Ripples spread as states vote on same-sex marriage

Kansas joined 17 other states this week with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The question of same-sex marriage is spreading across the country as a showdown issue involving courts, lawmakers, and activists. And it's not just a spectator event, since much of the public in many states is involved as well.

The latest episode was a ballot measure this week in Kansas, where voters by a wide margin (70 to 30 percent) ordered a change to the state constitution defining marriage as "one man and one woman only." More significantly perhaps, the measure also states that other than a married man and woman "no relationship ... shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."

Within that bland legal verbiage critics see a possible threat to civil unions and maybe even the domestic partner benefits currently granted by colleges and universities, Fortune 500 companies, local and state governments and other employers. Whether or not that happens, the new amendment and its possible fallout appear headed for state court, both sides say.

link

Why does anyone freaking care what strangers do or don't do, when it has nothing to do with any of their business? I just don't get it. I can understand someone saying, "I think homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or against my inbred teachings", but why does it make it their business what other people do? This is going to get awfully bad, awfully quick, if someone doesn't step in and put a stop to this institutionalized bigotry and hatred. How can these "people" sleep at night?

And have nothing better to do with their lives. They live in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by nothing, and have no hope for a future because they choose to live among miles of nothing instead of with other human beings.

They are really rather pathetic and deserve pity. It will be fun to observe them once gay marriage bans are ruled unconstitutional. I will revel in their pain and moral outrage.

These people are restricting the sacred capitalist right to contract based on sexual orientation!

What next, gays can't join limited partnerships? Buy on credit?

How about restrooms and water fountains marked "Gays Only/Straights Only". How many "Freedom Riders" will have to die this time around before the country puts a stop to this shit?!

are welcome in California. After a French pogrom against them, the hard working and talented Huguenots fled to Germany -- to the great loss of the French economy. In addition to our wonderful weather, great scenery and sandy beaches (and the tallest mountain in the continental U.S.), we who live in California welcome diversity. That is the secret of the strength, success and wealth of this state. So, if you are gay and feeling sad, welcome to California. Try it! You'll like it!

It's almost tooooo boring here as it is!

Stay and fight; I'm with you.

... where fairness is being promoted? :grr:

How many people across America have no idea that there are real, right-now alternatives to the haters? It's so frustrating. The positive examples, of states and voters supporting fairness for all citizens -- it just doesn't get reported. :(

not the states that are passing non discriminatory laws. How much has there been in the news about New Jersey (Domestic Partnerships)or the voting now going on in Connecticut(Civil Unions)? They WANT to make it seem like the religious wackos are winning - biased promotion of the Bush agenda.

Just as an aside, that Kansas law which would make it illegal for even PRIVATE companies to be give benefits to any unmarried couple living together? My niece worked for a national office supply chain headquartered in NJ. They have health benefits for any domestic partner of an employee - gay or straight. When her live in boyfriend (5 years) was laid off from his job, she covered him under her medical insurance. This was 5 years ago too. Seems many companies are far more progressive than our federal, state, and local governments.

... because it just makes good business sense.

And that's the weakness in many of these bigoted laws: by trying to ban all DP arrangements, even in the private sector, they've totally exceeded their authority. That will be the key to their undoing in the courts, I hope.

For its supporters, the marriage ammendment is essentially about a problem with parenting, i.e. since they believe homosexuality is a choice, then how do parents raise their children in such a manner as to get them to choose heterosexuality. If parents are too confused to figure this out, why is it the responsibility of the state to support, and thus perpetuate, their weakness at the expense of innocent others who are trying to make loving commitments to one another?

Our bodies weren't designed to fly either; does that make airplane trips immoral?

On edit: some anecdotal evidence on the ammendment supporters - an acquaintance of mine said she voted for the ammendment because "Before you know it, people will be marrying their cousins or their dogs!" Sad, but true.

I see that statement as an example of the framing problems that Lakoff discusses. The framing has to reveal a philosophy that re-assures folks that supporters of Gay Rights would be against people marrying their dogs.

presentation on "Why gay marriage should be illegal" last year in Massachusetts. (He was a Mitt worshipper) He ended his presentation with the statement, "if we allow gays to marry, then we are going to see people participating in polygamy and marrying pets" :wtf:

It MUST be a rw talking point making the rounds

An animal or a child cannot enter into a contract - ANY contract. They do not have the mental capacity to give consent. That kid needs to take Law 101 before he goes off on a tangent.

... in Kansas, RW people *already* marry their cousins! ;)

Use small words and simple phrases, because this is something that I have never been able to grasp. How is banning homosexual marriages a "defense of marriage"?

Banning homosexual marraige is a defense of marraige if marraige is defined as between a man and a woman.

If you say it is a defense of drivers' licensing to not allow certain people to have a driver's license, you have to say how it defends the licensing to exclude those people. Including people into a process or a contractual grouping is not a "threat" to that grouping. Again, to just say that it is a "defense", doesn't make it so.

Even if "marriage" is defined as "one man, one woman," to deny same-sex marriage is not a defense. If marriage were to need defending, it should be divorce that is outlawed. It is divorce that is the antithesis of marriage, not who is involved.

Unfortunately, it is easy to vote to hurt the "other", especially if they have been demonized for millenia. When courts were striking down laws against interracial marriage, public sentiment (of all races) was still strongly opposed. Even today, a referendum against interracial marriage would have a good shot at passage in many states. These votes for discrimination are a perfect example of tyranny of the majority. It is also what happens when everything gets defined as a zero-sum game. I still have yet to hear any rational articulation of the harm marriage equality causes.

If gays and lesbians can marry, thereby engage in "normal like us" relationships, than we won't be able to continue making fun of them with the same abandon. My goodness, "Willl & Grace" is so cute, but real gays marrying? Perish the thought! My own marriage, life with my husband and children will mean nothing if two strangers of the same gender can sign the same contract that we did. /sarcasm/Insurance companies sure don't want to have to cover more people.

poor example!--JOKING

;-)