TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters in Kansas overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday banning same-sex couples from marrying or entering into civil unions.

With more than half of precincts reporting, 298,647 votes, or 70 percent, were cast in favor of a constitutional amendment, with 128,366, or 30 percent, opposed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7399375/

-------------

God Bless America ;)

well.... ya cant complain.. it was voted on and beaten.... so at least its not being forced onto people....its the decision OF the people.

Originally posted by Decka
well.... ya cant complain.. it was voted on and beaten.... so at least its not being forced onto people....its the decision OF the people.
.......As if a constitutional-amendment was needed, for those who decide not-to-participate. :rolleyes:

What a great waste-of-time, for those who have nothing better to do. I'd assume they feel it's a matter of state-security! :@@:

WE'RE NUMBER 4! WE'RE NUMBER 4!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4409857.stm) (.....and, what proud company we keep!) :@@:

"Nearly 4,000 people were executed worldwide in 2004 - the most in nearly a decade, Amnesty International says.

The US came fourth in Amnesty's table of executions, with 59 in 2004.

Iran came second, with at least 159, followed by Vietnam with at least 64."

*

I guess (in our desperate-need, for notoriety.......in the new Reality T.V.-world).......bad-press is better than NO press. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4412613.stm) :rolleyes:

*

"Even with the undeniable proof of research showing that the main purpose for having the death penalty ie deterrence, does not result in this outcome, humanity continues to perpetrate this uncivilized perceived solution. What ever happened to the logic of attacking the root of the problem? Then again which is less expensive and simpler? The death penalty." - Natalie Laczek, US

"You judge how advanced a society is by how it treats its criminals. Societies which kill their criminals are living in the dark ages. They just don't know it." - Paul, Southend-on-Sea, UK

*

But.......who's counting?

Certainly not the PRO-death folks!!! (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6).......(least-of-all, The Idiot Son!! (http://www.texecutions.com/))

http://www.texecutions.com/images/mctexecutions-157.jpg

Originally posted by Decka
well.... ya cant complain.. it was voted on and beaten.... so at least its not being forced onto people....its the decision OF the people.

I can complain...it never should have been put to a vote.

Originally posted by Decka
well.... ya cant complain.. it was voted on and beaten.... so at least its not being forced onto people....its the decision OF the people.

If the doughty burghers of Kansas can today vote on a bill such as that and make it the law of the land, tommorrow, they could --hypothetically-- decide to make it a law that people with green eyes cannot have a driver's liscense.

Is that really the sort of society you want to live in, Decka?!?!?!?.........where any notion that is agreed upon by a majority, no matter how irrational, unfair or outlandish that notion might be, can be made the law of the land??

There was something writtten once that PERFECTLY describes the situation in Kansas with regard to this recent law being passed;

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and
superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason
more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our
ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during
challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our
diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around
us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles.
Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."_____Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World"

there is another old saying "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

the people have spoken and are within their rights.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I can complain...it never should have been put to a vote.

your right, only judges should be allowed to make rulings on the subject

Originally posted by Travh20
there is another old saying "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

the people have spoken and are within their rights.
If this hits the Supreme Court, it'll get beaten down to within an inch of its life. There's precedent against it, and the civil union thing is blatantly discriminatory.

its a constitutional ammendment. how can the constitution be unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Travh20
its a constitutional ammendment. how can the constitution be unconstitutional?
State constitution...

thats right, and last I heard you were a states rights person. do you wnat the federal govenment going around changing all the staes constitutions?

Originally posted by Travh20
thats right, and last I heard you were a states rights person. do you wnat the federal govenment going around changing all the staes constitutions?
Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

State constitutions cannot go against the federal Constitution, or the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Travh20

the people have spoken and are within their rights.

Hopefully, when (if?) the Supreme Court rules on the question, and asks itself---""Is that really the sort of society we want to live in?""---- the answer will be a resounding - "No."

Do the ignorant gelatoid asshats (to borrow a phrase) in Kansas who voted on this ban regard gay people as human beings???.......i'm not sure that they do.

so are you saying they should not have allowed to vote on it at all?

Originally posted by Travh20
so are you saying they should not have allowed to vote on it at all?

I'm saying it had exactly the same "right" to be voted on as the following proposal would have had;

Proposed, as a constitutional admendment to the state Constitution of Kansas; Negroes shall not be allowed to eat in the same eating establishments as white people.

oh get off it. dont you know you offend african americans when you compare the "plight" of gays to negro segregation or slavery? its a slap in the face. Gays have every right every other american has.

Originally posted by Travh20
Gays have every right every other american has.

Not to get a marriage liscense.

I cant marry another man either

Originally posted by Travh20
I cant marry another man either

It's difficult to imagine a more disingenuous or intellectually dishonest argument.

___________________________

Conservatism; = the systematic scapegoating of blacks, environmentalists, homosexuals and atheists in the belief that it will in some magic way save the country.

Originally posted by Travh20
so are you saying they should not have allowed to vote on it at all?

What's the point on voting for something that's unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Travh20
I cant marry another man either

You can marry any woman you want. I can't. That is not fair.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What's the point on voting for something that's unconstitutional?

Uhhh......maybe to demonstrate to Jeehover that you hate them durty homersecksheuulls too, just like the Bible instructs us to do.

I doubt Trav can marry ANY woman he wants to :D

BTW - Echo, it's OK by me if you marry an woman, your cat, the dishwasher, or whatever. Life is too short to worry about something as insignificant as that (IMHO).

Thanks oldPhart but I have no desire to marry anyone or anything. Well, the dishwasher is looking pretty good these days......

Originally posted by Travh20
I cant marry another man either
How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't possibly love. Again, it sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist ones.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

we know the drill. homosexuals truly respect marriage, people that wanted Shiavo to die truly respect life, people that wanted saddam to stay in power truly respect freedom and yada yada yada. No more liberal head games please. I already read 1984. War is peace, slavery is freedom.... oppresion is freedom, deeath is life, people who do not want homosexuals to get married have no respect for mariage...its making my head spin

Originally posted by BorgHunter

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

I --for a fleeting moment-- contemplated explaining it in exactly the same terms to Travh20.

But then, I realized there were exactly two eventualities to such an exchange.

He would be either be (a) unable, or (b) unwilling, to grasp the concept.

_____________________________

well.... ya cant complain.. it was voted on and beaten.... so at least its not being forced onto people....its the decision OF the people.

Of course its being forced on people. Its being forced on the people who can now not get married or a civil union. When the majority passes a law that tells the minority what they can't do, then that is the definition of "being forced onto".

Gays have every right every other american has.

Then what did this vote do? Do they have the same rights as every other American in that state, such as the rights that come along with a civil union?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Again, it sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist ones.
Please explain your logic here.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Please explain your logic here.
If Trav's logic is that gays can already marry people (who they don't love), then he would be proposing that they actually do marry these people. Thus, he promotes loveless marriages. Most gays just want to marry who they love. Thus, promoting loving marriages.

I get it - Thanks.

However...

I don't think Trav is promoting loveless marriages, I think he's backhandedly stating that homosexuals shouldn't be "married", at least not in the traditional sense of the word. I still think that people should be addressing their respective state governments to oust the term from their vocabulary, not grant gays "marriage" rights, but that's just me (and probably 70% of the population).

I really don't get the "rights" argument. If gays are granted equality, legally and financially, then why do they have to piss on a religious tradition that means a lot to the majority of our population? If we're going to wax about fairness, then how is THAT fair?

I vote we indefinatly imprison anyone with the screename of Travh 20.

The results are in and...
Oh, it looks like a landslide. Well the people have spoken time to go round up all the offenders. Time for jail, society demand it.

So Travh if something like this happened would you still think we were within our "rights"?

The will of the people does not overrule the rights of the individuals to equal protection under the law. Marriage comes with 1,100 civil rights including hospital visits, custody etc...

Imagine this:
A loving lesbian couple that has been living togather for over 30 years. They have never gotten married because they are surrounded by politically influential bigots. Though they had publically pronouced their devotion many times. There are very successful in the business world and their combined net worth if 2 million dollars. One woman suddenly dies in an accident. All of the sudden the dead womans family (from whom shes been astranged since she was 15 because they refused to accept her) shows up and demands half of everything the greiving widow has. Since they were never offically married (not even under common law from living togather for over 10 years) the family makes out like bandits capitalizing on the death of a daughter they hated.

This shit happens. This is why marriage is not a religious matter. This is why you a fascist bigot.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If gays are granted equality, legally and financially, then why do they have to piss on a religious tradition that means a lot to the majority of our population? If we're going to wax about fairness, then how is THAT fair?
It's fair because the government recognizes marriages. If the government recognizes heterosexual marriages, then to be equal and nondiscriminatory, it must recognize homosexual marriages as well. The government disallowing gay marriage because of religious traditions fails by the first prong of the Lemon test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman).

Now, if the government did not recognize marriages, then we wouldn't even have a debate here, as it would truly be a religious and/or cultural institution and thus, the government would have no business in it. Sadly, marriage is a governmental institution now. The government regulates it. Therefore, the government has the obligation to be equal and nondiscriminatory in its implementation of marriage.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Now, if the government did not recognize marriages, then we wouldn't even have a debate here, as it would truly be a religious and/or cultural institution and thus, the government would have no business in it. Sadly, marriage is a governmental institution now. The government regulates it. Therefore, the government has the obligation to be equal and nondiscriminatory in its implementation of marriage.
Very true, Borg...

I just wish people had the same view I do, and the desire to address it properly.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I vote we indefinatly imprison anyone with the screename of Travh 20.

The results are in and...
Oh, it looks like a landslide. Well the people have spoken time to go round up all the offenders. Time for jail, society demand it.

So Travh if something like this happened would you still think we were within our "rights"?

The will of the people does not overrule the rights of the individuals to equal protection under the law. Marriage comes with 1,100 civil rights including hospital visits, custody etc...

Imagine this:
A loving lesbian couple that has been living togather for over 30 years. They have never gotten married because they are surrounded by politically influential bigots. Though they had publically pronouced their devotion many times. There are very successful in the business world and their combined net worth if 2 million dollars. One woman suddenly dies in an accident. All of the sudden the dead womans family (from whom shes been astranged since she was 15 because they refused to accept her) shows up and demands half of everything the greiving widow has. Since they were never offically married (not even under common law from living togather for over 10 years) the family makes out like bandits capitalizing on the death of a daughter they hated.

This shit happens. This is why marriage is not a religious matter. This is why you a fascist bigot.
I get the argument, slick, as do most people here. I'm simply stating an issue in which I feel to be valid, that's all. If you had the ability to decipher written text more accurately than a four year-old, then you'd have realized my issue was over the intermingling of church and state, not rights - cock.

I get the argument, slick, as do most people here. I'm simply stating an issue in which I feel to be valid, that's all. If you had the ability to decipher written text more accurately than a four year-old, then you'd have realized my issue was over the intermingling of church and state, not rights - cock. And my post was obviously directed at Trav - you willfully ignorant fuckwit.

Yeah, that was pretty willfully ignorant. Sorry.

I read this line incorrectly:

So Travh if something like this happened would you still think we were within our "rights"?
I thought you just used his name as an example. My bad.

Originally posted by Travh20
I cant marry another man either
I'm sure a majority, of them, are doing back-flips, over THAT!!!!!!!! :banana:

You in particular, I'm sure.