Thursday, February 13, 2014

Kansas SoCons Continue Efforts To Insure Denial Of Rights To Same Sex Couples...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Social conservatives, aka the religious right and republican legislators continue their efforts to deny same sex couples the same considerations (read rights) heterosexual couples enjoy. Kansas, with a republican dominated house just passed House Bill 2453 that would "explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot." The bill passed the House on a 72 to 49 vote and now goes to the senate were it likely will pass.

Excerpts from CNN U.S.

Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.

Skip

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

This includes employees of the state.

"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.

"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."

Skip

Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.

Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.

Skip

... titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.

Talk about the rights of religious zealots to deny the above list of services to same sex couples is plainly hypocritical as well as being discriminatory. As the religious are so fond of saying God will be the final judge. Indeed the all knowing one may very well be, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in the group suporting this hypocrisy and discrimination if I were a believer.

Read the complete story UNDER THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

41 comments:

  1. Ugh... the weasely wording could even be interpreted to support denying services to mix-race couples...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. With respect to the good people of Kansas and geographically, nothing at all BB Idaho.

      Delete
  3. Same thing that was the matter with Obama until just a few years ago. On this issue, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutly dmarks. Funny how deeper reflection, and in some cases politics make such a difference.

      Glad it did whichever the case may be.

      Delete
  4. BB: Your link glitched out some how. Here is what you meant to post:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F

    I remember this book from way back. The downfall of it is that it comes from a view of political bias, and its rational and valid arguments are often overwhelmed by matters of disagreement with the author's political bias. The main thing the matter with Kansas is that way too many people there disagree with the author on a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a daughter that is a microbiology professor in Kansas. We visit once a year. IMO,
      Thomas Frank, born, raised and educated in Kansas (an a college republican) had nailed
      that state dean on.

      Delete
  5. Here is what Gov. Sam Brownback told The Topeka Capital-Journal.: “"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity [my bold]."

    Then how does human dignity and respect square with a REFUSAL to: "Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

    No food, no employment, no services, no accommodations, nothing! You call this “respect” and “dignity!” Please note the hypocrisy. I call this fascism. What next? Gas chambers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree with the cepa.. ceph.

      8 legged critter.

      Delete
    2. Thank you (O)CT(O)PUS for your most appropriate exclamation point added to the post.

      Delete
  6. Well, I think the whole point of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" was to show how a once very progressive state became very conservative. It was not so much conservatism, or the battle of ideas, that happened to Kansas, but rather Big Agro creating a state in which young people simply didn't want to live anymore.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assume you meant young people don't want to live IN the state anymore rather than "they don't want to live anymore.."

      I assume your reference to Kansas being a progressive state has something to do with the dust bowl days, the great depression. and the " Savoir FDR."

      Delete
    2. You have to go way back before FDR and the Dust Bowl and all, Les.

      JMJ

      Delete
  7. Marriage, as traditionally defined by the Church, is not a "RIGHT," it is a SACRAMENT.

    Civil marriage a LEGAL CONTRACT, it is not a "right."

    Nothing stops people of any description from living together and sharing domestic and economic responsibilities in whatever way and to whatever degree they choose between or among themselves. Whether or not sexual relations are part of the domestic arrangement or not should be of no concern whatsoever to anyone but the persons directly involved in the PRIVATE arrangement between consenting adults.

    We have a constitutional right to PURSUE happiness, but no constitutional guarantee to OBTAIN it.

    The underlying reason for the institution of marriage has always been to provide security for and protect the property rights of mothers and children.

    The vast difference between restrictive, theoretical ecclesiastical IDEALS and the actual PRACTICES in which married people -- particularly men -- tend to indulge has always existed.

    Civilization could not exist without tacit acceptance of institutionalized HYPOCRISY.

    In TRUTH this is Marriage Equality Thing is -- and should be regarded as -- a NON-ISSUE.

    "Love is where you find it
    Don't be blind it's
    All around you -- everywhere...."


    Smart people ENJOY it, they don't waste precious time TALKING it to death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Slice and dice it any which way and the intent of HB 2453 remains clear. Crystal clear IMNHO Free Thinke

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not sure what Free's point is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure that Colonel Klinke knows his own mind anymore. If he appears a bit loppy, its because his memory's not as sharp as it used to be. Also, his memory's not as sharp as it used to be.

      Q: Where can a man over 70 find a younger, good looking woman who is interested in him?
      A: Troll a liberal blog or browse a bookstore under fiction.

      His investment in health insurance is finally paying off.

      No one expects him to run -- anywhere.

      Delete
  10. dmarks, perhaps the point is craftly hidden? Or maybe it is just me? However, I believe BB Idaho, myself, and (O)CT(O)PUS get the point quite clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I just wasn't really sure what side Free is on!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gary Johnson is for total marriage equality and, unlike Mr. Obama, wouldn't leave it up to the states. Solid advantage, Mr. Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt Johnson would do what Obama did: oppose same-sex marriage for political reasons.... or (a related issue) be like Obama with his embarassing mumbling and weaseling and support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

      In fact, Johnson appears to have been consistent and strong in his position: click here [HuffPo]

      I recall someone on these blogs, back when Obama was elected, arguing in favor of Obama's pro-DOMA stance while insisting that Obama wasn't any sort of homophobe. The hypocrisy and inconsistency that "partisanship above all else" logic forces one to engage in...

      Delete
    2. Good for the HuffPo for allowing Johnson to publish that.

      Delete
  13. Gary "wouldn't leave it up to the states" Johnson DID leave it up to others in his state when he was governor! Gay marriage is legal in NM now, but it didn't happen until 10 years after he left the governorship. And, Dennis, politicians do things for political reasons... it's how you get things done. People tend not to listen if you say "my way or the highway". Your comment is nothing more than a lame "partisanship above all else" Obama-bash.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gay marriage was not legal in NM under Johnson. He left it up to the state legislature, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I guess RN can't tolerate any comment that is the slightest bit negative concerning his beloved Gary Johnson. Although, all I did was point out some factual info regarding his time as gov, which was that gay marriage was not legal the entire 8 years he was in office. Obama did more to further the cause of marriage equality in his first term than Gary ever accomplished. Those are the the facts, but obviously they don't fit with the narrative of some... and are therefore unfit to publish.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Sanders unpublished comments with respect to Gary Johnson were INTENTIONALLY argumentative, therefore deemed spam by the management. They will remain unpublished.

    Mr. Sanders has made his point.with this rather childish comment. (Beloved Gary Johnson, can't tolerate negative, obviously they don't fit the narrative...)

    Get a clue Mr. Sanders on proper presentation of material before you return.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look forward to seeing factual comments about Johnson from Mr. Dervish, as opposed to the partially informed opinions masquerading as facts seen so far. Mr. Johnson is a figure of interest to me, and I will appreciate insights concerning him.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Sorry. That those who are in fact rulers are also supposed to be representatives does not negate them being rulers at all. Despite that some have made such a claim. It is in fact dangerous, IMHO, as it negates the the skepticism and vigilance which we must maintain toward authority and its abuse of power. The rulers are not "we the people", but the ruled are.

      Delete
    4. Curious Barlowe Bayer used the 1'st person when referring to unpublished comments of Derve (the Swerve) Sanders. Then decided to remove the comments.

      Are they one on the same? Different individuals linked by a common cause? Trolls intent on.disruption of others blogs? Or just a pathetic individual(s).

      We'll likely never know the answer to these questions for certain, nor should we care. One, both, or one in the same the charade will continue. Just not here

      Delete
    5. dmarks, you change your avatar quite often. Why is that? Just like variety?

      Delete
    6. Quite often? I think I've had three Luthor's in 6 or so years, and the two more recent Tiger's ones (the most recent being a Detroit Tigers statue, before this logo).

      When Dervish raised suspicion Saturday by sending me a message begging for blog access as himself and then as "Barlowe" a few minutes later, I tried to figure out how he did it. I also looked at my own Blogger profile, and decided to make some changes.

      I didn't figure though, that as part of Dervish's spoofing, he would come to "Rational Nation" and post a message clearly from the point of view of Dervish but under the "Barlowe" name.

      I think the real Barlowe is another person, a victim of whatever Dervish decided to do. Will might remember Barlowe, a very conservative person who posted like a typical conservative (but not something radical or trollish). But I am not sure. Maybe Dervish just decided to pretend to be a conservative for a long time in another blog. *shrug*.

      Delete
    7. Yep, there are times you just shrug, say whatever, and know it is whatever it is.

      Barlowe is a crank, Dervish Sanders a insufferable scratched recording.

      Moving on...

      Delete
    8. Mr. Johnson came to his senses before Obama did and that was my point. AND he's still way ahead of him in that he's currently FOR total marriage equality and Obama is a mamby pamb states rightist and still somewhat to the right of Dick Cheney on the issue. Done.

      Delete
    9. "...Done..."

      Well said by someone who makes a pretty good effort at avoiding lying and avoiding defending the indefensible and basing most decisions on whether or not someone has a (D) or (R) after their name.

      Delete
    10. And the fact that Johnson didn't push for gay marriage as Governor means what exactly? I mean, you could say the exact same thing about Bill Clinton as President (that and Clinton also supported don't ask don't tell), for Christ sakes.......Where they stand currently - that's the only thing that natters.

      Delete
  17. Note, Links to info regarding Gary Johnson, his position statements, record while governor are recommended and appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here are some facts, from an article in Reason

    "Obama told ABC Wednesday [in May 2012] he would let each individual state decide the gay marriage question instead of seeking federal protection of the right to marry" (from article text)

    Sounds like a sort of "states rights" position at odds with Constitutional protections of individual liberties (my conclusion, not found in the article)

    "Instead of insisting on equality as a US Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. ...Where is the leadership? While I commend him for supporting the concept of Gay marriage equality, I am profoundly disappointed in the President" - from actual quotes from Mr. Johnson in the text.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Obama has handled this with caution given the political reality in flux. We may not like, he may not like it, but it is understandable.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed jmj. He made certain political calculations and as it stands it turns out this one was a good one.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.