LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

Brownback: Gay marriage ban "imperative," "not bigotry"


As expected, Sen. Sam Brownback helped lead the charge Monday as debate opened over a federal move to ban gay marriage nationwide.[The Associated Press][1] reports: Supporters of the amendment say Congress is the right place to set cultural standards, and that traditional marriages are the foundation of healthy societies. Those on this side of the debate draw a connection between nontraditional families, poverty and troubled children."The law is a teacher," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., one of the floor managers. "It is a moral and societal imperative that we foster and encourage the institution of marriage."[The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette][2] adds that Monday was "the first of three days of debate about whether gay marriage should be banned by a 28th Amendment to the Constitution."The institution of marriage has been weakened in this country," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.He said the attempt to redefine it as something other than one man and one woman "is harmful to the future of the republic."[The New York Times:][3] _Republicans argued that the state of marriage and the American family was exactly the sort of fundamental issue that Congress should take up. "It is not bigotry to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman," said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas._Other links:Jerry Moran links[(AP) Immigration program called a lifesaver for rural hospitals:][4] Congressman Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) wants to make permanent a federal program that allows foreign-born doctors to work in small rural communities. The Kansas Republican says the J-1 visa waiver program has been critical in providing doctors to sparsely populated Kansas towns where American doctors don't want to work. The 12-year-old program expired last week, but Congress is expected to reauthorize it later this year, at least on a temporary basis. It was last reauthorized two years ago.How to contact As always, you can find information to contact members of the Kansas congressional delegation [here.][5] [1]: http://www.yahoo.com [2]: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/14751656.htm [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/washington/06bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [4]: http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2006/jun/05/immigration_program_called_lifesaver_rural_hospita/ [5]: http://ljworld.com/extra/where_to_write.html#fed


james dick 11 years, 11 months ago

Here come the theocrats again. People of Kansas, rise up and recognize that our fundamental values of equality and religious freedom are under attack by the wanabe supreme religious council in our congress.

Baille 11 years, 11 months ago

"He said the attempt to redefine it as something other than one man and one woman "is harmful to the future of the republic."

"It is not bigotry to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman," said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas."

But it is bigotry for the State to lock same-sex couple out of civil unions while getting involved in "marriage," which should be reserved for the religious institutions that gave it birth.


bankboy119 11 years, 11 months ago

No, it's not bigotry. If you all are saying it's okay because they're consenting adults why not say okay to polygamy, beastiality, incest, the list goes on. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

Bankboy: Please explain to me, right now, how bestiality can be consensual.

Do you take this man to be your husband?


Can you please speak more clearly.

Woof woof bark.

Seems we have a problem here.

average 11 years, 11 months ago

Bestiality =/= consenting adults. Though, if we are allowed to kill them...

Incest among genuinely consenting adults. I'm not scared.

Polygamy among genuinely consenting adults. I'm not scared. Lots of groups of people live together and sleep together. No one is forcing me to.

Do I think the government should encourage it. No. But I don't think a properly minimal government should be involved in promoting or even recognizing heterosexual monogamy.

File your own damn taxes. Write a will already.

I really think it should be a matter of separation of church and state. I belong to a church (a church involved in the founding of Lawrence) who have been celebrating gay couplings for 20 years now. But, the state says we can't call it marriage. And I don't have a problem with churches who believe in polygamy... or that everyone should marry the leader. Consenting adults? I don't give a damn if they call themselves husbands or love slaves or whatever. The government should simply not care what they call themselves. We can work out joint parenting rights without recognizing marriage or not (hell, we do it in millions of unmarried and divorced parent cases today).

xenophonschild 11 years, 11 months ago

Our Sam is the political equivalent of a savvy streetwalker. A poor boy from rural Kansas, he married into the Stauffer clan (Topeka Capitol-Journal), who, like many Kansas conservatives when such was tolerated, espoused disdain for Jews and Catholics, rivaled only by their enmity toward blacks during the civil rights unrest of the 60s.

73harley raised the most valid point. Who cares about gay marriage when our country is in peril, our budget deficit is skyrocketing, and our political establishment is a gaggle of sputtering prima-donnas?

Like the savvy streetwalker he is, Our Sam is deliberately pandering to his born-again idiot Christian fundamentalist base, secure in his belief that no formidable challenger - either from within his own party or in Democratic circles - exists to force him to address pertinent issues.

Wouldn't be surprised if he tenders a bill on the floor of the Senate to ban flag-burning, in public, on holidays.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 11 months ago

"marriage is between one man and one woman"

Please define the terms "man" and "woman".

What about those with an X and a Y chromosome (male) who develop female bodies but are sterile?

What about intersex individuals of either XX or XY chromosomal content who develop as hermaphrodites?

What about men with XY chromosomes who have sex change operations?

What about sterile XY men and XX women?

These are all realities, folks, and blurting out "one man and one woman" doesn't cut it. "man" and "woman" need to be defined so that marriage can be properly protected.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 11 months ago

And where are all of our libertarians so opposed to the cell phone ban now? The nanny-state is ok I guess when it bans things based upon dogma and ideology rather than facts and empiricism.

Sickening hypocrites.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago

I know that homosexuality is unhealthy. I also know that I'm not a bigot. I'm not asking for anyone to be denied health care or employment or any of that stuff. I'm not calling for neo-Jim Crow laws to apply to the G/L population. I'm no more upset about the gays in the world than I am about the heterosexuals who frequent prostitutes and porn shops. It's all sin, it's all offensive to God. But, just because I have a well-developed understanding of right and wrong (per Biblical standards) doesn't make me a bigot. Please don't call me one. I don't deserve that label (even if the yellow bumper sticker on your car says I do).

If/when I "hate" my gay co-workers for being gay, then call me a bigot. Do not call me a bigot just because I made the decision to follow God's moral standards and call something a sin when it is a sin. My failure to compromise doesn't make me hateful. It's NOT the same thing.

Now, having posted this, I will get the following responses:

1) The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. A: Yes, it does, quite clearly. That's not even open to arguement. 2) The Bible is wrong, it was written by men with agendas, etc. A: That's not how I view the word of God. I pray that you someday see the beauty and power in God's word that I see. 3) You theocrats are full of crap, trying to control the world just like al Queda, etc. A: I'm not even responding to that, so don't try to bait me. Maybe Jerry Falwell does, but I'm not him, so that's between you and Jerry.

MichaelC 11 years, 11 months ago

That makes perfect sense OldEnuf, but as you pointed out, that is how YOU view the word of god. Why should your point of view be used to determine whether or not two other people (who obviously differ in their intrepretations) can get married? It seems to hinge on the 'word of god' which shouldn't come in decisions by the state. Also, in the bible, Leviticus does say man shall not lay with mankind as he does with womankind. Doesn't that leave woman to lay with whomever they choose?

DaREEKKU 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuf, the truth of the Bible is yours and yours alone. The way you feel about Christianity is how some people feel about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and even Atheism. This country was not founded to be a Christian nation, do some reading and you'll figure that out quickly (try the US Constitution for starters). You have no right to legislate your religion into government. Period. You are entitled to your beliefs, but they are yours alone. Bankboy, your logic fails you miserably. An animal and a human being are not consenting adults. Marriage is a union consisting of two people, and not twenty, it will not lead to polygamy if the Courts write a proper opinion. The only thing I see here is a pathetic attempt to rally people after failing miserably at leading this country. The sad thing is, is that most people will still vote Republican because they see it as the "christian" thing to do when they are SADLY mistaken. Those of you who are Republican, look at your party but take away the issue of Abortion and Gay Marriage, what do you have left? Nothing....It's so sad that this has to be such a big deal and that most people think it's okay to discriminate based on something man has interpretted. Once again, I respect beliefs, but they are religious beliefs and I take the approach of Justice Black by adopting the absolute wall theory. Government should be purely secular, and frankly those of you who ARE religious should find it insulting that people are digging into something as personal as religion just to try and get you to vote for them.

DaREEKKU 11 years, 11 months ago

Another thing.....After reading yesterdays disgusting posts about the cover story of HIV, and then seeing this volitile article today I think the LJWorld should adopt a policy of listing everybody's screenname next to their picture. Maybe not remaining anonymous would make people think they can't spout such garbage without reprocussion. Bear this in mind before posting just to stir up trouble because you have nothing else better to do with your day.

By the way, in addition, there is no evidence to find that gay unions are harmful to children except in the aspect of how others view them, there is substantial evidence to find that being gay is linked to DNA (and also evidence that it's inconclusive as to why people are gay). There is no evidence to show that gay unions are in any way harmful, in fact I found studies that show that gay relationships function the same as straight relationships.

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

Posted by Agnostick (anonymous) on June 6, 2006 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"jonas, nobody is buying it. Back to your kennel!

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

P.S. Notice it was not a "deviant" who first brought up bestiality, but a supposed "conservative" or "Christian." Methinks jonas has some things in his closet he'd like to keep hidden..."

Umm. . . . . . what? Did you read something in there in support of bestiality? Or that I was either conservative or Christian? What in the world are you talking about, because you've totally lost me.

blackwalnut 11 years, 11 months ago

The Senator does not share my priorities.

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

Oldenuf: You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I don't really feel the need to quantify you as a bigot, and though I oppose a gay marriage amendment for a variety of reasons, which has it's foundation in my denial of sin and my (I'd like to think) thoughtful disbelief in the bible, I have no more proof of my rightness than you do in yours. The problem comes when one segment of the population believes that it's right is right for everyone, and thus attempts, as it's doing now, to force it's viewpoint on people who want no part of it, without being able to fully, and factually, justify it's position. Until god physically comes down from heaven for all to see and authenticates the bible as his word, an appeal to the authority of the bible as justification is an argumentative fallacy. (Truthfully, even if he did, I would have questions about a creator who expects to dictate the actions of his living, free-thinking creations, after all, I don't necessarily do what my parents want me to do all the time either).

But all this still misses the boat, as does this illusory search for "tolerance" which is a misguided pursuit of the PC movement. The real point is that it's not anyone's damn business except the people involved, and certainly not the governments. At it's basic core, seperated from the religious trappings that came well after the initial conception of the idea, marriage is nothing more or less than a recognition of the joining of seperate entities, and an understanding that they are sharing THEIR OWN lives and things with each other. If folk wish to do that, of their own free will, then how can it be anyone else's business?

PS: I, too, have to say that I dispise those bumper stickers. To my mind, they do nothing but lower the quality of the debate.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 11 months ago


If you don't want to be called a bigot, don't do and say bigoted things. And don't try to justify your bigotry behind christian beliefs. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and has been used to justify war, slavery, genocide, and eminent domain.

Bill Smith 11 years, 11 months ago

The sanctity of marriage is not threatened by homosexuals, but by heterosexuals. With divorce rates at there highest and infedielity among heterosexuals increasing maybe we should ban marriage altogether. Also, what about all those "straight" married folks who have same sex affairs?

The Christian Conservative Republicans agenda is about to implode - I hope!

bankboy119 11 years, 11 months ago

As per the beastiality comment. Search for the story of the British woman who just married a dolphin. It is happening.
As per the polygamy argument, if marriage is not defined, it is not sacred. If it is not sacred and not protected, why be married at all? The family institution is crucial for society. Children raised by both parents are healthier overall, mentally especially. Why do you think depression rates and other psychological illnesses have gone up so much in the past 30 or so years? Children are definitely not the same as they used to be. Because of TV? No, because of the environment that they are raised in. Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Sigmund 11 years, 11 months ago

This is really interesting, not.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton nearly a decade ago; allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state; and makes law the Judeo-Christian definition of a marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."


Yes Bill Clinton signed that, and it is current law. Ammending the Constitution is nothing more than politics, each side trying firm up its base. It is gaurenteed to fail, both sides know that, and their is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the isle to go around.

More interesting is Sam Brownback lack of support from Republicans which can be tied to his stance on illegal immigration and his support of the Bush administration position. He finished last in a Michigan straw poll!


Bill Smith 11 years, 11 months ago

The bible is a book written by mortal men several thousand years ago. The word of god - hmmmmm OK!

muffaletta 11 years, 11 months ago

Oh, well then. Glad that's cleared up. I feel a lot better about it already.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago

"You are entitled to your beliefs, but they are yours alone."

I also believe that it's unhealthy for adults to do drugs. Should I keep those thoughts to myself? I think it's unhealthy for people to drive 80 mph in a residential area. Should I keep that to myself?

The "keep it to yourself" arguement makes no sense. All of our laws come from someone saying "I think I know what's best" and then getting behind the idea. That's all I'm doing. It's not un-American or dogmatic for me to say "this is what I think should be a law". All our laws are that way!

"You have no right to legislate your religion into government"

We freed the slaves because of personal convictions of right and wrong. Are you saying that because my convictions are rooted in my faith that my convictions are a danger to our freedoms? So, if my convictions were non-religious, they'd be OK for public policy? The message here on this page is "keep your RELIGIOUS convictions to yourself".

"that is how YOU view the word of god"

I know this sounds arrogant, but NO, that is not an "interpretation". Those who claim that the Bible supports homosexuality cannot make the arguement. There is NO SCRIPTURAL ARGUEMENT for the lifestyle. Those who say that it's OK have to 'work around' the issue rather than hit it head-on with the Bible. If you go directly to each and every scripture that addresses the matter, you cannot leave with any impression other than "Wow, God really is upset over this". I challenge you: prove "my" view wrong by using God's word. You can talk about "that was then, this is now", you can say "those men were bigots", you can use arguements about "justice love"... but in the end, you cannot address passages like Romans chapter one. Read that, then come back here and explain it away without saying "the apostle Paul was an idiot". That's just one example. [Michael C: the answer to your question about women lying together is addressed in Rom. 1:26]

Jonas: Bankboy said "beastiality, incest, the list goes on" because the same passage in Exodus that lists homosexuality as an abomination also lists those other sexual sins. Along side "fornication" I should add, in case any of us heterosexuals are getting a feeling of self-righteousness.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago


I thought I explained this to you once, but maybe I forgot. I'll explain this here:

I no longer respond to you. You are an abusive person. You add nothing to these arguements. You enjoy being abusive, and you come here for that purpose. I'm not giving you any of my time.

Bill Smith 11 years, 11 months ago

And another thing - not everyone believes in the bible. Not every citizen in this country with freedom of religion is christian. To use the bible as the basis of an aguement is flawed especially in a country that "supposedly" was founded to seperate church from state.

staff04 11 years, 11 months ago

I really hope that the religious community realizes that this is the textbook definition of pandering. You got burned last time. How much better off are you now than you were before President Bush took office? Are you saving $40 a year on your taxes? What is the inflation rate at? Do you know anyone who was killed in Iraq? Or anyone who lost their job due to outsourcing?

Aside from this token gesture that the President himself, with leaders of the House and Senate, have acknowledged is going nowhere in Congress, has he given you?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago


Not everyone believed in the Bill of Rights. We had to fight a civil war to free the slaves, and the devisiveness of that war can still be felt to this day.

Why does it matter how many people do or don't believe in the Bible? I DO believe in the Bible, so I WILL get behind Biblically-based legislation. You DON'T have to get behind it. That's the glory of democracy. We all participate, and the chips fall where they will.

"I really hope that the religious community realizes that this is the textbook definition of pandering."

In spite of what I've posted today, yes that's correct. The Decider stinks. Politicially, this "amendment" is the proverbial snowball in hell. It's going no-where. But, like Arnold Schwartzenegger in "Running Man", I'm still betting on that long shot because that's where my heart is. The dog don't hunt, but I still love the dog. I'll rant and rave about it because it's "right", but I know that this nation is still too blue to enbrace it. [sigh]

mooseamoose 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuff - Homosexuality is unhealthy? How do you know? From experience?

Bill Smith 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuf - religiously based legislation is misguided legislation. I am not opposed to the bible, but it has no place in government. Have we forgetton the seperation of church and state?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago

Das Boot posted "if you want religion in the government".

No, I don't want religion in the government, I want my values and beliefs in government, just the same as you. You hate "bans", that's your "belief", and you want that to be reflected in our laws (or, lack of laws, if that be the case).

Your statement, like so many others today, continues to re-inforce my prior observation: I am free to express my beliefs on this message board (and to push them in the political arena) except when I have beliefs that have a religious/Biblical foundation. Lawrence is a place for free thinking, except when those free thoughts come from people who ascribe to religious fundamentals. Then, we are "fundies", and a target of derision. My "free thoughts" are a weak dogma once I admit that I getting my ideas from a devotion to God's word.

Yet SOMEHOW, I am the bigot. I am not even free to be Christian without someone telling me that I need to keep my faith in my home. My views are only acceptable if my faith stays at home wearing a burka. As I've posted on other days: the liberalism of today is FAKE. It only loves the left. It doesn't make room for "all" thought, just the stuff that's not traditional and not fundamentally religious. Yet, I'm the bigot. Whatever.

"Lawrence: Not as liberal as you think". Where can I get THAT bumpersticker?

average 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuf, you are free to express your beliefs on this message board (if the privately-run board will have you) and have been doing great at doing that today and every day. No one has been stopping you from it, no matter how much they laugh at you.

I am also free to express that you believe in a magical loving-but-sadistic sky wizard.

You are free to say that I am hellbound.

See how that works?

mooseamoose 11 years, 11 months ago

Ever notice how the God of the Bible is a jerk?

Bubarubu 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuf--government has to be the place where everyone can come together. The same-sex marriage bans have no non-religious justification (see the above call for you to demonstrate that a homosexual lifestyle is in fact unhealthy, although take out the irrelevant and intolerant ad hom attack that is attached). The ban does not allow for equal participation in society which does not just violate abstract notions of right and wrong but specific legal protections that are the foundation of a liberal democracy. Every association must have its founding documents. For Christianity, that is the Bible and the Nicene Creed. For America, that is the Constitution and the 200+ years of jurisprudence interpreting that document. The same-sex marriage ban would write discrimination into that document. It would not be the first time that discrimination was there, but it would be the first time our Constitution moved in that direction, to intentionally and substantially exclude a group of otherwise productive and responsible citizens. You are free to your beliefs, you are free to espouse them virtually whereever you like, you are free to practice them as long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same. When it comes to the Constitution, it is the guiding document of our civil religion and we should stand against rewriting it to exclude people. Demonstrate in any way, any single way, that same sex marriage would injurious to my marriage or anyone else's and you would have at least some basis for the argument. As long as the debate has gone on, I have looked and looked and I have found nothing to support the argument except "God says so", and that is not now, nor has it ever been, a legitimate justification for American public policy.

bankboy--I was intrigued by the dolphin marriage story. It would have been nice if you read it first though. To correct the impression you gave, the woman was British, but the wedding did not take place in Britain. Instead, she married the dolphin in Israel, which does not recognize same-sex marriage. Britain also does not allow same-sex marriage, but instead has civil unions, which would be prohibited in the US according to the wording advanced the last time the GOP exploited this issue. In other words, your slippery slope argument is flawed twice over. First, not banning same sex marriage would not make same sex marriage legal so when the amendment does not pass, nothing will happen, nothing will change. Second, the terrible things that you say would happen are happening without legalized same sex marriage, and not happening in places where same sex marriage is legal, so the causal link is broken. And you're a moron.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago

"you are free to practice them as long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same"

Therein is the "lie". We have tomes upon tomes of laws that "infringe" on someone's "right" to do something. Someone mentioned the fireworks ban. Why can't I fire off fireworks in MY backyard? If I keep the stuff on my property, then why not? Because someone else decided that you and I needed to be protected from my use of fireworks.

"Ever notice how the God of the Bible is a jerk?"

If giving the most precious thing you ever had for the benefit of a bunch of undeserving, unappreciative people is being a jerk, then go ahead and make that statement. If the God of the Bible really is "God", then how much did you just offend Him? Wow.

Bubarubu 11 years, 11 months ago

OldEnuf--If you could guarantee that the fireworks would not either threaten to damage someone else's property and that you would put out any fires and treat any injuries yourself without any help from or expense to governmental authorities, then I would support your "right" to fireworks.

More importantly, the fireworks ban is based in responsible public policy and applies to everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, etc. The ban you support would not apply to everyone and it has no such legitimate basis.

So, in response to my lengthy post, you picked out a fragment of a sentence, made the weakest possible response, which was also wrong and ended up providing more support for my position, and failed, for the second time today, to provide any non-religious justification for the ban on same sex marriage. Just making sure I have an accurate picture of the debate so far.

mooseamoose 11 years, 11 months ago

Why is it an all loving, all powerful God needs to toss people into hell because they didn't do what he wanted them to do?

Why is it an all powerful, loving God requires people to worship him?

The God of the Bible gets offended by some people and condemns them to hell, others who do what he wants them to do, he allows into "heaven" with him for eternity.

I'm not saying that God is a jerk, I'm saying that if the bible (or Koran) is correct then God is not perfect, not loving and not all powerful. He's just a bully.

If God gets offended then he must not be God.

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

Oldenuff: "Your statement, like so many others today, continues to re-inforce my prior observation: I am free to express my beliefs on this message board (and to push them in the political arena) except when I have beliefs that have a religious/Biblical foundation. Lawrence is a place for free thinking, except when those free thoughts come from people who ascribe to religious fundamentals. Then, we are "fundies", and a target of derision. My "free thoughts" are a weak dogma once I admit that I getting my ideas from a devotion to God's word."

Okay, now you're just being obtuse. (or perhaps, throwing up a smokescreen) Neither Ubermime nor I were asserting in any way that you're viewpoints are unwelcome or should be hidden, and I don't think either of us are in the position of agreeing with the zealots opposing and deriding you that the ones also arguing your position and deriding others. (if not this board, then another will have them). Some folks will be immature, and some will be hateful. Neither should be held as reflective of any particular position or viewpoint, but just viewed as jerks. I can't imagine that you would disagree with that. As far as the larger issue, when has even your ability to practice these beliefs been called into question? Are you suggesting that only through a govt. ban would heterosexuals be free to marry?

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

"Therein is the "lie". We have tomes upon tomes of laws that "infringe" on someone's "right" to do something. Someone mentioned the fireworks ban. Why can't I fire off fireworks in MY backyard? If I keep the stuff on my property, then why not? Because someone else decided that you and I needed to be protected from my use of fireworks."

Which is why the fireworks ban should probably not have been put on the books in the first place. Perhaps you should find someone's position on other supposed coevel issues before making generalizing statements. As far as laws infringing upon rights, the best laws are the ones that keep people from infringing upon each other, while enabling them to excercise their own liberty easily. However, when someone's excersise of a "right" does indeed, by it's nature, infringe upon someone else's rights or well being, then it should be curtailed in some way. Applying that to this particular argument, how is allowing homosexuals to civilly unite, or even to marry, infringing upon the liberties and rights of anyone else?

The end point of the argument, that you dodged by saying we were viewing your viewpoints as weak or irrellevent, is the idea that to form a law there should be a rational train of thought and discussion to show harm being done, to necessitate the need for a law curtailing that behavior. If you can't provide an argument that has a rational method of deduction, then you shouldn't pass that law. Ipso facto, the nature of the bible as a way to structure your life is not based in rationality, but faith. As faith, it can provide a framework for someone willing to pursue that faith, but a civil society on the whole does not hinge upon it being pursued by everyone. In other words, it provides a strong enough reference for you to believe and follow it, but not to require me to. Do you disagree?

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

bankboy: The fact that it has or has not occured does not change the fact that the dolphin could not have given informed consent to marry, making such a marriage, in my opinion, animal abuse in the same way I feel it would be abusive to marry someone in a coma, or a little kid, as none of those examples could fully comprehend the agreement that they are entering into. That is my rational opposition to bestiality.

jonas 11 years, 11 months ago

Bankboy: One more addendum before, regretably, I have to go to work, but isn't saying that "homosexuals could marry, so I can marry my goat" similar, in analogy, to saying "soldiers kill each other in war, so I can kill my neighbor?" The only thing that homosexuality and bestiality have in common is a somewhat majority opinion that they are sexual deviancy.

Gareth Skarka 11 years, 11 months ago

Yup....the bible condemns homosexuality.

It also sanctions slavery (Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 25:44), Animal sacrifice (Leviticus 1:9), and putting people to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).

It condemns eating shellfish as an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), men cutting the hair around their temples (Leviticus 19:27), planting two different crops in the same field, and wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (Leviticus 19:19).

If this is the word of God, then follow ALL OF IT. Given that the condemnation of homosexuality comes from the same sections of the bible, why do Christian conservatives choose to listen to that, but not the other stuff?

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 11 months ago

Please define "man" and "woman". Before we can say that marriage is between one man and one woman, these terms need to be defined so that everyone knows where they stand.

So please, fundamentalist christians and/or free thinkers, define "man" and "woman" so that we are all on the same page.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 11 months ago

"Das Boot" was a joke. It's the only German I know, and I don't know what Ubermime means. Does that mean you are a really good mime? Or a superhero mime? I don't know, so I changed it.

I'm off this topic. I knew it would get hairy. I should have left it alone.

"why do Christian conservatives choose to listen to that, but not the other stuff?"

Two different covenants. E-mail me if you want a more full explaination.

mom_of_three 11 years, 11 months ago

My two cents: Some are opposed to gay marriage, because marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. Fine, leave it as it is. Then define it as gay unions and allow them. It isn't hurting me or anyone else that two people would like to be together for eternity and recognized by their government as a couple and have the same benefits given to heterosexual couples.
Yes, the bible says homosexuality is wrong. It also says adultery is wrong, but that doesn't stop some people from committing it (even ministers) and we don't cast out those from society who commit adultery.
The gay marriage amendment seems to make second class citizens out of people, and I thought we were past that.

Gareth Skarka 11 years, 11 months ago

The "Two Covenants" thing is Christian Conservative BS, which they came up with when somebody used the language of their own Bible against them. It's hypocrisy.....Big surprise, right?

There's no way that Leviticus 18:22, which condemns homosexuality, is part of a seperate covenant than the rest of Leviticus...it was all written at the same time, as part of the same book of the Bible.

Sucks when your "word of God" jumps up and bites you on the ass, doesn't it......

Gareth Skarka 11 years, 11 months ago

And there is no way to email "OldEnuf", because his post is anonymous -- no email given.

But then, I'm suspecting that he knows that.

Typical American Taliban response: "The bible says what? Uh...Two Convenants. Or Something. I'm outta here."

average 11 years, 11 months ago

No, the two covenants stuff is saying that Old Testament rules are now moot, though an accurate book of history.

Jesus, mind you, said zero about gays. Except for general stuff about motes and throwing stones.

But, according to the two covenants theory, whatever Paul said later (Paul who never met Jesus, IMHO, and knew damn little about his teachings) is law. That's why women are not allowed to speak one word in Christian churches to this day.

DaREEKKU 11 years, 11 months ago

I would like to shed some light on several subjects adressed, yet again, here. The only unhealthy effects upon Homosexuals are what we are put through by the REST of the population (people like OldEnuf and Bankboy). We don't molest children, we function like any other couple. So what are you so afraid of? Quit hiding behind and book, that's the wimpy way out. Why shouldn't I be able to celebrate my love for my significant other by formalizing it and making him my husband? I believe I have that right, I believe it's reasonable and I also experience being a second class citizen firsthand (on many different cultural and financial levels) because of many other people's "beliefs". We are human beings, not animals, don't refer to us like that. Grow up.

Travis Shinkle 11 years, 11 months ago

"...The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton nearly a decade ago; allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state; and makes law the Judeo-Christian definition of a marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife..."

Yea tell that to the people of Nebraska who no longer have a prohibition on gay marriage thanks to an activist FEDERAL judge...

Miyagi_Rules 11 years, 11 months ago

As evidenced by the various comments on this message board, it is a fools errand to attempt to build laws or arguments in a post-traditional society based upon "because God says" logic. Don't get me wrong, I personally attempt to live my life by biblical principles, but exporting those beliefs to society at large is impossible because of the multitude of paradigms and worldviews that exist in our nation/world. Therefore, if one wants to make legislation that affects all constituents, then one must make appeals that are pragmatically viewed as constructive to society at large. For instance, "Thou shall not kill" is of course founded upon a biblical principle, however, it is also fairly easy to see that if we abandoned this principle it would have deleterious effects on our society. Thus, I ask, does anyone have evidence that allowing civil unions or gay marriage leads to substantial negative consequences in society?

By the way, I ask this question in earnest, not rhetorically. These are the only grounds in which this type of debate can be constructively done, otherwise both sides will move to their respective poles and we won't get anywhere.

Just my $.02.

Bubarubu 11 years, 11 months ago

Miyagi--I've made the request here today, and in many other places at other times, for precisely the sort of evidence you ask for. Others have made the request here as well. The reason my requests have been ignored, and yours will be, is because no such evidence exists. Homosexuality is present in the animal world which means that it is either a natural element OR the gays brainwashed bonobo monkeys and pushed their agenda on the poor primates. Homosexuality has also been an element of every Western/European culture since at least the Greeks. I can't speak to non-Western cultures or cultures prior to the Greeks, and for that I apologize. The simple truth is that there are people who have sex with and fall in love with other people with the same sexual equipment. It has been, it is, it will be, but some people don't like that and they think their, and only their, standards should be the law. The law is their toy and damn anyone who disagrees.

Miyagi_Rules 11 years, 11 months ago

Bubarubu- I apologize for making the same request, I guess I didn't read carefully enough! I agree that homosexuality is far from a new phenomenon, which is why it would seem like a fairly simple request to have those in favor of "banning" it present evidence as to why recognizing such unions is harmful to society.

Bubarubu 11 years, 11 months ago

Miyagi--There is no need to apologize. I wasn't taking offense or intending to chastise you at all. Neither of us was the first to make the request. I don't know how often you engage in this particular debate, so I was simply trying to warn you about the substantive futility of asking. Nonetheless, I think asking is important. As many people as possible should ask as many people as possible, as often as the issue is raised, because it helps to demonstrate the number of people who critically analyze the "queers destroy marriage" argument and reject as morally and empirically bankrupt. It is, as you said, a simple request and I think the inability of anyone to fulfill it is a powerful silence. Ask away my sister/brother, just don't expect a satisfying answer.

Agnostick--Your post brought me a revelation. The environmental degradation that is promoted by the Republican Party will wipe out the habitat of all of those queer animals, thus solving the problem.

CirlcingBuzzard 11 years, 11 months ago

This all sounds like rhetoric. Arguing against same-sex marriage (civil union) on Biblic principles is invalid. Religion is a belief...no matter which god/gods you worship, they are all the same (based on belief). In the US we follow laws layed down by the Constitution, which was founded on unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence (see pursuit of Happiness). Same-sex marriage (civil union) pursues happiness and NO study (scientific/academic/theoretical) has produced evidence linking these unions with decay of a society. Conversely, it has been proven that laws based on religion HAVE destroyed societies (see WWII, Catholicism, Taliban...) What personal threats do these unions pose, other than challenging beliefs? What societal threats do these unions pose, other than challenging society's self-imposed parameters?
Sen. Brownback has proven he has not used his mind to address these questions; he relies on a book written 2,000 years ago in an almost dead language that has been translated many times over. And recites rhetoric based on no study, study results, or natural law.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 11 months ago

Come on, someone out there must be able to give a definiton of "man" and "woman" so that we know exactly what "marriage between one man and one woman" means.

Fundies, agnostics, atheists, free thinkers? Definitions, please.

Steve Jacob 11 years, 11 months ago

All this is just a deflection of the real issues. We are losing Iraq, or in the least not winning, the stock markets are scared to death about inflation, and the national debt is blowing up. He needed something to stop the bleeding, he does not want a democratic house in 2007, and this seems to be a winning issue. But really, people care less about this issue then before the 2004 elections because there are other, larger problems.

Jamesaust 11 years, 11 months ago

I would be more open to Brownback's argument if he would first explain what policy FOR homosexuals he supports instead of merely emphasizing what he opposes.

If any "journalist" at LJW or elsewhere manages to gain an audience with his eminence, please make him ANSWER that question.

james bush 11 years, 11 months ago

Ban gay and lesbian marriage! Let them enter a contract to each other.

I don't hate anybody! Just like to have standards that the majority supports. The minorities have rights but not privilege over the majority.

I also hope we can find better representatives than Brownback to send to congress. But I'd rather have him than some liberal dem who wants to make everyone a victim that government (you and me) is obliged to support.

james bush 11 years, 11 months ago

Where's this list of civil rights that give minorities the right to set standards?

Maybe the homosexuals who feel victimized by the majority in the USA ................. not worth arguing about! Just give me a vote!!!

Ward 11 years, 11 months ago

mebbe us married folk kin get divorced en masse 'n enter civil yunyuns as solidarity.

Please explain the logic behind this ridiculous ban beyond an agenda that will divide many and strengthen a radical right base from the rest of the universe. I see fear, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination all over this. Aren't Freedom and Love the most enduring human values of all?

One christian did mention that homosexuality is unhealthy. Where does this come from? If you're presenting something as truth, spill the beans please.

SWBSOW - People with disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Go figure. Minorities with rights. huh.

Alcohol was federally banned at some point to protect marriage and the union as it were.

xenophonschild 11 years, 11 months ago

The bible is a load of Jewish drivel. Some of it is entertaining; some of it is good moral lessons, quite a lot of it is full of incredible contradictions and moral conundrums; however, it is mostly Jewish drivel.

The purpose behind the bible, and any religious manual, is to instill morality and proper behavior in people who need it. Homosexuality was viewed as a threat to survival, for men who went to other men did not serve as proper fathers/husbands, and contribute to the survival of the family, clan, tribe, society.

What we feel today about homosexuals is largely irrelevant. They can do as they choose, for they pose no threat to the overall survival of our society/civilization.

If they desire to marry each other, then by all means, let them. Adjust the laws pertaining to wills, property, inheritance, etc., and get on with it. People are people: to ignore, or pretend otherwise, is not sound judgment.

Redzilla 11 years, 11 months ago

The thought of gay couples marrying in no way endangers my marriage. You know what might endanger my marriage? Having to file for bankruptcy, if my disabled veteran husband were to get really sick. (The VA only covers him for the things directly resulting from his military service, and as a result of those ailments, no other insurance company will touch him.) Imperative? Imperative is finding a way to protect the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. This is the most glaring and pathetic case of political distraction I've ever seen.

NCThom1 11 years, 11 months ago

looks like bankboy shut up after gettin his ass spanked--you think he liked it? such a narrow minded comment--marriage should be the union of 2 people, no matter whom-- its what the attraction is between them--its their life--there is nothing wrong with this between consenting adults--GROW UP Senator Brownback--stop using your position in the government to throw forward your own ideals

craigers 11 years, 11 months ago

MD, usually when there is an extra set of chromosones in the pregnancy it will turn into what is known as a partial molar pregnancy and will terminate early. I see the 1 in 1000 as more realistic that a baby actually is completely formed and born.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.