Posted on 04/06/2005 12:28:17 AM PDT by Pikamax
"What is appalling is the continued silence and inaction of people of faith and people of goodwill to speak out, to stand up to this wave of attacks against gay people," he said.
Matt, Matt, Matt. People of faith and of goodwill are the ones who voted 71% for banning sexually perverse unions. Wake up and smell the coffee. Homosexual behavior hurts everyone around it and can no more be tolerated than child abuse (to which it is inextricably linked) or murder
Good! I hope they continue to overturn the desire of the people. I hope they continue to say STFU to each and every citizen. I hope they force their will on us at every opportunity.
Then maybe we can raise the bag limit and get this over with once and for all.
Sanity in the heartland BUMP
Kansas Voters Approve Ban on Gay Unions (71-29%). I have a first cousin, who lives in Kansas, and he predicted this typical landslide when this issue goes to the voters. Apparently the main newspaper and local tv channels tried to push the gay agenda, and they failed.
The rats can't win via the ballot box with this issue. So they have to try and make gay marriage official via judges and left wing mayors in charge of gay controlled cities.
When put before the people, not the legislators, the vote is usually about 70 - 30.
The black pastors in KS came out strongly against that defense as are black pastors all over America (and finding out in the process that conservatives and even Republicans have far more in common with them than do liberals/Progressives/DemocRATS.)
I got an invitation to a "wedding". It was a former coworker's son and son's "life partner" of three months. I declined the invite but sent a gift. An extension cord with two male ends.
Major newspapers: Kansas City Star(Scar); Topeka Capitol Urinal (ooops Journal); and Wichita Beagle (Eagle), as well as every local "news" room shouting how awful, not to mention illegal the Amendment would be, didn't have enough clout to throw this one.
Way too much "talk radio/internet" to keep the message from getting out. We can also give a very big congratulations to over 1,000 KS Pastors who faced down constant criticism about "hate speach" coming from the "right wing bigots."
To God be the Glory.
So did both of the Northwest Kansas papers I read. They had a number of editorials telling their readers how backward and stupid they would be to vote "Yes". In fact, the main reason I bothered to go vote was being sick and tired of being insulted by some knee-jerk liberal newspaper editor.
"Among the opponents was Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who said she supported the existing state law and viewed it as sufficient."
Could a Kansan please explain to me how Kansas came to have a Dem Governor? I mean, Wisconsin has one too, but he bought his governorship.
Didn't that already happen in California?
Is Connecticut sending it to the voters, or have they caught the disease from Canada - rewritting marriage unilaterally?
Connecticut has three really dirt poor cities: Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford. Has the affluent areas in Fairfield county. Then it has a collection of small and mid size towns. Industrial base has largely left for better places. I don't know why these legislators want gay marriage so badly...
No idea - that seems like the problem we have here in Canada, at least in most provinces.
The last poll suggested 62% of Canadians opposed gay marriage and 70% were calling for a referendum on the issue*. However, desperate to see it pass, the Prime Minister decided that there should be no referendum (they know it would be voted down) and in fact called for his Cabinet ministers to vote in favor or be kicked out of the Cabinet.
That wasn't good enough for the labor unions and the socialist NDP - they are calling for ALL Liberal members, including backbenchers, to be FORCED to vote in favor or sit as independents (a four-line whip, the ultimate undemocratic tactic)!!
*Even those numbers are skewed somewhat, as a majority (about 60%) of Quebec residents support gay marriage, and over 70% of those in the Prairies and Ontario oppose gay marriage (constitutional bans would pass easily in those four provinces). Support seems to be moderate in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada.
They've gotten the message from the people loud and clear. But that is of little concern to them, and why should it be?
You don't need the people when you have the Judiciary, and the Left has the Courts on this issue. Its just a matter of time before the Sup Court votes to impose gay marriage or civil unions nationally (the 'or civil unions' part is important since this vote proves yet again that despite what national polls say, when given a chance people will vote to ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism for 'marriage' is used to describe them).
There are a few ways to stop this:
1. Make sure the Sup Court always has at least 5 good judges -- this is impossible.
2. Pass some sort of federal Amendment that at a minimum bars the Courts from having a say in the matter -- it could happen, perhaps a Sup Court decision for gay marriage/civil unions could spur it to passage, but then again such a decision could take on a bit of momentum itself and sort change public opinion as Roe v Wade has unfortunately done.
3. The other two supposedly co-equal branches of govt could stand up the Courts and fulfill their own duty to protect the Constitution and refuse to enforce such a decision, thus rendering it void -- it'd be great, but I can't see this happening. These two inferior branches seem to enjoy bending over and taking it from the Courts, and would probably buy into some bogus and ridiculous hysteria that to defy the Courts would be the end of the Republic.
4. Congress could attempt to pass simple legislation denying the Courts jurisdiction over the matter -- the House did it last year, but the Senate has yet to take it up, but even if it passed what is to prevent the same Courts from declaring such legislation 'unconstitutional', thus leaving # 2 and 3 as the best options.
---"Among the opponents was Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who said she supported the existing state law and viewed it as sufficient." ---
This translates into: 'I know full-well that the state law could very well be overturned by state courts, and indeed this is what I hoped for.'
---"I don't think we need a constitutional amendment, and particularly a constitutional amendment that goes far beyond the bounds of that law," she said."---
This translates into; 'At a very minimum I had hoped that the state courts would impose civil unions, and that the people would accept this euphemistic substitute for gay marriage, but now that can't happen.'
I wonder, if the gov is so upset that the Amendment goes further than the state law, then has she taken this position to its logical conclusion and called for civil unions? Isn't she up for relection next year? Then I doubt that she has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.