Posted on November 17 at 10:31 p.m.
Csommer…
Yeah, can you believe people in California, defining words!!!
Next thing you know the word “homicide” will be defined and will leave out “people who blog on the Kansan”, and just be defined as “an intentional killing of another human being.” How dare they!
Later they will define the word “tree” and the all the shrubbery will get upset and we will have another 14th amendment issue on our hands. When will the people of California learn that words can't have meanings?!?!
Since you are a former member of the LDS church I am completely confident you are totally objective on the subject and don’t have any sort of an ax to grind.
Posted on November 17 at 10:26 p.m.
14th_Amendment...
Since all laws discriminate are all laws invalidated by the EP clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
I want to vote on every issue before the U.S. Senate, how dare I be denied that right? I pay my taxes! This is crazy!
Posted on November 17 at 10:22 p.m.
juniper08...
So you support same-sex marriage, but want to deny that right to others such as polygamist (which you ignorantly ignore the LDS church hasn't support for over 100 years), group marriage, and incestuous marriage?
If you don't then you are a bigot, and even worse you are a hypocrite because there is no non-arbitrary distinction between granting rights for one and not the others.
Posted on November 17 at 10:14 p.m.
Also, Proposition 8 didn't oppress homosexuals (or LGBT if you prefer) or polygamists, etc. It defined a word. Claiming Prop 8 is oppressive is like saying defining the word "tree" oppressed the bush because it wasn't included in the definition.
Again, if California doesn't want to extend marriage to include; polygamy, group marriage, same-sex marriage, or incestuous marriage, that is their right.
Posted on November 17 at 10:06 p.m.
Tyranny of the majority is just as common as tyranny of the oligarchs (the courts in this instance). Claiming a law you don't agree with is tyranny of the majority is the oldest tactic in the book. If you don't like our system of government then move somewhere else or try to change it, but this is how it is.
Do those who support same-sex marriage also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage? If you support one but not the others you are a hypocrite. Don't they deserve the same "right"?
While we are at it why can't men get maternity (or paternity) leave, I demand that "right". Why can only the elderly and young get medicare and medicaid. I demand that "right." Why is only the legislature entitled to vote on certain issues? I demand that "right". If the government created the "right" then they can decide who is entitled to receive the benefits. I understand why people want this benefit, but it is up to society to grant this benefit since marriage is a social institution created by state governments.
Changing the definition of marriage to be all things to all people dilutes marriage to being essentially nothing.
Posted on November 17 at 2:55 p.m.
All laws discriminate. Marriage is not a fundamental right which means the state government can legislate who can get married.
The logic for allowing same-sex marriage is the same for allowing polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage. Of course one can make an arbitrary distinction between same sex marriage and the latter ones, but the arguments for them are essentially the same. So advocating for one is advocating for them all
Anti-homosexuality isn’t the issue (for many). This is about society being able to determine which relationships it should encourage, and the social implications of changing the traditional definition. Marriage is a social institution. No one is telling homosexuals who they can love, or whether they can love. Government is not interfering in their private lives. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
Marriage is more than a contract between two consenting adults, it is a status which has social ramifications.
Posted on April 29 at 9:06 a.m.
I think it is clear the author of this article, and anyone against allowing students the right to carry concealed handguns on campus, are really just racist patriarchs. Statistics prove that women and minorities are most susceptible to violence. Women are especially susceptible since they are on average weaker than most men. It is clear these anti-gun rights nuts really hate all women and minorities and can’t stand the idea that if we allow them to carry guns they might be able to fight back against their oppression and control.
Posted on November 18 at 12:29 p.m.
todd1007...
Let's try to keep this discussion civil. We don't want to be like some of the Prop 8 protesters in California who are persecuting certain religions and attacking people who donated time and money towards Prop 8.
On Student activists come out against Proposition 8