Previous   Next

Did you vote?

Asked at Borders Books, Music and Cafe, 700 N.H. on April 6, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Barbara Geyer

“Yes. I voted no on the gay marriage ban amendment. I think it’s unfair to discriminate against people just because they are different from us.”

Photo of Michelle Sumovich

“I did vote. I voted against the amendment, but I don’t think you have enough room for all of the reasons why.”

Photo of Dylan Rassier

“Yes I did. I voted no on the gay marriage ban amendment, and I voted to issue the bonds for school finance.”

Photo of Bessie Walker

“Yes. I voted for Carpenter and Amyx. I went against the gay marriage ban and voted for education.”


lunacydetector 12 years, 11 months ago

i cannot understand how some people can call me a bigot because i want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. i know all about bigots because i am an American who happens to be black. All you do gooder white folk can put that in your pipe and smoke it, unless you are in a bar or restaurant of course.

lunacydetector 12 years, 11 months ago

i voted with the majority of kansans and kept the gays from the possibility of getting married. imagine the pandoras box that could have been opened if gays were ever allowed to marry. if two men can marry, what would stop fred from marrying fido. or, allowing tom, dick and harry to marry. if it's discriminatory not to allow tom to marry dick, why isn't it a matter of discrimination to stop tom and dick from adding harry to their marriage? why should poor harry be left out?

if love is the sole basis for marriage, then what gives society the right to deny a marriage license to fred and fido? or, for that matter, to richard and karen, a brother-sister couple who love each other in a way most people find unnatural? surely it is irrational to forbid incest! after all, we once made it illegal for whites to marry blacks, didn't we? so isn't it the same to deny fred and fido; tom, dick and harry; and richard and karen? wouldn't it be intolerant to say no to this happy trio of lovers? isn't this what makes America great - equal rights for those who commit bestiality, polygamy, sodomy and incest?

Thank God we have sanity in this state, not including douglas county. the crazies just couldn't defend their logic. now, it is suggested the majority progressives should sue the state over the gay marriage issue. hasn't lawrence seen enough lawsuits? evidently the claim that gay marriage was illegal already and didn't need to be added to the state constitution was a lie.

12 years, 11 months ago

yes, and also voted no against the amendment. Why should anyone's rights be taken away for someone else's smug sense of satisfaction and superiority? today i'm ashamed to be a kansan.

By the way, lunacy, why do you feel the need to try to defend your position? is it because you feel guilty for being an arrogant, intolerant bigot? good, you should. (by the way, your argument is so full of logical fallacies that i'm not even going near it with a ten foot pole.)

emdeees 12 years, 11 months ago

i'm not old enough to vote, but if i was, i sure as hell would not have voted for the ammendment. does anyone realize that this is not freedom preservation? it may not directly affect all people in kansas, but no matter how you say it, it is putting restrictions on freedoms of all humans, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Kristen Murphy 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted no as well. I was so mad. This makes Kansans look like complete morons. Yea for Kansas. Love this great conservative state that can't accept those who do not feel they need to be married. This doesn't just affect the gays, it affects common law couples and those who just chose to live together. Grr.....

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

Yes of course I did and voted a BIG " NO " on the ammendment, but it didn't pass.

I'm not closed minded to a person's choice, but it looks as if others are. I'm okay if others argue the point because it doesn't change my mind any so it doesn't bother me one bit.

Like I have said before........Love is the strongest emotion ( besides hate, and there way to much of that already in the world ) and we should be able to love and marry who we want to.

If you find love out there, just remember that this love is between the two of you and who cares what anyone else thinks.

Just my thoughts though and have a great day.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

I think it's kind of amusing when someone compares a rational adult, who happens to be gay, to a dog, or a gorilla, then talks about crazies. IF you want to talk about a slippery slope, stick with polygamy. There's at least some logic in connecting the two, even if it is, in this case, totally coincidental.

I just wish Hack had won. A board with some liberalism, some moderatism, and some conservativism would be good. Least likely chance of them ever getting anything done, which is the way the government should be.

Truthfully, I'm going to have to side with Con1 on this. The gay lobbyists really should have pursued, from the beginning, to have civil unions instituted when they had the chance. I think, before all of this amendment garbage started moving forward in reaction to the court ordered weddings, that civil unions would have been run through fairly easily. I can understand why the gay community wouldn't have wanted it that way, but I think history shows for most successful civil rights movements, there was a period beforehand of seperate but (un)equal before true equality was allowed to develop.

thisismarlee 12 years, 11 months ago

you know its sad that during all the horrible things going on in the world today dealing with freedom and rightiousness we still have to live in a state with so much hatred and bigotry against any form of love. do you realli care if a man loves another man?? why because you feel threatened? sounds to me like all of you that passed the amendment are small, frightened children. grow up. concern yourself with your own lives and stop dictating other's. this is america we're supposed to be the greatest country in the world but quite frankly in the meer 19 years i've been alive nothing squashed my faith in "freedom" and the "american way" more than the last couple days. its not right and one day you'll look back and realized what you've done. i just hope you can learn to live with yourselves. and the question still remains...what if it was your you realli want to deny them any chance at love just because it makes you a little uncomfortable??? you make me sick.

crazyleaflady 12 years, 11 months ago

I don't understand the logic of "protecting" marriage with this amendment. Nice try, lunacy, but by that logic we need a constitutional amendment to define all relationships. I mean, if people can adopt children, what's to keep parenting from including kitty cats? Don't we need a constitutional amendment to define "parenting" as the relationship between a biological or adoptive human adult and a human child? GOD FORBID! PEOPLE WILL START ADOPTING PARROTS AND GIVING THEM LEGAL INHERITANCE RIGHTS!

The problem with your logic is that no one's trying to marry Fido. If that were the case, we could define marriage as between humans. Your problem is with gay people.

I don't think you're a bad person. you might not even be consciously bigoted. But by definition you are an ignorant person: ignorant of the humanity of lesbians and gays, and ignorant of the ramifications of denying rights and of amending a constitution.

I do wonder what you and others really think you're "protecting." What would be lost if gays could marry? Actually, family stability would be gained. If you're interested in "protecting" marriage (especially if you're Christian), maybe we should outlaw divorce. Or adultery. You'll note Jesus wasn't too keen on that, though he didn't say a word about homosexual people or acts. (Interestingly, the medieval Church DID allow marriage between same-sex couples).

Before you say "amen" to outlawing divorce, I might add that there's a good reason church and state are separate, just like there's a good reason we shouldn't have constitutional amendments to specifically DENY rights to people: it's a protection for the church, and it's a protection for people, even you.

At least you know now that when they come for you, we won't be here to help you out.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

Don't play the race card here, lunacy, when you have been one of the most vocal and disingenuous posters when it comes to the issue of anything gay. Black people can be racist and bigoted too! In fact, anyone can.

thisismarlee 12 years, 11 months ago

p.s. does anyone else remember the whole evolution dispute? and they thought we were poor dumb rednecks then. lol

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

Of course I voted. And I voted to preserve the uniqueness of the family, the foundation stone of society.

Daemon: People give reasons for their positions because that's what we do here discuss and debate. That wouldn't be possible if no one stated the basis for their beliefs. Reading the few posts you've made, I see that you've defended your positions also. I note with interest that in this instance you decline to defend your position and instead choose to call names. This could simply be disappointment and anger that an overwhelming majority of Kansans disagree with your position, or perhaps you have little confidence in the basis for your own beliefs and don't want them exposed to refutation.

Other vote notes: Even in Douglas County 37% voted in favor of the amendment, but the LJW couldn't find a single one of them "On The Street". // Reading the accompanying article on today's question, the need to teach logic in schools is painfully apparent. A constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional, Bruce Ney's confusion notwithstanding. // And speaking of schools, I think it was unwise of Lawrence voters to approve yet another bond issue, considering what the district did with the last one. Throwing more money at it does not improve education. Establishing a merit pay system for teachers will.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Yes, I voted. Is the marriage ban retroactive? Does this mean I can get all my stuff back from my common-law ex-wife?

I sit here with a growing sense of concern about where this country is going. I am aware that 71% of this region will be pleased with the result and that's just the way it is. That most of the people voted their religion doesn't bother me as much as the fact that of the 71%, there will be too many who gloat and too few who reflect upon what will happen next - this is the real tragedy.

crsifers 12 years, 11 months ago

all other things aside -- kansans being kansans and voting as conservatively as possible -- it is nice to live in the one shining beacon of hope -- douglas county. I'm just glad that the entire state map wasn't blue at the end of the night.

thank you douglas county for being so open minded and educated on the issue.

as for the rest of the and understand things before you take your neighbor's opinion to the polls.

acg 12 years, 11 months ago

I'm so disheartened I could cry. I can't believe there are so many hateful, close minded, bigoted people in one little area. I'm proud of Douglas Co. though. I don't live there anymore, but thanks, you guys, for being the only voice of reason in a state full of hatemongers. Oh and yes, I did vote. Not much good it did.

crsifers 12 years, 11 months ago

oh, and for rev. scott hanks who says this will hold marriage to a higher standard.....all i can do is laugh... heteros have been screwing up marriages for years.... higher standard heh heh

craigers 12 years, 11 months ago

I always thought that a natural relationship with humans and with animals allowed the chance of reproduction. Doesn't seem to have a chance with gay marriage. I am just glad that the majority of people in Kansas are still conservative. Instead of Douglas county being a glimmer of hope, I think the light is fading fast.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: I may be wrong but my impression was that much of the bond issue was for building improvements and new facilities.

Oh, and let me apologize for this in advance but I can't help myself. You'll note that the question was asked at a bookstore. It is not surprising to find opponents of the ban at a place where people read.

acg 12 years, 11 months ago

hehe, that was awesome r_u. Too true.

pistachio 12 years, 11 months ago


A state constitutional amendment is not, "by definition", constitutional if it runs afoul of the United States constitution. If the god-fearing people of Kansas voted for a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriage or establish a state religion, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If you got that half-baked idea in Kansas schools, I'd say they could use all the money they can get.

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

r_u: I hope when they rebuild South Jr. High (where I once worked) they stick to designs that have proven successful in the past. In 1968 when the current building was constructed, the district decided to chase after some faddish, untested notions of educational theory. Correcting and compensating for them has cost a lot of money over the years. // I'm approaching 4000 pages of reading so far this year, not including course work, periodicals, or anything on-line. Well-read does not always equal liberal. btw, "apology" accepted! ;)~

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted FOR the amendment.

Marriage isn't a right. The will of the people has decided. I'm sure all of you libs will try to take it to the courts like you do everything else you can't get votes for. The amendment passed by a margin of nearly 2 to 1--seems like a strong statement to me.

crohan1978 12 years, 11 months ago

You people need to get a grip and realize that a large majority of the country is against gay marriage. Now, if it was asked if you are for civil unions, I think most people would probably say okay, gay marriage, no. Marriage was ordained by God, and it is our religous term for a committment between a man and a woman. Have you gay union, but don't dare call it marriage.

You people act like Kansas is the first state to pass this law, but California, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, and many more have all passed similar amendments to their respective constitutions. Look at the results in all those elections, and you will see a large majority voted in favor of the gay marriage ban.

acg 12 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, don't you dare call it marriage. After all, marriage is so sacred, straight people have been treating the institution of marriage with the respect it deserves since the beginning of time. Don't you dare try to be happy gay people. You don't deserve it. After all, you ARE second class citizens. We don't care to hear your opinions, nor do we care to protect your rights. We will, however, take your tax money. Thanks, now go away...

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

God is dead

Well, once again you jesus freaks have managed to get it all wrong. Your simple minded view of the world has managed to pick out a group of people who have done nothing to you, and tell them that you know best.


Who cares what the vast majority of America thinks, they have got it wrong. Democratic tyranny.

Thank god we have the courts, they are bullwark against the majority and help balance things. Activist Judges! Now is your time!

I am now fearing for science standards or even reason. Now that jesus freaks have flexed their muscles, what is next? Perhaps you can tell us that the earth is flat or that god is telling us something during an eclipse.

God is dead.

crsifers 12 years, 11 months ago

i think you are mixed up meant to say "Oppression" instead of "freedom"

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

pistachio: First, thanks for not putting an "h" in my name. I've never understood why that happens to often. Second, I stand corrected (or perhaps I should say "amended") vis-Ã -vis state vs. US constitution. A few powers were delegated to the federal government (i.e. the United States) by the free and independent states, and in these areas the US Constitution takes precedence. However, a Kansas state religion, while prohibited by Section 7 of the Kansas constitution and an extremely bad idea for a number of reasons, would not be federally unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law. . ." does not restrict what Topeka may or may not do.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: I hope we are past the point of experimentation with our education system - we can't afford the luxury of mistakes. The situation is too grim and I'm sad to say that I'm shocked at the preparedness level of the average university freshman. Recent poor performance is due to lack of motivation or attitude, inferior problem solving skills, and a tragic absence of critical thought. Thank goodness for the few students in every class that exceed my lowered expectations and inspire me to continue the struggle.

I do not blame primary and secondary teachers and think the greatest improvement in preparation can be achieved by inspiration, motivation, and attitude. Little ones always seem to love discovery but somewhere along the way they loose interest. Why? Sorry about the wandering diatribe - but it seemed time to change the subject.

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

Voted for freedom? Nice platitude. When voting to discriminate against a specific group of people is freedom than jebus help us.

You choose to align yourself with those people so be it, but remember that 30% of the population said no. Our constitution is set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sooner or later reason will triumph over fear and oppression...

Freedom. hah. good one.

Laura 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted "no" with regard to the constitutional amendment. As a Jewish woman, it occurs to me that any law that prevents an individual from enjoying the same fundamental rights as another (and of course, this is where the "Fido" and polygamy arguments deflate) is inherently discriminatory and therefore, abhorrent. The bottom line is that people fear homosexuality and laud homogeneity. Pardon me for making this tired connection, but so did the people of Germany not so long ago. We have learned nothing.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 11 months ago

Kline lost me on his last post...

...thank you BunE for cleaning it up.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Nice, 30 posts before 10am. I could just cry with joy. Now that the amendment has passed, lets stop calling each other bigots and homos and such and discuss whether the amendment is constitutional. I hear that it takes away rights, but what does that mean? Someone please help!

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Oh, there's a good one, Laura calling 70% of Kansans nazis.
man, can there be a reasonable discussion in this forum?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 11 months ago

captain....the name calling does no good. I do like your suggestion to look into the constitutionality of this amendment.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 11 months ago

i think the brains have just been sucked outta this entire room and I feel like I'm perpetuating this by even responding.

Laura 12 years, 11 months ago

Mr. Captain Poindexter: Your post about my comment makes me so weary. I knew someone was going to purposefully misread what I said. My point was merely that history has shown us over and over what happens when "some animals are more equal than others." End of sermon. If you want to think that translates to my calling 70% of Kansans nazis, that's fine. But we both know you're being censorious and obtuse in order to elicit a knee-jerk reaction. I leave you to your misinterpretations and narrow readings. I am out of here.

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

r_u: Now I'm the one who can't help myself. Perhaps this "tragic absence of critical thought" would explain the pervasive liberalism on many campuses. Seriously though, you mention attitude and motivation twice. These things must be instilled by parents when the children are young. Lacking that foundation, even very good teachers will find it difficult to teach. The support of involved parents is critical to the success of any child's education. Any ideas on how to nurture this among parents in our community? Anyone?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

I am hearing terms like "fundamental rights" and "rights" and "discrimination" etc. with no explanation of what they mean. By now its pointless to name call and be embarassed. If you want to defeat something like this, you have to, now, challenge it by explaning HOW it is unconstitutional or HOW it violates fundamental rights, if the amendment even does. I don't have an opinion yet, that's why I'm asking for clarification. You can continue to call people nazis, bigots, etc., but unless you make a reasoned argument, that 70% is going to turn into 72% and upward.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

censorius? what does that mean? she must be much smarter than I. really, I'm not kidding.

merrywidow033 12 years, 11 months ago

you do realize that there already WAS a law on the books saying marriage was between a man and woman, so why was it necessary to make an amendment? well, 'cos they DO want to discriminate by not even allowing civil unions between couples (and this does include common law marriages between "straight" couples)

my question is why was that church and it's leader able to get so involved with a political race? i thought (i might be wrong) that they were supposed to stay away from politics? while i was watching that church leader (i think his name is terry fox) he said "i'm tired of the liberals always winning" does that not qualify as a political stance? i smell something stinky in kansas, and it sure isn't IBP this time.

merrywidow033 12 years, 11 months ago

censori*ous; adj Tending to censure; highly critical. Expressing censure.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Churches can get involved in political things without violating their 501(c)(3) status. There are FEC opinions and Kansas Ethics Opinions on the issue.
Check out their websites. In fact, churches have been involved in politics from day 1 in this country. Sometime for better or worse, but it will never go away.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Ah, I get it, Thanks merrywidow!!!! by the way, I am so sorry for being so censorious or highly critical, maybe I should take my ball and leave the game to instead of discussing.

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted for the schools and against the amendment. I refuse to support bigotry and oppression of any group. As for the dog analogy, I've never heard a dog say "I do", but then again, some bigots are prone to comparing any cultural group as dogs. I have had gay family members and have gay friends, and I will not endorse prejudicial behavior.

It's fundamentally wrong for the government to place a restriction on a religious ceremony. I find it ironic that any convict on death row can get married, but two law-abiding gay people can't get public recognition for their commitment. I'm guessing the religious right is afraid their divorce rate will be lower.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Laws discriminate everyday, doesn't exactly mean they are unconstitutional. would it make a difference if the constitutional amendment said civil unions were ok?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

I've heard a dog say "I love you." It was hilarious.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Actually, I rather curious about that myself. Why do single sex partners (and parents) threaten the concept of family?

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago

Yes. And no. And yes (on both the school finance q's).

Laura, skirting the Godwin already!


Anyway, I wrote in my blog about this craptacular amendment, but here's my take on this issue.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. So, what's going to happen?

The DOMA law would seem to be trumped by the above, which means that as soon as one state makes gay marriage legal, that creates a constitutional issue. So, either there's a national gay marriage amendment (even more pathetic than the state amendments, since that makes us a whole nation controlled by the religious retards), or there's a few states making money off gay couples coming to get married.

virgo 12 years, 11 months ago

I did vote, against the amendment, and I am glad, of course, that I live in Douglas County.

For the individual who isn't sure which rights are being violated, I would suggest that the "inalienable" right of the pursuit of happiness should include forming long-term relationships and entering into civil contracts which offer similar benefits to those of married couples.

Allowing heterosexual married couples to receive clear, civil benefits while denying those benefits to unmarried heterosexual or gay couples seems to violate the clear spirit of anti-discrimation which can be found in many federal amendments to the Constitution.

For those who say that marriage is a religious institution, did they fail to notice the wording of the amendment, which clearly stated marriage is a civil institution? And, those who argue that gay/lesbian couples should fight for a "civil union" law should have noticed the amendment prohibits any relationships besides heterosexual marriage from obtaining similar rights.

If conservatives are truly afraid of the kinds of "slippery slope" possiblities mentioned above, then I think those concerns should be addressed by liberals.

And, finally, if marriage were simply a religious institution, then there would be no way to support specific legal/civil benefits to married couples.

I also hope for substantive, rational, civil discussion of these issues.

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

Of course laws discriminate, but they are not supposed to discriminate against a law-abiding particular group of people.

70% of people telling me that blacks are 3/5 of a man does not make it right.

There is no assault on the Family, this gay union thing is a red herring designed to make us talk about something besides illegal wars, poverty in America and abroad. It is also a conduit for the religious right to IMPOSE its morality on all of us. I would think that believers would want to have their faith accepted not force-fed.

Look at the birdie eh? Hey, where's my wallet? Those immoral homos threatened my family. WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Doesn't make any more sense than changing the constitution.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


Nicely said. And yes, marriage is not truly a religious institution; it is a civil contract for ensuring certain rights (survivorship, inheritance, etc.). Notice you don't have to get married in a church, or even by a clergy member?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

I think the Amendment was done to prevent FFC Clause problems. If the constitution of one state says they do not recognize something like gay civil unions, a civil union in another state cannot be applied there.

Proponents of the Amendment indicated that is why the marriage statute in Kansas was ineffective (Defense of Marriage Act). Proponents state that the Amendment was needed to prevent ANY state judge from ruling that, for example, a civil union in Vermont (which I think is great), should be recognized in Kansas.
A constitutional amendment to the Kansas constitution banning gay marriage, civil unions, etc. prevents a gay couple from claiming that right in Kansas. At least that's how I understand it. "religious retards" now you're convincing me.

see, the problem is that you had me, you were making sense until then. man.

Liberty 12 years, 11 months ago

The amendment is really a result of the corrupted court system of some judges that think they can create law from the judiciary instead of only from congress. We need a restoration of the Consitution being enforced on all branches of government so amendments like this are not needed to counter judges that are operating outside of the bounds of the Constitution.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Liberty: My impression is that the judicial system "interprets" the constitution, just because they don't interpret it in a way you agree with doesn't mean they are corrupt. Do you have a specific example?

In theory a judge might rule in a way as to "pass the buck" up to a higher court for greater precedent. And don't forget you vote to retain local judges - if one is actually corrupt they can be removed. Federal and state judges can be impeached - so if there is a clear path for removal of judges. The constitution should be not be amended just because of a few judges, but for clarification and in the case of this ban - to reflect the peoples wishes (wrong as I think they may be).

If the Supreme Court rules that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional then the states are free to amend and ratify the U.S. constitution so that it can only be interpreted one way.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


And yet the federal Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Marriage is a civil act, correct? So in what way does the federal constitution lose to a state constitution?

And I do certainly recognize that this is the argument that proponents of this ban put forth for a national marriage amendment.

And in what way was the Kansas Marriage Act ineffective? I don't remember lines down at the courthouse for gays to engage in marital man-loving sanctioned by the state.

Sorry about the religious retards crack. Little frustrated.

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

For all of maybe 7 minutes that it took, I read the link. Maybe a dozen quotes, give or take a couple, since I didn't bother to count them.

Now you go read this one. Not only does it come with quotes, which, shock of shocks, match the ones in my copy of 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939', but it also comes with pictures.

One final, parting question.

If Hitler was so dead-set against Christianity, why did he celebrate, both on teh occassion and the anniversary thereof, the recognization of Hitler's Germany by Pope Pius XII?

You are mouthing nonsense that has been poured into your head. You give me a 2 page web site, and I give you an 8 link web site, with each link being 3-8 pages long.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

What a lovely sight (site)! So many thoughtful posts already! I voted and of course, I voted yes for schools and no to prejudice and bigotry. Normally, I'm not one for morning talk radio but yesterday on the The Buzz (96.5) a girl phoned in to tattle on her minister who was preaching politics from the pulpit. He was, of course, all for the amendment. She was disgusted and angry and ended up giving his name out on the air. This morning I was flipping around on the dial and ended up on 96.5 again to hear that same minister on the air "debating" with the DJs. One of the DJs was openly gay and he asked the minister to say to him: "I think you are a second class citizen and you don't deserve the same rights as other Americans". The minister was hard pressed to do it. Finally he said it but not as a direct comment to the gay DJ. He was unable to give the object of his bigotry a face. And therein lies the problem. Maybe all of those who voted for the amendment need to see that there are fully functional loving and caring GAY PEOPLE in commited relationships. Maybe they need to meet the couples that I know personally with kids and jobs and houses. What gay folks are lacking is respect from the majority of people in this country. And its no surprise with fear mongers like Lunacydetector and his kind. Allowing gays to marry and/or have civil unions will only strengthen marriage and give the homosexual community a chance to show that being gay isn't some scary dirty lifestyle. What is so sad is that I know in most of those voters' hearts there isn't hate. Its fear, plain and simple. Fear of the unknown, fear of change. And with conservative and Christian media feeding them BS like "Fred and Fido" its no surprise. How far we have fallen. "Kansas-as bigoted as you think" indeed.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

bthom37 - frustrations abound. I find that if I take a slow deep breath, let it out, then hit my head really hard against the keyboard it helps.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


Could you come here and remove the 'alt' key from my forehead? please?

craigers 12 years, 11 months ago

Thanks goatdog for your input, I appreciate it.

I was just wondering that if there already was a law that defined a marriage, being between a man and a woman, then why wasn't bigotry screamed earlier? Is it double the bigotry to put on the constitution of our state what is already said by our laws? I just don't remember such outcry before the ammendment was suggested.

Christians have the same voting rights as do all other Americans. There are not any different when it comes down to that, so this whole thing about churches, which designates the people in them, not being able to participate or even a question as to whether they should participate is bogus. The minister should not endorse candidates from the pulpit, but they definitely should tell their congregations to vote according to the Word of God.

Jay Bird 12 years, 11 months ago

After all "God" created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve. Hell Yeah I voted YES on the ban. All of you who complain about the "Holier than Thou, then move out of the Bilble Belt. Our founding Fathers weren't a bunch of retards. If the Pope can get away with telling gays that they can't get salvation, then who are you to say they can get married. No wonder that child molesting Leroy is moving here. Lawrence is going to Hell in a hand basket.

Tell you what Larryvillers, Make Pot legal, give guns to felons, and then maybe gays can get married. After all, we don't want people feeling left out. I just hate it when feelings get hurt. All the Libs in this county need to suck it up. Everyone has to listen to all their crying about how this is bad and that is wrong. What are we going to change the name of Lawrence to, Sodom or Gomorrah. Why don't all you read up on that to see how it worked out.

If you cry about people bring the bible in to this, then ask your self why do you want to be "married"? Some jobs offer insurance for domestic partners. Being married is the joining of 2 people under God. God does't want gays to marry. Do I need to repeat it a couple of more times so it will sink in. God does't want gays to marry. God does't want gays to marry.

If you don't believe in the Bible, then what do you believe in. Marrage was defined in bible, thats what the Pastor holds when you get married, not a copy of "High Times". If you do believe in the bible, then why do you feel that "sodomy", the only sin that angered god so much that he destroyed 2 citys over, should be legal. Homosexuality in itself is a sin.

Before you try and bite my head off, God may love all the Gays, Theives, and Killers, but He still HATES Sodomy. I'm just glad that the rest of the state isn't as lax as the whiners here. Checks and Balances I guess.

acg-I want gays to be happy, heck, I want you to be happy. Do you think that gays won't divorce? Choice you make will choose what "rights" you give up. If I rob a bank, I lose my right to live at home, just like if I choose to be gay, I can't get married. Wasn't legal before, won't be legal now. As far as tax money, consider it rent to live here. You pay taxes no matter where you live. Gay or not. Besides, you don't even live here any more.

Bune-I don't remember God saying the world was flat. And if god is dead, then why marry. After all, it's 2 people being joined under His eyes. Or do you just think it's a tax break and a peice of paper.

crsifers-The only reason it passed here was because of Lawrence. After all we do have GayU on the hill, and my neighbor is gay. She voted for the ban too.

Hum, I guess they aren't all bad.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

The way I understand it, however, is that the Federal Courts cannot interpret a State's constitution. That is why a state constitutional amendment works. It technically does not "trump" the Fed. Const., the Fed. Courts just cannot interpret a state's constitution.

However, if a state's constitution is deemed to be violative of, say, the 4th or 14th Amendments to the Fed. Const., then it the State must abide by the Fed. ruling.

I may be wrong, I don't think so, but I may be.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


The 14th amendment is also at issue here. " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

cf. Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term . . . ['liberty' refers to the following] . . . the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children . . . "

Also see Loving v. Virginia.

StirrrThePot 12 years, 11 months ago

You bet I voted. And it appears once again Douglas County is the only one in Kansas with intelligent people.

I ask you people, what on earth could homosexual couples do to make a mockery of marraige that heterosexuals haven't already done??? I mean seriously, people! With the divorce rates, domestic abuse, infidelity, and God-knows-whatelse, we might as well ban heterosexual people from it too, because alot of them can't get it right. unbelievable. Kansas citizens, don't get mad because the rest of the country sees us as uneducated, out-of-touch, and just plain stupid.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

also though, there needs to be a definitition of "marry" that's something we don't have yet, and something that the supreme court must address as the country gets closer to having 50% of the states with anti-gay marriage amendments. the supremes can't punt on this one. I predict they will meet the definition of "marry" in the next few years. Without a clear definition of "marry," the argument could be made that gay folks CAN marry, just not marry a person of the same sex. I've heard that argument before, its weak, but legally it may hold water. so I'm not totally sold that the 14th amendment is in play here, at least not yet. but a good and clear argument, thanks!

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

Happygolucky, maybe reading isn't your forte but I think we have made it pretty clear that marriage is a CIVIL union not necessarily a religious one. You can get married at city hall or in a church. If it were only based on the bible then all marriages outside of a church would be null and void. Uh oh, I got married in South Park!!! ?Looks like my married status should be taken away. Oh man, what about all those marriages done under a different religion? Those should be ignored too! Besides, good christians (why does that sound more and more like an oxymoron?) all know that theirs is the only religion worth having. All those billions of other Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. don't really count do they? How many times do we have to say it? Marriage is not just a religious institution, marriage is not just a religious institution......

Laura 12 years, 11 months ago

Okay...I swore I was out of here, but I can't stop myself.

Note to happygolucky: If you're against sodomy, it follows, then, that you don't "go downtown," as they say. Kansas law defines sodomy, in relevant part, as any oral contact to the female or male genitalia. I send this most heartfelt message of condolence to anyone you date or marry.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


The Loving v. Virginia case is the (in)famous one in which the court ruled Virginia's miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The parallels are rather obvious. Here's the opening lines of Warren's opinion:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

Replace race with 'sexual orientation'.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

The problem with this argument, in it's present state, is that knowledge of the powers in the constitution is frequently limited to hearsay, and what the constitution itself states about rights is often assumed, and sometimes, therefore, erroneous.

Here is what the constitution says about marriage. . .


So, where do we go from here? First, let us dispense with this hogwash that marriage was ordained by God, because historical study shows that it was a secular function, associated with the transference of property (usually including the wife) and only retrospectively became a province of a Church, Sect, Cult etc. For example, it became a custom to perform a marriage ceremony in front a bishop or other official of the Christian hierarchy several centuries after the birth of Christ. To say there was no marriage before that would be, I believe, a rather rediculous assertion. To say, then, that the church has business in making laws unto the secular institutions of society IS in opposition to the ideas expressed in the First Amendment, which, as written and ratified by the same people as the original constitution, could be seen, perhaps, as congruous with the original document.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that it is neither the business of the state OR the church to declare who is capable of joining together to form a family unit, except, in the case of the church, those people who willingly join and accept the precepts of that organization.

As Virgo so eloquantly (sp?) stated above, this amendment will become unconstitutional even without the Bill of Rights in the inevitable event that another state ratifies a document providing for civil unions.

By the way, Liberty, universal application of existing laws is not creating a new law.

The new amendments is, as well, in direct contrast with amendment xiv, designed to give blacks equal rights. There is no sound reason that it should not apply just as equally to gays.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago


Furthermore, the very spirit of what the USA was conceptually supposed to be about, invalidates this by the simply, well known phrase that "All men were created equal, and endowed by their creator certain inalieble rights, among them life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness, if you prefer the more recent reinterpretation). The benefits inherent in a Civil Union (a term I'm substituting for marriage, as it is more true to what the institution actually is) provide nothing more than a clear designation by an individual for who will, in the eyes of the public and the law, share those three things. For the government to then, without any foundational basis in which to do so, dictate that a particular group of people can have these rights, and others can not, then it is in direct violation of the very concept on which this country is built. To summarize, the government's role in civil unions, according to our foundational documents, is simple: they have NO ROLE, and should have no say, in how the institution is thus performed, or who it benefits.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

I've figured it all out! If sodomy is defined as Laura stated above then its no wonder extreme christians are pissed off. None of them have gotten head in a looooong time!

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

you just can't replace one group of people with another group of people though. that's my point. the supreme's, just as they reached the issue in Loving, have to reach it in the future when it comes to gay folks marrying. just like I can't substitute "Irish" for "black" in many cases in the past, you can't simply substitute "homosexual" for race...and so on. I'm not reaching the merits or forming an opinion, I'm simply stating that it's not as easy as people think...saying rights and what not are being taken away. I don't like using this analogy, but the right to marry is limited to individuals over the age of consent, the right to marry is not extended to polygamists.
Before there are posts saying that I think they are the same, I must say I'm not saying that gay marriage is the same, I'm simply using an analogy.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

what does getting head have to do with it. for the record, I have recently.......oh nevermind. lol

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

As for the "if you don't believe in the Bible, then what do you believe in?" comment, here are a couple examples from the top of my head.

The Torah The Quran The Daodejing The Analects of Confucius The Kojiki The Doctrines of Buddhism Hinduism Marxism The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Shinto Common courtesy and respect The Golden Rule

just to name a few. . .

Funny, though, in MY recent marriage, the minester was not holding a Bible, though we read a passage from it (along with a Shakespearean sonnet) to define the nature of love, and when I wrote our ceremony and our vows, I deliberately stripped it of any reference to god (in whose existence I do, in fact, have faith) and yet, strangely, my marriage still counts. Must've been an oversight.

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

Oh goodie. The Religious Right is poised and ready to shove their proverbial foot in their proverbial mouths, although it would be much more entertaining to watch it physically happen.

I didn't bother going out to vote simply because I was willing to wager any ramdom internal organ that this inbred amendment was going to pass. If we're willing, as a state, to ban evolution once and then force it, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary, to be equal with the Creation story of the Bible, then what is the big issue of banning gay marriage, right?

It's nothing major. It's just homosexuals, and who really gives a buffalo chip about them, right?

This amendment, which more appropriately should be termed a travesty, is nothing more than a religious attempt at turning back the hands of time to the Dark Ages. Actually, that's not quite right, either, since homosexuality wasn't a crime then, unlike today.

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

Jonas: If you really believe in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxay", go to And above all, DON'T PANIC!

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

A lot of you falsely assume those in favor of the amendment are religious nuts. I voted for the amendment and have never been to church in my life.

And yes, 30% did vote against the amendment, but sorry guys, this is a democracy, where the will of the people rules. 70% to 30% clearly demonstrates that I think. If you put this same amendment up to vote for the US constitution, I bet the results would be similar for banning gay marriage.

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago

And to summarize...

"Jesus wants me to be a bigot. "

I thought he just wanted us all to be happy and love each other.

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

Ever notice that the majority of anything said against homosexuality in the Bible comes from the Old Testament, when 'God', and I use that term facetiously, was a vengeful, bloody tyrant?

Ever notice that the first step towards relocating the homosexuals in Nazi Germany was the removal of most civil liberties, including the right to marry?

Ever notice that the bigotry and violence of the German purification efforts was based entirely on direct interpretation of the Bible?

Ever notice that homosexuals are human beings?

To Hela with the debate over whether it's against this religion or blessed by that religion. Let's look at it from a purely humanistic viewpoint. Can you imagine, even for a vague heartbeat, what it would be like to be told that you have less legal standing in this nation than an illegal immigrant? A pair of border jumpers can cross over, fake their way into a marriage liscence and can be married, but someone born and raised in this country is barred from it simply because of some preconcieved notion that marriage should be a hetero-only club?

How about the fact that any will written by a homosexual, male or female, can be invalidated at any given time by direct relations of the deceased? Does this not disturb you in the least little bit?

How can human beings idly stand by and watch something like this happen and not be at least annoyed, if not royally pissed off?

We tried this nonsense back in the days of slavery. Didn't work then, but now that the Religious Right is involved, that must make things all peachy keen, right jelly bean?

craigers 12 years, 11 months ago

Jonas, How would you describe your faith in God? Do you simply believe that He exists and then that's it? I was just curious.

virgo 12 years, 11 months ago

Actually, captain, given that the Constitution states that ALL are endowed with INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I believe you can and, in fact, should be able to include any citizen of the United States under that umbrella.

The only times that those rights should be curtailed, IMHO, is if the exercise of them would directly harm another - ie. assault, etc.

The founding fathers weren't idiots, as one religious conservative poster states, and they were responsible for the idea of inalienable rights.

virgo 12 years, 11 months ago

Further, although this is a democracy, the Supreme Court has the responsibility of ensuring that the majority don't pass laws which are at odds with the Constitution. Otherwise, the people could change the nature and structure of our government, pass laws which clearly conflict with the ideas/ideals of the founding fathers, etc.

costello 12 years, 11 months ago

Laura, the fact that something is defined in the statutes does not necessarily make it a crime. KSA 21-3501 defines terms used in the sex offenses statutes. "Sodomy" does include "oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia." But that doesn't mean that that conduct is illegal. KSA 21-3505 defines "criminal sodomy" as, among other things, "[s]odomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex..." In Kansas it isn't illegal for consenting adults of the opposite sex to engage in sodomy.

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Virgo, how is the amendment that Kansas passed at odds with the Constitution?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

If you are talking about equal protection, you cannot simply insert different subgroups and call it a day. the supremes have to decide what kind of "class" gays are in. I don't mean "2nd class", just so everyone doesn't freak out I mean: race is one class, gender is another class, etc. strict scrutiny, low scrutiny, etc.

pistachio 12 years, 11 months ago


See? Once again I've managed to spell your name correctly. Consider my literacy the end result of a well-funded school system. :)

As much as you may like the idea of an official state religion, it is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that the 14th Amendment extends the religious establishment clause to the states. If Georgia can't put a sticker on science textbooks saying evolution is a theory, how could Kansas suddenly adopt a state religion??

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

damnit, nazis and hitler again, can't there be any unique rips. man. if you can't think of anything creative, at least call someone "phelps-follower" or "one of the buck-tooth guys with the god hates __" posters. etc.

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

I guess KNS needs a tad bit more proof, and/or education on the issue of Hitler being Christian, and believing that he acted in the best interests of Christianity.

"It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity."

-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

"Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933 (The first line of this quote coming directly from Psalms 127:1)

"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie."

-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

"Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions."

-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934

crohan1978 12 years, 11 months ago

Why is it that you people seem to take, well "marriage" is already trashed, so why not just keep trashing it, approach? For all you libs, the environment is already trashed, so why don't we just keep doing that too. It is the stupidest argument from you people I have ever heard.
I am not against gays having similar rights as married couples do, I am just against it being called marriage. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt. It is a proven fact that children need a mother and father figure present. Yes, there are a lot of screwed up kids, because of the way some people choose to treat marriage, and I am sure there are a lot of gay couples that could possibly do just as good but that is not how our species was set up.
Why is it that no one seems to notice how much worse society has gotten, the further we stray from our morals, and probably moreso, our religious morals. It is chaos!! They didn't have these problems just a decade or so ago, at least not at this level. Everyone has become so friggin politically correct, it isn't even funny anymore. Illegals are no longer illegals, their undocumented workers, because the word "illegal" offends them. Teachers are phasing out the use of red pens, becuase it is destructive to a childs psychological being, instead they will use purple now. Well, sooner or later, purple is going to mean the same thing red already does, do we change to blue then? What the hell are we doing to our society? It is insane! Stop this nonsense!!

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: Opening night, man, opening night! I must admit that I was skeptical at first. The style of the book is not one I would think would translate well to a linear screenplay. However, the trailers that I have seen look exciting enough to make me want to see it. After all, The LOTR trilogy stripped a lot of what I liked out of the books in their conversion to the screen, but were still quite good in their own right (are you upset at how they sacrificed your moniker's personality for added suspense, by the way?)

Craigers: To define it fully would take up more space than I probably deserve after my essay earlier, but the simplified version goes something like this: I don't know whether he created us or we created him, and don't particularly care, because either way his function is rather clear, at least to me: to provide our lives (or those who choose) with some semblance of morals and meaning, to provide a higher order for our existence that base emotion, instinct or urge (Id, if you will) and to, above all, give hope and comfort to those who need it. I should note that I have a equal faith in the fact that the Bible is just a book, and has both good and bad points, much the same as most other books written to guide or philosophise about human behavior. The thing that I stick with, though, is that in regards all of the above qualities or comforts that a belief or faith in a god can provide, god is by no means the only way to obtain those things. If god wants us to BE anything, I feel he wants us to be compassionate, respectful and helpful to each other.

As for heaven, I think a realm of eternal, unchanging bliss sounds absolutely horrific. I can get that here, for $100 a dose, if I so chose to.

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

"No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine (Lehre ) of the Confessions or with their religious freedom (Bekenntnisfreiheit ), nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.... National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God."

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

"You, my Brown Guard, will regard it as a matter of course that this German people should go only by the way which Providence ordained for it when it gave to Germans the common language. So we go forward with the profoundest faith in God into the future. Would that which we have achieved have been possible if Providence had not helped us?"

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Regensburg on 6 June 1937

The above quotes are listed in the following resource volume, of which I do have possession of a copy, thankfully.

Baynes, Norman H. Ed. "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939," Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942

Seems to me that he was ranting about being granted providence by 'God', and his actions were thus blessed.

Historians, mainly ones with a Christian background, are so ashamed of the actions of one of their own that they will stop at nothing to attempt to alter the fabric of history by recording it falsely. Thankfully, there will always be those that insist that history can neither be invented nor surgically altered to appeal to one's conscience.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


I'm back from lunch, and full of Mad Hatter-burger!

While you are correct, in the sense that you cannot simply replace one group with another (so the Loving case does not endorse gay marriage), you can look at the Loving decision as a precedent to finding such laws regarding marriage as possibly unconstitutional.

The day is coming when a case reaches SCOTUS that does test DOMA and the various state amendments. It will be very, very interesting to see what happens.

Jay Bird 12 years, 11 months ago

Laura-Nope,no beaver munching here.

Car-never said christians were were the end all say all. Did you have some bum say you were hitched. You don't have to get married "in" a church. Outdoor wedding are cool. I am having a Pagan marrage, wanna come. I feel that we should just leave it alone. So does most of the state. Sorry you lost. I guess this is how all the gays feel when I voted for them not to marry. By telll me I'm wrong, does that make you right. Anything else you want to force apon me. I don't date outside of my race, but I never said it was wrong. There is so much going on in the world, let alone right here in River City. If you can get alll of the gays to run out the child molestors who want to flock here, then I 'll think about it.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 12 years, 11 months ago

Well...there's a lot of people on this list that are calling people who supported the amendment "closed-minded", "bigoted", etc. I don't think that's it at all. Just because you don't agree with something, or a "lifestyle", it doesn't mean that you are bigoted. One does not have to accept everything that comes down the pipe.

Personally, I think that homosexuality is a defect - much in the same way that child molestation is a defect. I don't think that we should say that it's okay. I don't think that an act which is designated by the Bible as being against God's law should be protected by an act put forth in the Bible (marriage).

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Point well taken bthom37, I think you're right.

hope the burger was good, moving back to lawrence in a couple of weeks and mad hatter is definitely on my agenda.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

bthom37, t w ll be more nteresting when the SCOTUS finds aga nst the ban, and the attempt is made to amend and rat fy the U.S. const tut on - and keyboard doesn't work anymore.

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

There was hatred before the ammendment and now there is so much more since it has passed.

As a hetrosexual person I feel sad for people who do happen to be gay and fall in love with someone. They should be able to marry who they want to just like we can. Who are we to judge anyone. Who are we to say to say that since a hetro couple wasn't married but living together for who knows how many years they have no rights?

I was raised in a very Italian Catholic faimly believe it or not and to accept people for who they are and to not judge them, but look at what this ammendment is continuing to do. We are judging people because of the sexual orientation and an emotion ( LOVE ).

I simply can't and won't support this ammendment even though it has passed. We will soon have no rights to do anything anymore.

What a sad day for all involved.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


In what way is our society in chaos?

How would a family where there are two parents, of the same sex, be any worse as adoptive parents than our many single mothers? How would one gay single parent be any worse than our many single mothers?

Your 'red pen' argument is not an indication of chaos. Rioting in the streets over bread and circuses is an indication of chaos, and having just gotten back from Mass street, there was a definite lack of rioting and/or food lines.

Are there problems with society? Yes. Is political correctness the problem? Meh. PC is a strawman argument, I'm afraid. I would rather argue that a lack of tolerance for individual differences is the problem, and scaremongering of the sort that leads you to declare a 'society in chaos'. We have a society where people should be free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. And two gay people getting married in no way hurts anyone else.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


I'll just insert some i's in there, shall I?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there's a lot of support for withholding a case from SCOTUS, to try and wait for society to continue to evolve, and for the current hysteria surrounding gay marriage to die down. And I doubt the supremes want to have to take a look at this issue right now.

12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: Thanks for investigating more deeply before assuming that I never back up my beliefs. In the case of this amendment I am simply burned out and frustrated to no end by my fruitless attempts to use logic on bigots.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, and nationalism.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". Jews are understandably intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether. Both reactions can be classified as forms of cognitive dissonance.

See also: zealot, partisan, hate group

I have argued my points not only with other individuals, but mostly online, in a forum that used to exist here titled Readers Reaction. And when I would successfully disarm their arguments, as I did with all the arguments that LunacyDetector made, they would simply say "well I still feel that way no mater what." (to put it nicely) Hence my conclusion that they are bigots.

I have come to the conclusion that my making these points once again, here in this forum, will not only be relatively pointless since the votes have already been cast, but will also add to my level of frustration with this issue. You could safely assume that "disappointment and anger that an overwhelming majority of Kansans disagree with your position" is why I responded the way I did. And to be quite honest, after reading LDs post I had to take about fifteen minutes to calm down enough from my anger to write something coherent that wouldn't get me banned from the site. Anyways, just wanted to reply to your comments. Carry on!

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Some things are right in this world: Royals up 5-1 in the 4th.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

I personally know 3 gay couples raising children. Two of the couples had the children biologically (as in, the baby was born to one of the women), the other couple adopted. Let me tell you that these children are some of the most well brought up kids I know. They are intelligent, kind, and empathetic. I wish I could say that about most other kids I meet! I send my child to a private school because from what I can tell we heteros aren't exactly cornering the market on good parenting lately. I feel that if a same-sex couple wants to raise a child then that child is lucky to get 2 loving parents WHO WANT THEM!!! If same-sex couples really want to have children then they have to think about it and go thru the necessary steps (whether it be in vitro or adoption). They REALLY have to want that child. That child is planned and WANTED!!! Then there are those heteros that have children indiscriminately, whether they can raise them, let alone afford them. Which is better? You tell me. By the way, I've read up on this and there are virtually NO studies from the last 20 years that prove that same-sex parenting hurts children. The main problem is the discrimination those children will face. And that ain't their fault!

mert1717 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted for the ban. I believe the bible is the standard in life and God is pretty clear on the way he wants marriage and relationships. I understand that other people have thier views and I undertand that. Here is mine.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Carmenilla, did the Amendment reach adoption or child-bearing?

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago

Meanwhile, the Carr brothers and any other serial murderer in Kansas can still get married...

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


Um, perhaps you just revealed more about the women you attract than about women in general.

Just saying.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago

So mert, if you understand that other people have their views of how to run their own lives, why do you feel it is ok to impose your view on them? And prohibiting gay people from getting married due to your interpretation of the bible is definitely imposing your view on them.

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago

If the Bible is the standard, we're already going to hell for masturbating and eating shrimp. For all we know God has a scale that says, "Anal sex? That's a misdemeanor between consenting adults... but eating shrimp? ETERNAL HELLFIRE!".

I don't think God gives a rat's ass what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

True, BrainCase but the Carr brothers can't be put to death.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

Uh oh, eating Shrimp is against the bible? crap, I've gotta go to mass.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

And I too, TO A POINT, don't care what people do behind closed doors.

raven 12 years, 11 months ago

Crohan: I disagree that science or anything has proven that children need a mother and a father. Many children grow up and are fine, fine as in not "screwed up". Myself personally I grew up with only one parent, that being my mother. This was b/c my father passed away when I was a very young child. I think what children need are strong values, morals and a parent that loves them. Children can get this from any number of sources, even a homosexual home.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

And as has been mentioned before. Parents that will inspire, motivate, and instill in them a proper attitude for learning.

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago


I posted a response to your post yesterday, but will say it in here again.

Thanks for being so kind, you certainly made my day and I had the biggest smile on my face as I read your post.

Thanks again and have a great day.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

So, is anyone planning on leaving kansas because of the passage of the amendment?

craigers 12 years, 11 months ago

Thanks for answering Jonas, very interesting indeed.

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago


My perspective is different from many churchgoers (yes, I go every Sunday, Corpus Christi), as I've seen family members who happen to be gay deal with their inner demons. My uncle didn't make a choice - he was gay and God made him that way.

And yes, shrimp, rabbit, and other creatures are at odds with the dietary law written in the book of Leviticus.

If God hates sodomy, why did he make so many homosexuals?

questionme 12 years, 11 months ago

Two things:

1)The sanctitiy of marriage has already been destroyed. With over 50% of marriages already ending in divorce, we need to protect against divorce more than against gay marriage. Call your rep and advocate covenant marriage. The only way a divorce can happen with covenant marriage is if your spouse committs adultry, battery, or child abuse. And you can't just claim it, you have to follow through with the courts. So the day your spouse leaves for prison, don't forget the divorce papers.

2)If marriage is so 'sacred' then why do we allow judges to perform ceremonies? If this is really a 'religion' issue then we need to stop the courts from marrying people. If the church won't marry you, then you probably don't need to be married in the first place.

Ceallach 12 years, 11 months ago

My oh my. I have been reading the LJW readers reactions for several months now, a common thread has been the bewailing of the self-righteousness and bigotry displayed by the religious and conservative residents of Lawrence and the State of Kansas. Today's contributors should read over their and others' comments. Our enlightened liberal citizenry are displaying more than a little intolerance of others' beliefs and values.

Perhaps our culture's recent redefinition of tolerance is at the root of the matter. Tolerance used to mean that one "tolerated" the differences of others, you were not required to agree with them, nor were you expected to extol the virtues of their opinions, lifestyles, etc., -- you tolerated them. Now it would seem that one must not only agree that all lifestyle choices are equally valid, but in fact join in their demand that laws be restructured to accommodate an issue that you were only tolerated in the first place.

As I read through the comments of the self described intellectual and moral elite, I find very little tolerance for the beliefs of those citizens who firmly believe that their traditional values of marriage and family are in grave danger in our country. So many references to stupidity, pitiable, dumb, etc. How tolerant is that? And just because they do not agree with you -- no wait -- just because 7 out of 10 do not agree with you. That old majority thing can be a real pain!

By the way, NO, those of the Church are not required to stay out of politics. Perhaps you should read the constitution and its amendments before making such statements. It is not the religious right that look dumb when statements like that are made in print.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

don kns and italianprincess have something cooking here? lil romance on the post area is always welcomed. this makes the world right, so does this: Royals 6-1 in the 7th.

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

God is still dead, and she had nothing to do with the creation of the civil contract, commonly known as marriage. You want to have a jebus theme fine, just keep your god out of my business.

In the mean time ROYALS!!!!

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


How is it wrong to understand 'tolerance' to mean wishing other people all the chances to be happy that you or I possess?

What is tolerant about telling other people they can't marry because YOUR god says THEY can't marry? Wouldn't it be more tolerant to accept that other people can find happiness without the bible?

And again, how is your marriage and your family threatened by Frank and Steve getting married and having VERY GAY sex while waving a marriage license? As long as their doing it in their home, how does this affect you?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

hahahaha, "very gay sex" oh man, that is hilarious, dare I say, gay?

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

To the captain-I only brought up the child rearing issue because someone said that gays should not be allowed to adopt. And on another day, Lunacydetector falsely claimed that children raised by same-sex couples end up with a multitude of problems, none of which have been verified thru any sort of real studies or documentation.

And as far as Ceallach goes, no one on here with a liberal take on things has said that they are of the "intellectual and moral elite". Maybe they condemn those who voted to disicriminate against homosexuals by calling them "bigots" but the reality is that the Christian Right is being the intolerant "moral elite".

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago


It would make no difference to me what people do in the privacy of their own home.

What if someone tried to ban white people from marrying black people, hispanic people from marrying native american people? Would the country freak out over this if someone tried to make this an ammendment?

Love is love people and who said one person MUST fall in love with another person who is the opposite sex?

People who are gay are not going to give you some kind of disease. They are not going to make you gay, nor are they going to take your children and turn them gay either.

This ammendment is completely out of control by those who want to control others lives and how they should be living. Not only are gay people effected by this, but people who chose to live together and not marry. " I'm sorry Mr. Smith but you can't do this or that because you weren't legally married to Miss Jones. "

I guess the ones who are not married better get out there are do so and fast. Your rights as humans who are in love may be taken away because you are not legal in others eyes.

topflight 12 years, 11 months ago

OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. Are you serious, DOUGLAS county was the only county to vote for gay marriages. What a surprise!!!(wish you all could catch the sarcasm in all that). Any non hippy, non granola cruncher, non liberal normal lawrence person knew that would happen. 70% of Kansans believe in the sanctity of marriage. (thank god) All other states will see this precedent and hopefully they will all vote the same. Kansas looks good, makes us look like good christian people. Hey, gays and lesbians can have all the partners they want, they just cant be married, and i am fine with that. ONE MAN, AND ONE WOMAN. ONE MAN AND WOMAN. EVERYONE, SAY IT WITH ME NOW.


Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

topflight, yours is the kind of intolerant neandrathalism (yes, I made that word up and spelled it badly) that gives people reason to question evolution. You can't seem to wrap your primitive brain around the idea that it was 70% of 400, 000 people. NOT the entire state of Kansas.

Okay, now I sound like the "intellectual elite"....Damn!

tell_it_like_it_is 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted for the ban. However I hope all you folks realize that a lot of this gay hysteria from the bible thumpers and bush is to distract you from the fact that you are now paying $2.25 a gallon or more for gas, our country is still losing our boys and girls in a pointless war,taxes are skyrocketing, grocery prices are outragous,people are losing their homes in record numbers and medical bills are driving more and more people broke but their not going to be able to file bankruptcy because bush and his cronies fixed that good. Mr Bush is gonna save us all from hell fire according to his bible thumper friends. They just forget to tell you that you will be living a hell on earth.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago

topflight, I'll cut you a deal. I'll help you move out of Kansas, to reduce that 70% by one person.

I'm fixing Kansas one person at a time!

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Carmenilla, you think the results would have been different if every single person in Kansas voted? I don't.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


Um, so if this was just a decoy amendment, why'd you vote for something that helps distract people from the 'real' issues?

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

My huh was for tell_it_like_it_is.....And of course, I knew that the ban would be passed. I just get sick of hearing the pro-ban folks saying the majority of Kansas passed it. It was the majority of voters. Its just like saying Bush has a mandate (hey, isn't that illegal?) when his majority was 51% of 50% of the population. Was it even that many who voted?

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

Virgo: We're not a democracy; we're a constitutional republic. It's a fine, but very important, distinction. The Supreme Court is not the sole and final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. And actually, the people can "change the nature and structure of our government" through the amendment process. This was never to be done lightly, which is why the Founding Fathers made the process difficult, requiring supermajorities in both house of Congress and an even larger supermajority among state decisions of state legislatures.

kns: thanks for correcting the "Hilter-as-Bible-thumper" assertion.

pistachio: "As much as you may like the idea of an official state religion. . . ." Please go back and read the part of my post which stated "a Kansas state religion, . .an extremely bad idea for a number of reasons". I do not support the establishment of a state religion.

Jonas: I have a father-daughter dance opening night, or you'd probably see me there. And I was disappointed how Fangorn's decision-making process, if not the outcome of that decision, was altered for the movie. My biggest disappointment was the complete omission of Tom Bombadil (hey! doll merry O, come along, my darlings!)

Daemon: I don't think I had seen your posts before, so I had to go back and read them. I have to do that occasionally so I have a better understanding of what someone is saying in a post. Btw, I see your posts are still in single digits, so you're relatively new. Welcome to the fray!

Carmenilla: I think Jay_Z's question was do you think the ratio of for and against the amendment would have been different if the voter turnout had been higher, or perhaps even if every person in the state voted. (Jay_Z, correct me if I read your question wrong.)

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

that the hell are we talking about now? Carmenilla, reference the above conversation between bthom37 and I about suspect classifications. Race is already a suspect classification. So if there is an amendment banning blacks from marrying whites, that would surely be unconstitutional. (see bthom37's wonderful cites above). and how the hell did gas prices and war get into this conversation?

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

Once again, topflight has personafied the "love it or leave it" mentality that identifies so many as closeminded. I am a non-hippy, non granola crunching, gun owning liberal that happens to believe that sanctity has nothing to do with marriage. You righties are all the same, less government except when it comes to you "christian values".

Keep your god to yourself

Why not forcibly evict those of us who disagree with you? Perhaps internment camps? Please note the description of myself above before you knock though...

Note: if you have to tell me you are being sarcastic than you aren't very good at communication.

Bob Reinsch 12 years, 11 months ago

A hundred years from now, our grandchildren will look back on this day and wonder what the hell we were thinking. Bigotry and prejudice are wrong, whether it's wearing a hood, a swastika or a a cross around its neck.

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.

Jesus wept.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

I wasn't taking that particular subject to task, captain. I'm merely ranting on in frustration. I will say though that no matter how much I disagree with anyone I don't feel the need to tell them to leave. That seems a little too intolerant for my taste. As opinionated as I may be on this forum, my main focus in life is to live in moderation. I just wish others would stop telling people what to do in the name of religion and then legislating it!

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, Captain, you hadn't addressed anything specifically to me and you seem to be holding your own on that tiny postage stamp-size piece of ground that represents the middle in this debate. Keep your balance! You're asking some good questions.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

why are people constantly comparing christians with nazis? and why would this be an effective technique in changing minds?

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Calleach: Perhaps our society has missed the boat in trying to pursue "tolerence" anyway. It would be much better, I feel, if we were, in the long run, to pursue "not my business." The only time a society, or a government, should intervene is if there is direct damage to individual people. As individuals. If there is a victim, in other words. Society cannot be a victim. It is a concept, an abstraction, nothing more. Without society, it can not be truly said that there is a victim of homosexual behavior, without throwing in the unprovable moral belief that there is something wrong simply with BEING homosexual. Without a victim, there is no sound basis for it being anyone else's business but the people involved. If I want to present a legal document giving someone the basic rights conferred in a marriage, and they consented to bear the responsability, then I should be able to do so with WHO EVER I CHOOSE. It is my life, my stuff, and I should be able to share it with whoever I want to. However, if I want a church to bless my union with the grace of god, then I would have to follow the church precepts in order to do so.

There's really a fundamentally simple solution to this problem. Change ALL government/legally recognized "marriages" into civil unions. Hetero unions included. Make it so they can be any one person to any one person, on the grounds that the only REAL way to make sure it passes whole and consistently is to limit the conferrence (word?) of Will from one individual mind to another. Would anybody disagree with the assumption that two people would have two unique perspectives, and thus interpretations, of someone's wants and desires? Then, if the couple wishes to have a sanctified union, they would need to petition the church to accept it as well. The church, of course, would be free to demand adherence to it's doctrine in order to aquiesce, that right is certainly spelled out in the 1st amendment.

What do you think, Liberty? Is this constitutionally sound?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

hahaha, thanks Fangorn!!!!!!! My life has meaning again. PS, Royals win!!!!!

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Carmenilla, I understand what you're saying, BUT the state IS represented by those who participate in the democratic process, like it or not. How do we know how the Kansans who did not vote really feel about the amendment? We don't know. So, we go by who voted.

And a side note, Bush received the most votes in the history of US presidential elections (curiously, Kerry received the second most), and no I don't think he has a mandate despite that fact.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

Thanks for listening to me, Jay_Z without getting mad or whatever. You're right, we don't know but I can venture a pretty accurate guess....

I think the huge numbers of votes in this last presidential election speaks volumes to the division in this country. People on both sides feel that their "way of life" is being eroded. I mean, both sides feel that way, don't they?

Whats funny is that I believe that most of us want happiness for our families and friends. See, I bet we can all agree with that. It just so happens that some of my family and friends are gay. That is why it means so much to me.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

see this is the kind of discourse I like to see. if it matters to anyone what I like to see. haha

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Ceallach - there are intolerant posts from both liberals and conservatives. No one has cornered the market on rudeness. While I strongly disagree with the majority there is no arguing that it is the majority. And except for a few I believe that the majority was motivated along religious lines. Religion (and in my opinion it's inherent evils) are part of our life, and I understand that when one's God says a thing one is pretty much locked into doing the thing. Thus, the only way to truly separate religion and politics is to say religous people can't vote, which is rediculious. So there it is...I'm stuck with the fact that the majority in Kansas doesn't think as I do and there is little I can do about it.

And yes, for those that asked I have considered leaving KS. For several reasons not just because of the political climate (anti-evolution, human rights) and the embarrassment on the global stage. But also because of inability to compete with better funded universities and their ability to gather good students. The way Kansans are letting opportunities for growth and revenue pass by. Kansans are of two personalities with a "love of the land" and the urge to abuse it so, friendly yet intolerant, and with sincere / scary politicians. Right when the state could leap forward and be something it does something to pull back from success - kind of like the basketball team (ok that last part was cold).

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

Great debate on here, folks. If only we could've kept it this rational and civil on the RR forum. It might still be around. Although, the trolls from either side seem to have cooled their jets or disappeared completely. I don't miss them! I would much rather debate and exchange ideas in this lovely fashion. Thanks all!

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

the exchange is quiet because I think we've killed this horse. I agree it has been a good debate even with some of the name-calling.

bthom37 12 years, 11 months ago


By Jove, I believe you might be correct! Thanks for the fun today, trolls and serious folks alike!

Shameless self-promo: just started a blog (all of yesterday!) since I need more entertainment throughout the day!

Thanks to all, and I believe I'm leaving work early.

wichita_reader 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted no on the amendment. Civil unions for all.

Greinke, Hernandez, and Bautista each win 15+ games for the Royals this year.

Sunlover 12 years, 11 months ago

The great thing about being an American is that we can all have our own opinions and debate. I've enjoyed reading everyone's views today. I see both sides. I did not vote, because I'm torn. I have many gay friends, and I personally do not care if they chose to marry, raise children, etc. Just as someone else said, as long as no one is being hurt in the process, why does it matter? I guess what concerns me is the possible "pandora's box" effect...what's next?

sadtaco1 12 years, 11 months ago

Once again, Kansans look like a bunch of poor, ignorant rednecks. What an $#@-backwards state we live in!

captain_poindexter 12 years, 11 months ago

hahaha, wichita_reader, nice work. I hope so!

civil unions are cool with me.

I agree with you Sunlover, and I will definitely check out your blog bthom7!

Sunlover 12 years, 11 months ago

Geez, there's so many ANGRY people...what's the deal. If KANSAS IS SOOOO damn bad...MOVE.

Carmenilla 12 years, 11 months ago

Sunlover, 2 questions....What "Pandora's Box" effect do you see coming if gays were allowed to marry? Also, just because we're upset about the politics of our state doesn't mean we should move (I hate it when people say that). Do you think we shouldn't work for change in our own state? I love Kansas and want to make it better.

Ceallach 12 years, 11 months ago

It is great to be an American. I even think it's great to be a Kansan. It would be incorrect to suppose that if a person voted for the marriage ban they hate gays. Not true. Not true. Many of us have friends and family members that we love very much who are openly gay. I do not want them abused or maligned in anyway. I will defend anyone's right to the lifestyle of their choice. However, I do not believe society should turn on a dime to accommodate their choice. Choices have consequences. Always have, always will.

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

I'm glad the rhetoric has toned down a bit. It was horribly disappointing, especially when coming from a couple of people who don't usually engage in it. I realize, though, that advocates on both sides feel very strongly about this issue. And the winds of emotion can sometimes push us along faster than our moral rudder can steer. (I've been guilty of this too, at times, so I'm not intending to point fingers here.)

Earlier in the day remember_username and I tried to nudge the discussion toward the educational funding issues that (you may have noticed) were also on the ballot yesterday. We were rudely (!) ignored. ;) If we've truly "killed this horse", does anyone have any thoughts or comments on the two bond measures?

Sunlover 12 years, 11 months ago

Carmenilla: I knew someone was gonna ask me this. Well, I don't have too much time, and this could get to be a lengthy conversation. But, I do have concerns. I think it could open a whole can of worms. Where would the line be drawn? And if we keep changing the "rules", then why have them to begin with? Also--not trying to sound mean by saying MOVE...referring more to the continuous "ANTI-KANSAS" remarks people keep making. It's definitely OK to have an opinion and try to work for change...but why the ugly remarks of "I'm ashamed to be a Kansan". Get over it people. Get used to dissapointment...that was my point.

Sunlover 12 years, 11 months ago

I see so many people talking about how narrow-minded Kansas and this country is as a whole. But I think people should look at the bright side, and see how fortunate we are. Gays/Lesbians have come a long way from 20 or 100 years ago. Could be a lot worse....we could have been unlucky enough to have been born into a middle eastern country and not be able to show our face (as women). Can you even imagine being gay THERE???? Yikes.

crsifers 12 years, 11 months ago

sylvie---for the bumpersticker you might try third planet on mass...they tend to always have "controversial" stickers, buttons, shirts, etc.

topflight 12 years, 11 months ago

Dont worry. God will sort this all out. For the believers out there, you will get your answer in heaven. For the non believers, well, i guess you will just be buried under 6 feet of dirt with no answers to life. I dont feel like we look like a bunch of red necks. We show, that we are christian followers and believe the word of GOD. If that makes us hicks, then count me in. I would bet my very average salary that many other states would pass the same ban if it were voted on. Hell, lets put it on the ballot with the president in four years. HOW GREAT WOULD THAT BE. GAY MARRIAGE BAN AND ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. That would be great. And about moving out of kansas. I would move out of the USA if i could find a country as great as this one, without all the separatism, protesting, ACLU and all the other stupid crap that goes on here. WE ARE SELF-IMPLODING. Soon this country will be so divided it will be unreal.

bige1030 12 years, 11 months ago

How idiotic has the whole frame of the Constitutional amendment made us sound? We seem to think that it's only about gay marriage. We seem to think that it has no effect on anyone but gays. WRONG. BY A LONG SHOT.

You see, although gay marriage is now effectively banned from Kansas in the highest degree possible (as if it weren't before), that's not all that the Amendment says. It also says, "No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."

What about those who are de facto spouses but haven't even met the common-law standard of marriage, regardless of the gender of the constituents? Do they have protection under the laws of domestic violence? Will their powers of attorney and wills be recognized? Can they assume joint ownership of assets and liabilities? We've opened up a Pandora's box here, with so many unanswered questions that will be left up to the so-called activist judges who we were trying to avoid in the first place!

I could make the argument that wills, powers of attorney, and joint ownership of assets and liabilities are all either rights or incidents of marriage when a de facto married couple has them, but they are not when the couple of people are just business partners or close friends. The de facto married couple will naturally make a will to establish that if one dies in the couple, the other shall inherit the entire estate. Also, each constituent of the couple will probably grant the other power of attorney over him/her in the event of incapacitation. Furthermore, they will get to the point that they own most or all of their bank accounts, credit cards, and property together rather than separately. Also, keep in mind that they are romantically involved with each other. So it looks, prima facie, that this couple is married! However, it is not, since it hasn't gone through the formalities or the required acknowledgement under common law. So now we have an unmarried couple claiming a lot of the "rights and incidents of marriage." That can't happen under the Amendment.

bige1030 12 years, 11 months ago


So essentially, the Amendment is inviting a long, bitter court battle in the event of a disagreement in the couple or the death of a constituent of the couple. Money-hungry parents, who stand to inherit by intestate succession, will try to void the will that the couple has set up. They might even succeed and inherit the share that was their offspring's share.

Now this does not invalidate wills, powers of attorney, or the joint ownership of assets and liabilities on their faces. It just invalidates them in the instance that a couple uses them to establish a de facto marriage. Two friends can be business partners and still own things together. Maybe they're also single, only children, and their parents are dead, so they decide to be each other's caretaker and heir in the event of illness or death. That's fine; that's what friends do. They're not trying to be married - just trying to make sure that they're taken care of. So wills, powers of attorney, and joint ownership of assets and liabilities aren't just "rights or incidents of marriage" - they're only so in the case of a de facto married couple.

zbarf 12 years, 11 months ago

I voted as a sign to help homosexuals know that what they are doing is wrong and they suffer a mental disorder.

There is nothing hateful about it!

75% of America thinks that it is a disgusting perversion and it is important for homosexuals to know that so they can try to improve thier lives and get out of this unnatural rut.

PS: this is not religious based:look at nature

Magnets - opposites attract! Atoms - opposites attract! Animals - opposites attract! The perfect fit of male/female intercourse! Reproduction! The complete roll of father/mother in parenting!

The truth is conservatives care enough to tell you that you are hurting yourself and humanity by your actions. That is much harder to do than saying "to each his own".

bige1030 12 years, 11 months ago



  1. Get an unmarried couple. Have the woman beat the man around (just for kicks). Try the woman for domestic violence. Then have the woman move for dismissal since domestic violence protection is a "right or incident of marriage."

  2. Get a couple interested in marrying and marry them not according to specific marriage law, but marry them under civil contract law that is general for all sorts of contracts. Do the same thing you would if you were buying a car or asking someone for services in marriage. After all, a marriage is a civil contract :)

  3. Get a gay couple that is obviously de facto married to apply jointly for a credit card. Have them charge up a storm. Then, when they are sued to pay back the debt, have them defend themselves by saying that their credit card was a "right or incident of marriage." Watch them either win and be tried for fraud or lose and go to bankruptcy court and/or be tried for fraud.

  4. Get a heterosexual to get married in church but not sign a marriage license or do anything in (2). They ought to be common-law married; however, the law now says that marriage is a civil contract, so they really aren't married under the law. Then, throw in some court challenges to them when they try to file their taxes jointly and do all sorts of things that a married couple would do.

  5. Get a couple to try to get a divorce based on the breach-of-contract laws that aren't specific to marriage, but cover all contracts in general. In essence, do (2) for divorce rather than marriage.

  6. Convince your son or daughter to become de facto married but not actually married in law. Then, after they've set up their wills, powers of attorney, and joint ownership of their property, hire a sniper to kill your son or daughter (he/she was a brat anyway). Once the sniper has killed, watch yourself get thrown in jail for murder for hire and your spouse inherit your son's or daughter's entire estate.

DISCLAIMER: This is a work of satire, entirely intended to poke fun at the prima facie possibilities of crazy things that could happen now that the marriage amendment has passed. Doing any of these things is entirely at your own risk. I voted "no" on the amendment, and this is just a soul-soothing exercise after such a bitter defeat. In any case, this is comic relief from such a bitter issue.

Chris Bohling 12 years, 11 months ago

zbarf -- we allow plenty of people to engage in potentially self-destructive action all the time. We've tried to outlaw them before, and it didn't work (Case in point: Prohibition)

The central problem with the gay marriage ban is that it violates gays' rights to the pursuit of happiness. Sure, a gay man could get married to a woman so he could enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, but would he be happy in that relationship? No.

Secondly, the difference between gay love and, say, bestiality, is that gay lovers engage in their activities consensually. Not true for animal rapists.

Thirdly, I would gladly vote for an amendment defining marriage as a union between only two people. That would be fair and equal.

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Does a ban on gay marriage REALLY violate a gay's right to the pursuit of happiness? Marriage is not a right. Because a gay couple cannot marry will they be unhappy the rest of their lives? What about someone who wants to marry two people? Who wants to marry their brother or sister? Since they can't marry, are we violating their pursuit of happiness?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 11 months ago

stupid logic

stop listening to other people and derive your own opinions--you may find them sounding, smart.

lilsuzy 12 years, 11 months ago

Voting Yes for this ban and then justifying that vote with some misperceived religious backing is not only offensive and insulting but ignorant. What would Jesus do? He sure wouldn't vote to discriminate and anyone who hides behind some "Christian" position, saying God somehow would condone your opinion, just shows how un-spiritual you really are.

hawk52 12 years, 11 months ago

Threats of incestuous mariages, polygamy and rampant beastiality from the amendment supporters are just ridiculous. But who knows...If the Beastiality Society or the Brother-Sister Love Club can raise $100 million over the next 10 years, they too can have (buy) their own legislature in any state in this nation and put any laws on the books. Kansas has been raided by the neo-con fundamentalists and don't even know it. I guess all it takes is money and stupidity to market your way right into any government or supreme court. Scarey, facist times. Wake up and smell the coffee, Kansas

hawk52 12 years, 11 months ago

We still have bumperstickers for $1 that say "Kansas: As Bigoted as You Think" Help us get out of debt!

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

You know, I really wanted to let the dominant thrust of today's discussion quiet down and start talking about some of the other ballot items. But the tone of the last few posts compels me to drag something out that I've observed throughout the day.

There have been some people here today on both sides of the issue really trying to discuss a divisive topic with respect for others, honestly trying to understand the opposing view point even while fervently disagreeing with it. There was even one valiant soul standing in the middle, asking questions and trying to form a reasoned opinion. Then there were quite a few others who seem to view name-calling as a suitable substitute (at least occasionally) for thoughtful discussion. I started recording instances of this. I stopped shortly after noon, partly because the number of posts was getting rather large, but mostly because the ad hominem was getting monotonous. So from early morning until noon, here is a list of names one side called the other or how they derisively characterized the opposing position.

For called Against: crazies; silly; going to Hell.

Against called For: arrogant; intolerant bigot; morons; hatred and bigotry; small, frightened children; bigoted; ignorant; poor dumb rednecks; hateful, close minded, bigoted people; hatemongers; bigots; jesus freaks; simple minded; bigotry; religious retards (in fairness, an apology was issued for this one); prejudice and bigotry; fear mongers; bigoted; uneducated, out-of-touch, and just plain stupid; inbred; bigot.

There was no editing here, just copy and paste and insert a semi-colon. I know many fair and open-minded people from the Left, personally and here on this forum. But I've never believed the notion that Liberals are somehow generally more reasonable and open-minded than us Right-wingers. Today's demonstration of name-calling-as-argument has done nothing to disabuse me of my view on this.

[I tried to make an honest evaluation of what represented name-calling from both sides. Being human, complete objectivity eludes me. I encourage others to scan the early posts for any instances I have missed, especially "from the right" since my own views may shade my judgment. Jonas? r_u? Carmenilla? Please tell me what you find.]

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn, I think you are right....liberals are not that tolerant of other people's ideas when those ideas clash with their own. You have illustrated that here quite well. Liberals claim they are trumpeters of free speech, but in reality they only champion free speech when it fits their own views (see the ACLU and for examples).

aegrisomnia 12 years, 11 months ago

The Bible on:

FAMILY VALUES- When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

SLAVERY- However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

NONBELIEVERS- They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

COMMUNITY SERVICE- (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

PERSONAL HYGEINE (The Lord Speaking) Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. (Leviticus 19:27 NAB)

Ember 12 years, 11 months ago

I know that I am wading into things a bit late, after my earlier posts, but I, alas, happen to have a life and needed to attend to repairs on my house.

KNS informed me that I must brush up on my history, and I'd like to assert that 'Mein Kampf' is evidence enough of Hitler's persecutions as being based on the Bible.

"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire, and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austrian people."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."

Karl Lueger (1844-1910) belonged as a member of the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party, he became mayor of Vienna and kept his post until his death.

Show me how this does not demonstrate his belief that his actions were of God's law.

Show me why the atrocoties of the Bible were virtually identical, except in the numbers.

I mentioned Nazi Germany because I have studied it, mainly because I view their actions much the same as a train wreck. You might not want to look, but you simply cannot help sneaking a peek as you pass by. You, namely KNS, is the one that needs to brush up on his history.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: Soo desu ne. (Agreement) To totally generalize, among the people who tend to disprespect folk different from themselves, I've equated, to some extent, these characatures:

conservative: Contemptuous older person (middle age on up) cutting down "the damn kids." Doesn't curse often, and uses dry, biting sarcasm.

liberal: Brash, younger, immature person yelling about "the close-minded old farts." Curses all of the time, and uses cutting sarcasm.

There's some bleeding from side to side, of course.

To me, it just proves that people's character is not proven through their political viewpoints (thank god for small favors).

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 11 months ago

Elvis H. Presley! I have never seen so many posts!! And here is my 2 cents, hopefully going toward breaking a record.

Thoughts I am having while I was reading . . .

I wonder how many thousands of people in this state, probably a lot of them children, are going to lose their health insurance because the benefit is coming by way of a dometic partner or common law relationship;

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make you a bigot. Promoting discrimination against a particular group because you think it right does;

We won't run out of gay people anytime soon because we have an ammendment again gay marriage, much to the chagrin of those who so vehemently supported the ammendment;

Guess, where those gay peopel will come from? The vast majority will come from STRAIGHT PARENTS!

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 11 months ago

And another thing . . . The bible says that marriage shall not prevent a man from having concubines or the taking of additional wives.

Say, that guy didn't have to kill his wife after all!! He could have just showed his wife the passage and said, "ya know, honey, it says here I can have this girlfriend . . " Guess he should have read his bible a little closer . . .

Now we have to ammend the ammendment to make it more biblical.

kansas 12 years, 11 months ago

Well, you know, A_A, the Mormons of the 19th century lived by the belief of a man having multiple wives....but the U.S. Government, as a condition, would not grant Utah statehood unless Utah enacted anti-polygamy laws.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Woohoo, the bicentennial. I can't remember a question ever going past 200 posts!

simple_simon 12 years, 11 months ago

Yes, Jonas! The bicentennial! Who would have thought that homosexuality would get sooo many people in this town all fired up the way that it has?! I swear, this town is obsessed with everything gay (pro and con)!!! There must be something in the water!

Fangorn 12 years, 11 months ago

I thought I'd check one last time before trying to grab a few hours of sleep. Two hundred! Have we ever hit 200 before? I don't recall it ever happening.

In considering past discussions, I found myself remembering some folks who are missing. Lulu doesn't seem to want to bless us with her/their presence any longer. Too bad. She/they had a great way of livening things up. And has any one heard from Ms. Canada lately? I always enjoyed her posts, even when (perhaps especially when) she and I disagreed. And is badger still around?

btw, Jonas and lunacydetector, did you ever notice that the three of us started posting to this forum within two days of each other? Carmenilla and italianprincess seem to be the longest-term members.

Thanks for an exhausting debate today, everyone. I find myself almost hoping for some irrelevant question tomorrow so we can all band together to complain about it. You know, a little healing process after today's contentiousness? Good night!

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

I honestly don't think I am one of the longest term members of this board. I do come in when I want to express myself, but I'm sure there are others that have been here longer then me.

Alot of different view points to today's discussion and its nice to see that we all have expressed ourselves.

Love is a wonderful emotion, please try to use it more then hatred.

Until the next question.......Night everyone.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

All I have left to say is Wow. Earlier today I couldn't comment fast enough and I just spent nearly a hour catching up. There was some rudeness, yes, but overall it seemed more tame than the November elections.

Ok LJW it's on you now...don't let us down with a poor question. Come up with something good or we're taking over. Liberal and Conservative together! we're 200+ posts strong and feeling inspired.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Fangorn: Not entirely true. We all started official sign-on profiles, perhaps, within several days of each other. However, the forum here existed for quite some time before the sign-ons were introduced.

Funny you should mention that now, in light of previous concerns. The reason the sign-ons were created was because of forum-abuse and abusiveness. It was pretty bad for awhile. Not that it improved too much, but there were people trying to impersonate other people, and there was no telling who was the real poster, and who was just mimicing another person to tar their reputation, so to speak. At any rate, I'm not entirely certain whether Carmenilla or I had an earlier start date on this particular forum. Many of the regulars participated in the more open Reader Reaction forum that ALSO recently got shut down because of Abusive Poster Syndrome. In terms of long term proficiency, Lunacydetector probably takes the cake, as he was on the RR forum when I started a year ago last october. Though I made it to this one first.

If you want a fun read, from back in the day, you should start back from before the sign-on. My personal favorite is "The Ubermime Saga" that coined "Das Ubermime"'s current sign-on. Rather arrogant, perhaps, as me and my friend did most of the damage, under jonas and ion joe, and petm, das ubermime, etc.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.