Skip to comments.Kansas House Approves Gay Marriage Bill | Dems Under Fire
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 ...
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.
That headline is very deceptive and is probably causing a lot of coffee being spit over keyboards at first sight.
Yes, the title wasn’t even ambiguous. There is no such animal in Kansas any more than things can fall up.
Awesome! Sounds like KS has a clue!
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.
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”
Good to see that Kansas is looking ahead and working to protect private conscience.
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.
Yes, and my own KS representatives (House and Senate) are apologetic that the unnecessary bill was passed that “discriminates” against unknown minorities.
Good for them. We need such protections in place, but its also time to crack down on judicial power.
It's high time that the wishes of the people are endorsed rather than those of the media, academia and Hollywood!
Don't they support traditional marriage?
This already passed the house....and the Republicans have a 32-8 advantage in the senate.
I am optimistic that it will pass.
State prohibition bans on this mean nothing to a federal judge. And I bet Bob Dole is opposed to this bill too.
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.
Almost all lawyers and most judges are pointed headed liberals. It’s the curse of too much education.
“Almost all lawyers and most judges are pointed headed liberals. Its the curse of too much education.”
Actually, it isn’t too much education. It’s education without morality or godliness.
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.
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.
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.
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.