A quarter of them are raising children. The governor isn't standing up for them.

". . . only Christ can lift the sinner out of this evil lifestyle."

You're always saying we need civility. And I'm always saying you're not walking your own talk. This would be another example. How do you expect me to engage you civilly when you call me evil?

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

Based objecitively from the Bible Romans Chpt 1--the Bible calls the act evil--not you as an individual. By the way people have a predisposition to be alcoholics genetically as well but if they don't drink they will never become one--same thing here! Same sex attractions might be present but many have overcome them and live normal hetrosexual lives. I didn't call you individually evil just the conduct...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

Some people also have the predisposition to be narrow-minded busybodies, but manage to resist. Why can't you?

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@kansanjayhawk:

Gay people have gay sex. That's what gays do. It's why society calls us gay. The conduct creates the status. Criticizing the conduct is no different than criticizing the status.

Imagine if you said "wearing yarmulkes and eating kosher are evil," and a Jewish person objected. Then you replied, "I said nothing about Jewish people; I only criticized wearing yarmulkes and eating kosher." Everyone sees that response for what it is: nonsensical. Criticism of conduct that defines a minority group is criticism of the minority group.

Even if being gay were a choice, it's still uncivil to call gays "evil." It's also uncivil to analogize gay people with addicts; being gay is not a disease.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@kansanjayhawk: Why don't you have the courage to post using your real name? Generally, I feel anonymity online invites incivility. People will type things they would never say to someone in real life, especially when there's no accountability.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

"They do not have the right to try to use political correctness to prevent other Americans from holding conservative religious beliefs."

Jeez, there's no one on this board who promotes their own version of political (and spiritual) correctness than you.

right_down_the_middle 3 years, 10 months ago

no Bozo. You clearly win that award. And every other award that could be given for opining about everything under the sun on the LJW boards.. hands down. I suspect other online forums elsewhere where you hide behind your keyboard.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

The failure in your commentary kansanjayhawk, is that many of the protestors are Christian. It is not the faith they are protesting, it is the stance it is taking in the political arena, as an affront to the laws of the USA, the fact that they are using one version of Christianity that teaches hate and intolerance.

You continue to make sweeping accusations that are simply false to try and support your points. Why is that? Is that how you were raised or is that a trait you have learned?

I seriously doubt you were born dishonest.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

Christianity does not promote hate and intolerance, this specific sect of right wing Christian Supremacists and their interpretation of the Bible do, their Church is not representative of the mother/father loving God I know, but a representation of judgement, false witness, hierarchy of sins and a load of bullcrap that has very little to do with God, in any form.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

if you really do not understand the answer to that question, then I worry for you.

Steve Jacob 3 years, 10 months ago

I find it funny that almost all the other governors have said "thanks but no thanks" knowing the backlash of attending this event.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

Christianity teaches us that if we realize we are all sinners and have sinned and fallen from God then we can ask for the forgiveness of our great savior Jesus Christ whol came to pay the debt of all of our sins. By praying " Lord I realize I am a sinner and in need of your help, salvation, and cleansing please come into my heart and save me' if done from the heart we can turn from any sin includig homosexuality.

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

And being rational human beings that understand the laws of science teaches us that there is no such thing as a magical sky god. Nobody died for my "sins," be they eating shell fish or working on the Sabbath. Christ might have been a real person, but he was nothing more.

Before you accuse me of attacking Christians, isn't what you wrote an attack on non-Christians? What makes your attack warranted and mine unwarranted? You have the right to believe as you wish. If you start preaching about it, I have the equal right to tell you what I believe, which is that you are dead wrong in your beliefs.

Don't think of it as an attack, because I didn't start it. You did. Just think of it as a rebuttal.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

The sad part of this story to me is that only 30 people showed up for the protest.

I just got back from vacation with my in-laws - 2/3 of my wife's sisters are lesbians raising children.

The thing that strikes me each time I see them is that they have the same desires, struggles, etc. as straight people in the same situation. Trying to raise their children well, have time with their partners, deal with financial issues, etc.

Straight and gay people are much more alike than different, in my view.

In fact, the only difference is the gender of the people they have sex with - which is, of course, a personal thing, and none of my (or anybody else's) business, imho.

denak 3 years, 10 months ago

Regardless of whether or not you like it, the Constitution gives people the right to assemble freely and the right to worship freely. Brownback has that right as do the individuals who protested.

Satirical 3 years, 10 months ago

I agree...unless they are left-handed.

Satirical 3 years, 10 months ago

Darn tootin. Although I am not quite sure about those right handed folk either.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@denak: No one is saying he can't go. People are saying he shouldn't go. He is an elected public official who represents a diverse citizenry. The event is organized by people who discriminate against some of that citizenry.

denak 3 years, 10 months ago

He is also a private citizen. As such, he has the Constitutional right to attend the prayer rally.

It is a lawful assembly. It has the required permits. It is adhering to the local ordinances and it is being done in a peaceful manner.

Whether you like it or not, or agree with it, is irrelevant. The Constitution gives him that right. Just like it gives the KKK the right to march. Just like it gives Westboro the right to assemble and protest.

Just like it gave the revelers celebrating in New York the right. Just like it gives NOW the right to assemble. Just like it gave Martin Luther King the right to give his "I Have a Dream Speech" at the Lincoln Memorial.

Whether you like it or think he shouldn't go is irrelevant. Freedom of speech is even for the speech that one finds objectionable. Freedom of religion is even for a religion you find objectionable. Freedom to assemble is even for the people you find objectionable.

There is not a notation at the bottom of the Bill of Rights saying: People who hold office shouldn't go. Or This is only for causes we approve of. Sorry, that isn't how freedom works.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@denak: I agree he has the legal right to go. I said that in my OP.

You seem to think that because someone can do something, that makes criticism of their action irrelevant/inappropriate. To the contrary, the freedoms you list give us the ability to debate what our leaders should and should not do.

If a member of congress went to a KKK rally or joined a Phelps protest, no one would dispute her right to attend. But it would not be irrelevant or inappropriate to debate whether she should have joined them. This is no different.

aryastark1984 3 years, 10 months ago

So, it would be OK if our governor went to a KKK rally, attended services at the WBC? Really? You wouldn't have a problem with that?

Freedom of speech and assembly are just that. They protect those specific behaviors. They DO NOT protect you from being criticized for your words or your choice of friends.

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

Is the reception better in Texas?

If I were a Christian I would be really upset to learn that my religious leader ... er, governor ... doesn't believe that god can hear people's prayers from Kansas.

50YearResident 3 years, 10 months ago

Brownback needs "exposure", and all he can get from any and every source. Don't forget, my prediction is that he will be making another run for President of the United States before this first Kansas term is up. After all, "GOD" told him to run, and his mission is to save us all from hell and damnation.

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

:-)

And here I just thought they were doing God a favor.

Ray March 3 years, 10 months ago

It's crazy that hate groups can give their organization a sparkly, ambiguous, generic, corporate sounding name like the "American Family Association" and idiots support them like they're on the up and up.

People are dumb...
Brownback is an idiot. We need to get Sebelius back at the helm.

Corey Williams 3 years, 10 months ago

Be wary of any organization with the word "family" in it. "Concerned" is another. All they seem to push is what they want onto you.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

Anyone who objected to Obama's association with Reverend Wright should have no problems with this group protesting Brownback's association with the people who organized this prayer rally. Otherwise, you are just another hypocrite.

Me, I don't agree with either. Protest that person for what they say and leave their friends/family/associates out of it. Its not like I agree with everything my friends say.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@notaubermime: So if Brownback's friend were a member of the Klan, publicly invited him to attend a rally, and Brownback publicly accepted but said nothing about African Americans, you'd say he wasn't communicating anything?

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

In that situation, if the rally said nothing about African Americans and Brownback said nothing about African Americans, then I would not have any problem with that. If the subject of the rally was how evil African Americans are, I would have a problem with that.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@notaubermime: "[Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association,] acknowledged that a stated purpose of the August prayer event initiated by Perry - to pray for an end to the "debasement of our culture" - refers to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by American society."

Patricia Kilday Hart, Perry's upcoming prayer event draws sharp criticism, The Houston Chronicle, June 8, 2011, available at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7602059.html

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

I take back my statements then. The gay rights group does have good cause to protest this event and those who attend.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@notaubermime: The world need more people with open minds humble enough to post when they change opinions. Kudos for replying.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

They live in a state where their lack of rights to personhood has been codified in the state constitution. Not sure what else they expect.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@cait48: Normal people assign blame to oppressors and sympathy to victims. But if you want to blame the victims, I'm sure they'll appreciate your extra punch.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

May the governor exercise his constitutional right to attend the church of his choice??

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

Of course! But this isn't a church, it's a PAC. So tell me, when does it finally spill over into a violation of the First Amendment?

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

And the gay rights group are not the equivalent of a PAC???

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

A difference is, the gay rights group isn't a governor who is suppose to be representing "the people."

Another difference is they throw a much more enjoyable party ... but I digress.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Bea

Really??? I though he represented the people who elected him. Facinating how Mr. Obama has no responsibility to respond to the signifivcant majority ot the electorate who are leary of Obama care yet Mr. Brownback is responsible to respond to a small fraction of Knasas voters the vast majority of whom (small fraction) voted for the other guy!!!

Dual standard??

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

Fascinating how everything comes back to Obama.

However, you are incorrect. Brownback represents the entire state of Kansas, just as Obama represents the entire United States. Obama is OUR President, even for those who didn't vote for him. Brownback is THE state's governor, and not just the governor of those who elected him! The same standard is there for both.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

Is the gay rights group hosting a prayer rally that Brownback is attending?

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

The more the churches take on political agendas, the greater the call to tax them.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

Hate to embarrass you, but Union lobby funds are NOT tax exempt, never have been and shouldn't be. Also non-profit organizations such as Public Citizen has a separate organization for it's lobby wing that is also not tax exempt.

The churches have not followed the law and should but fined and taxes.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

No we do not - we tax their lobbying. Their union activities are not taxed. Dual standard

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

And why not NOTA. There are a whole lot of entities we do not tax. We do not tax churches because as a smarter man than I suggested "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Since our founding documents mandate separation, why is it surprising that we can not tax churches.

Now if you want to go to my contributions to a church – yes tax them and remove all other deductions that favor one thing over another. Do so rationally but consistently!

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

The law is NOT written on your emotional outburst, but a very clear set of standards. Lobbying activity is to be taxed. The churches are lobbying and not paying taxes, hence they are breaking the law and deserve to suffer the consequences.

classclown 3 years, 10 months ago

joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…

@denak: No one is saying he can't go. People are saying he shouldn't go.

From the first sentence in the article... "Gay rights supporters in Kansas are demanding that Gov. Sam Brownback cancel plans to participate in an August prayer rally in Texas organized by a conservative evangelical Christian group."

==================================

Sounds more like they are saying he can't go rather than he shouldn't go to me. Otherwise they would be asking rather than demanding.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@classclown:

"Sounds more like they are saying he can't go rather than he shouldn't go to me. Otherwise they would be asking rather than demanding."

From Merriam-Webster: demand, transitive verb, first meaning: "to ask or call for with authority"

Armored_One 3 years, 10 months ago

Gee, that's funny.

I thought all Americans are supposed to have the same civil liberties, regardless of anything else.

What is the legal, not religious but actual LEGAL, reason to deny any two consenting adult human beings a lisence to become married?

And none of this nonsense about how our laws are based in Christianity, because if you do, I will proverbially slap you with a copy of the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights.

If you base a law on only one religion, you are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. Laws based on only one religion excludes the rights of those of other religions, thus creating an establishment of religion by the government.

George Washington and Patrick Henry would drop over dead if they were still alive after the BS we've done to the Constitution. Thousands of men bled and died to MAKE this nation and you are all but taking a leak on their graves. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan are reasonably based on defending this nation, but while deaths in those wars are unavoidable, they pale next to the deaths of men that fought to create a nation. Who are we to say that they were wrong in trying to create a land that not only was free from tyranny but also free of religious persecution?

More to the point, tell me what gives you the right to tell someone else, born to American parents and raised in this country, that they do not deserve the same rights you have.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Well we have moral rights and legal rights. This who hold moral opinions at odds with gay rights have the same right to that opinion as those who believe in gay rights. But - big but - in a pluralistic society a minority has no right to impose their opinion on secular issues that affect the rest of us.

If the majority of the electorate wants some form of gay rights in the secular domain - then we should have them a la New York. Fat chance in Kansas where the majority may not support gay rights.

beatrice 3 years, 10 months ago

Nobody is imposing anything on anyone, and that is the entire point. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then guess what? You don't have to have one. They aren't mandatory! Your morals are left untouched by someone else's actions.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

What are we arguing about. That is what I said.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

There are also ideas of basic rights, not subject to majority vote.

What if the majority didn't support interracial marriage? Before the SC decision Loving vs. Virginia, a number of states outlawed that.

And, before you get in a tizzy, I understand I have used the point that the majority can set a variety of rules/regulations regardless of the will of the minority.

But, when constitutional rights are involved, they don't (and aren't supposed) have the right to do that.

In my opinion, the right to marry one you love is such a right, as long as marriage confers social and legal rights and benefits.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Yes and no. The right to marriage is one thing. The legal rights bestowed by the state if married are another.

Are you arguing that the majority is not always able to control things. I thought you were a strict majority rule guy.

Reread what I wroye, I think we agree

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Of course the majority doesn't have absolute power in our system - that's what I said.

I think it's the fact that marriage confers legal rights and benefits that makes it imperative that all should be allowed to marry. If it didn't, this would be rather a non-issue, wouldn't it?

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Well, I am not sure I agree with that. I favor equal legal rights. I am not sure that a government mandate that both lifestyles are comparable and morally acceptable is within my willingness to compromise.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Equal legal rights is exactly what I'm talking about.

People can believe whatever they like about morality and comparability.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@moderate:

"I am not sure that . . . both lifestyles are comparable . . ."

How are same-sex relationships not comparable to opposite-sex relationships?

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

history and tradition. In a hundred years when we study history we will wonder what this was all about. Today, passions run deep and it is IMHO our interest to compromise for now.

Whether someone wants to accept non-traditional marriage as comparable to traditional marriage is a personal opinion beyond the power of the state.

Remember how we compromised on slavery. Choice was a country with slavery or no country at all with slavery. Cost us dear but we did become a country.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@Moderate:

"But - big but - in a pluralistic society a minority has no right to impose their opinion on secular issues that affect the rest of us."

Actually, that's not quite the full story. Minorities cannot impose their will on majorities in a democracy. But you left out that majorities cannot impose their will on minorities when it would violate minorities' constitutional liberties. That is largely why the form of government is called liberal democracy--liberal not meaning left-leaning, but instead protecting individual liberties.

Same-sex couples assert in their court challenges that gay marriage bans by the majority infringe their constitutional liberties, specifically (1) a right to marriage implicit in the right to due process and (2) a right to equal treatment by government of opposite- and same-sex couples under the equal protection clause.

Armored_One 3 years, 10 months ago

Please tell me that was completely tongue-in-cheek. I was honestly with you up to that last sentence.

Go ask Rosa Parks how that separate but equal thing worked up until she took a bus ride.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

"But - big but - in a pluralistic society a minority has no right to impose their opinion on secular issues that affect the rest of us."

So, what was the secular reason why gay marriage is illegal and marriage rights are forbidden to them?

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Well first of all I assume you are talking Kansas as they are legal in a number of states. There illegal here because the presumed majority ruled them so.

majority rule only applies when you are taxing the minority. majority rule does not apply when limiting what you want to do??

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Fundamental constitutional rights are what limit the majority.

Otherwise, states would still be free to deny interracial marriage.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

The majority doesn't have the right to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry - it's a fundamental constitutional right.

In my view.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Not sure there is full agreement that marriage is in the constitution. We do have a problem that back then in a different religious environment it appears the perception was that religions dealt with marriage with state (not federal) protections for legal matters (which developed for the most part over time).

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

The SC decision in the case Loving vs. Virginia establishes marriage as a "fundamental right".

That case dealt with interracial marriage.

I'd be ok if we simply removed any legal benefits to marriage as well - that could also solve the problem, as long as gay couples had the same rights as straight ones.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Ok, but that was marriage between a man and a women. Probably have to go back to the SC to clarify other.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

@Moderate

Your statement implied that the issue was secular. If it is a secular issue, it should have secular justifications. It is therefore reasonable to ask what the secular justification is for gay marriage to be illegal and gay partnerships to be denied the same rights provided to heterosexual partners.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

That was my point - thank you

I have long supported civil unions for all state sponsored activity realated to marriage. I reserve the term marriage for the faith based communtiy. Not because I believe it is right but because I believe it gets the job done with the minimum conflict. That is it clearly seperates the secular issue form the relgious one. A national civil union standard will in a decade or more to normalization of terminology.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

Well, I certainly see nothing wrong with that stance, but I don't really think that will solve the problem. I don't think that people are honestly afraid that their religious leader (reverend, pastor, priest, etc.) will have to perform ceremonies against their will.

The issue that most people against gay marriage seem to have is in acknowledging gay relationships as being valid. Put homosexual relationships on equal footing with heterosexual relationships and we'll see the same arguments we see now.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Legally yes. Morally they are free to believe anything they want. The state can not make me like you or accept you to my party. They can make me treat you legally consistently with everybody else.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@Armored_One:

"What is the legal, not religious but actual LEGAL, reason to deny any two consenting adult human beings a lisence to become married?"

That's a complicated issue.

Marriage is a creature of state law, not federal. Some states ban same-sex marriage in their constitution. Others ban it by statute. For the states that ban it by statute, it may violate the equal protection and due process clauses of their state constitution. A lawsuit would determine the issue. That's how several states have gotten gay marriage, e.g., Iowa, California, Massachusetts. For states that ban it in their constitution, it is illegal period, no questions asked; the state constitution is the controlling law for any state government. That's true even if the state constitution has equal protection and due process language because the amendments banning same-sex marriage post-date/supersede those more general rights.

Against that state backdrop, our federal constitution has both equal protection and due process guarantees. Gay rights advocates have been unwilling to assert a legal right to same-sex marriage under the federal constitution because they do not believe the Supreme Court would rule in their favor. (The supreme court only just found a right to engage in same-sex sexual activity in 2003.) If such a right were found, it would trump state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. The first major lawsuit to make those claims was brought by people outside the LGBT community in California to challenge California's constitutional amendment (Prop. 8). It's currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

jonas_opines 3 years, 10 months ago

God's not gonna be there. Just a bunch of people who pretend to follow him.

Jimo 3 years, 10 months ago

Wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper if Brownback just wandered on over to Westboro Baptist Church?

verity 3 years, 10 months ago

It is rumored that Rick Perry may be planning a presidential run. Maybe Brownback is hoping Perry will pick him for the number two spot.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

This article was about people protesting the governor attending an activity in Texas sponsored in part by a religious organization. Nobody ever explained why the governor can not/should not do that

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

As long as he's not spending any public money to do it, it's probably ok.

But I'll bet he is - and thus we have a little bit of a church-state issue, perhaps.

Also, of course, if he were attending a Klan sponsored event, many people might be upset about it. Gay rights folks view this as similar to that example.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@Moderate:

"Nobody ever explained why the governor can not/should not do that"

I explained why Brownback should not attend multiple times above.

grandnanny 3 years, 10 months ago

Why does god hate Texas? Chirsitan Rick Perry is governor and he plans to hold a big prayer meeting in the state, yet the state is burning up both literally and figuratively. First wild fires consume parts of the state and then a drought burns up crops and destroys lives. I don't understand why god is punishing such a religious, conservative state. Oh, maybe god didn't have anything to do with it - maybe it is mother nature.

jonas_opines 3 years, 10 months ago

Wait, are you telling me that Brownback is some kind of conservative Christian who opposes homosexuals and thinks that we should as a nation be returning to Christianity?

Color me shocked.

geekin_topekan 3 years, 10 months ago

"we should as a nation be returning to Christianity? " +++++ From a treaty made with Muslims back on Washington's watch:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Tyhe US was never founded on Christianity. The founding fathers made that very clear when they wrote of "nature's God" and endowed by "their creator". The Founding fathers did not write, they were" endowed by Christ" or the "father,none and spirit". The fouders wanted to protect us FROM religion rather than grant "religious freedom".

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Well Joe you provided an opinion on why you think he should not go. Others provided opinions as to why he has the right to go. You certainly have a right to raise a moral objection. The religious group he will attend is also raising a moral objection. Why is your moral objection more valid than their's - because you say so?

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 10 months ago

@moderate:

"You certainly have a right to raise a moral objection. The religious group he will attend is also raising a moral objection. Why is your moral objection more valid than their's . . ."

I say it's bad policy for public officials to endorse discrimination. That's a secular argument for inclusion.

The prayer organizers say it's bad policy for society to recognize a minority group their religion disfavors. That's a non-secular argument for exclusion.

Our government is secular and represents all people.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

Of course it does. Right now given the defense of marriage Act Mr. Brownback is endorsing the legal secular position.

When that is changed (notice I said when not if) then it would be inappropriate for him to do what he is doing. You see this as discrimination. They see it as a moral abomination. Again why does your opinion trump?

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Because their view of homosexuality, whatever it may be, doesn't give them the right to discriminate.

They can, of course, continue to believe whatever they like, even when we grant all citizens equal rights, so their rights aren't being infringed upon.

Kathy Getto 3 years, 10 months ago

Don't you see, George, it is all about controlling the masses. Religion didn't exist as we know it until we started living in large groups and the usual methods of control stopped working, i.e, shunning, gossip....they (the devine, cough, cough) are in crisis mode - too many folks problem solving and thinking for themselves.

notaubermime 3 years, 10 months ago

Because it isn't one opinion versus another. DOMA and Brownback's views are that the government should denigrate homosexual relationships by not extending them the same rights as heterosexual relationships. It is a government invasion of one of the most private and personal experiences a person can have in their life.

If you accept that someone's moral opinions should allow the government to interfere with one's personal relationships, then you are on the same page with Brownback and the organizers of this prayer rally.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

One more time.

Legally the government has no business treating people differently but it does all the time. Keep working to fix it.

Moral considerations are up to the individual and the state has no business there.

Keep them separate as the constitution does.

Brownback is within current legal and moral proscriptions. But it is still more complex. He is both an elected official and a person. As a person, he is free to exercise his moral beliefs. As an elected official, he must uphold the laws of the state. Assigning him a responsibility to uphold one side of a moral argument is disingenuous. Hi is violating no legal constraint.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.