Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kansas House Approves Gay Marriage Bill | Dems Under Fire
WIBW News ^ | 2-13-14 | Associated Press

Posted on 02/13/2014 6:37:42 AM PST by lacrew

The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings.

(Excerpt) Read more at wibw.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: gay
This bill is in response to what has happened in Colorado - where a judge forced a private business to provide services for a gay wedding.

Gay marriage isn't even legal here in Kansas, but the bill is pre-emptive, in anticipation that some judge will eventually declare that unconstitutional.

1 posted on 02/13/2014 6:37:42 AM PST by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lacrew

That headline is very deceptive and is probably causing a lot of coffee being spit over keyboards at first sight.


2 posted on 02/13/2014 6:39:26 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Yes, the title wasn’t even ambiguous. There is no such animal in Kansas any more than things can fall up.


3 posted on 02/13/2014 6:43:39 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Awesome! Sounds like KS has a clue!


4 posted on 02/13/2014 6:45:22 AM PST by knittnmom (Save the earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I agree. My first reaction was anger. My second reaction is repulsion that we have come to the place where people think we have to write laws that guarantee what are ALREADY God-given rights.


5 posted on 02/13/2014 6:45:36 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

THIS COULD BE A PROBLEM

We have to be careful and watch this.

Democraps have learned to move the ball by pretending to be against something, and crafting a law that is worded so badly it must fail.

Then they say “since the proposed bill AGAINST it failed, that means we have a new law FOR it”


6 posted on 02/13/2014 6:51:27 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Good to see that Kansas is looking ahead and working to protect private conscience.


7 posted on 02/13/2014 6:57:47 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Another bill that is working its way through committee is to do away with no fault divorce. Another one would change other things about divorce. My colleagues are up in arms. I think it’s amusing. I was called twice on Tuesday asking whether a local TV channel could send someone and a camera out to interview me for the evening news. LOL I told them no. I was having a bad hair day. I would probably have said that anything that stirs up the status quo with judges and lawyers is a good thing.


8 posted on 02/13/2014 6:58:22 AM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Yes, and my own KS representatives (House and Senate) are apologetic that the unnecessary bill was passed that “discriminates” against unknown minorities.


9 posted on 02/13/2014 7:02:06 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Good for them. We need such protections in place, but its also time to crack down on judicial power.


10 posted on 02/13/2014 7:04:15 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
Glad that your colleagues are "up in arms."

It's high time that the wishes of the people are endorsed rather than those of the media, academia and Hollywood!

11 posted on 02/13/2014 7:05:18 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
Another bill that is working its way through committee is to do away with no fault divorce. Another one would change other things about divorce. My colleagues are up in arms.

Don't they support traditional marriage?

12 posted on 02/13/2014 7:10:27 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

This already passed the house....and the Republicans have a 32-8 advantage in the senate.

I am optimistic that it will pass.


13 posted on 02/13/2014 7:24:21 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

State prohibition bans on this mean nothing to a federal judge. And I bet Bob Dole is opposed to this bill too.


14 posted on 02/13/2014 7:51:19 AM PST by Theodore R. (TX Republicans to endorse Cornball and George P! Stay tuned March 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I had the coffee, the impulse and the keyboard, so your prediction was that close to coming true. Listening to Mark Levin last night; he had never made it so clear what he meant by the article V pathway to constitutional amendment through ‘conventions of the states” (rather than a constitutional Convention). If that route had been taken in the ‘90’s , rather than DOMA, these outrages would never have arisen. I suspect it’s too late now ,unless the impending polygamy campaign provokes the much needed course correction.


15 posted on 02/13/2014 8:11:50 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Almost all lawyers and most judges are pointed headed liberals. It’s the curse of too much education.


16 posted on 02/13/2014 9:56:07 AM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

“Almost all lawyers and most judges are pointed headed liberals. It’s the curse of too much education.”

Actually, it isn’t too much education. It’s education without morality or godliness.


17 posted on 02/13/2014 10:14:10 AM PST by unseelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Agreed - but its one more piece of legislation (the will of the people) that the judges would have to unravel....and I like making it more difficult to trample on our rights.

I’m sure Bob Dole is mortified at what Sam Brownback is doing...and that’s a good thing too.


18 posted on 02/13/2014 11:19:16 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

That is my point. If it passes, then the democraps file a lawsuit and then get it ‘repealed’ which, to a democrat. means they do the OPPOSITE.

Look at ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’... You could argue that that was the policy all along. But they put it into words saying the OPPOSITE of what they wanted, because they know that it never would have passed if they simply asked for a law allowing gays in the military.

So they ask for “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. Then they ‘repeal’ it.

‘Repeal’ used to mean go back to the previous position, but democraps take it to mean you advance to a NEW position, allowing gays in the military.


19 posted on 02/14/2014 10:01:19 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I understand your point, but DADT isn’t a great example. I was in the military when it went into place, and it meant a leap from a ban on homosexuals to acceptance of them. Iow, it was never viewed as a strict new policy - it was just a marker post in the steady slide downhill.


20 posted on 02/14/2014 8:29:45 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

you still misssed my poinnt

The REPEAL of “DADT” should have meant going back to the way it was. NOT moving forward to openly gay.

No one voted to allow openly gay. Instead they chose to do DADT and then when they ‘repeal’ it, the get what they want.

By pretenidng to want the opposite, they move the ball forward.


21 posted on 02/15/2014 10:13:48 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson