Same Sex Marriage
BREAKING (or, at least, BRUISING) NEWS at the end of this Post.
What is going on in Kansas?
This past Tuesday, the Kansas House of Representatives passed House Bill 2453, that would legalize discrimination against same-sex couples. By a vote of 72 to 49, the lawmakers declared that it was okay for hotels, restaurants and stores to refuse service if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
It now goes to the Republican dominated state senate.
Has the last half-century of the Civil Rights Movement meant nothing?
It was almost exactly 54 years ago that four courageous students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University sat down at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro and respectfully requested service. This act galvanized the movement and eventually led to universal anti-discrimination laws in places of public accomodation.
So what the hell is wrong with Kansas?
The legislators carefully crafted their bill as a matter of religious freedom. This is nonsense. How many times over the centuries was the “religious” argument voiced that if God had wanted the races to mix, he wouldn’t have put them on separate continents? How many times was it pointed out that, “There was slavery in the Bible,” so it’s okay now?
You can make the argument that same-sex wedlock is “an assault on the institution of marriage.” Personally, I feel Britney Spears and her Hollywood associates are an assault on the institution of marriage, rather than two people of the same sex who want to be monogamous and have their union recognized and formalized by law.
But be that as it may, why is serving someone an affront to your religious beliefs? Do these same merchants, hoteliers and restaurateurs inquire whether potential customers cheat in business, step out on their wives, beat their children or condemn the poor, all of which offend my religious beliefs?
As I read this bill, a racist Christian could claim that serving an interracial couple offended his religious beliefs. A conservative Muslim could claim that serving an unmarried couple offended his religious beliefs. And I could say that serving either of those two offended my religious beliefs.
I, for one, certainly wouldn’t want to patronize any establishment that did not accept my gay brothers and sisters any more than I would patronize any establishment that wouldn’t accept my black brothers and sisters. And it wasn’t so long ago that the same thing was done to the Irish, the Jews, the Asians and the Catholics, among others.
This bill is a discriminatory violation of civil rights, plain and simple. And if the representatives of the citizens of Kansas want to come out on the wrong side of history, shame on them.
Have they learned nothing? It may be time to go back to sit-ins.
BRAND SPANKING NEWS:
At this same Kansas legislative session, Wichita Democratic Representative Gail Finney has introduced a bill to increase the severity of spanking allowed by law. Currently, Kansas law allows parents and other authority figures to spank children, but not so severely that the punishment leaves redness or bruises. Rep. Finney’s proposed bill would correct this intrusive constraint by allowing up to ten forceful swats to an offender’s behind and to use “reasonable physical force” to restrain said offender during the spanking, “acknowledging that redness or bruising may occur on the tender skin of a child as a result.”
Well, it’s about time!
All in all, it’s gratifying to see the Kansas legislature putting its time and efforts to such good and productive use. If these bills both pass, between the license not to serve same-sex couples or anyone else who challenges our religious beliefs, and the license to bruise our kids’ backsides when they need it, we should be well on our way to a peaceful, harmonious society in the Heartlands – one that can serve as a model for us all.
I just read your article to my boyfriend and he said it best: “Ignorance and fear”.
I can’t believe what I’m reading. Kansas really needs to step into the 21st century. Appalling — absolutely appalling. Thanks for the article Mark.
Jennifer
I’m not from Kansas but I agree with their right to pass such a law, as I’ve read of several instances where outrageous lawsuits are being filed in different states because gays expect Christians to cater to a lifestyle that in contrary to what they believe.
No one is denying gays the right to be gay if they so choose, but they should find places that don’t have a problem with their choices, because it is also discrimination against Christians when they are forced to act contrary to their belief’s which these people know full well that Christians do not accept homosexual behavior as an alternative life style, but gays are doing this as a way to force their behavior on society.
But it’s okay for Starbucks not to want the business of or to serve Conservatives. No cries of discrimination. Simple solution: Conservatives don’t discuss politics or don’t buy Starbucks.
As far as race issues, I woud be offended if I were a black person and saw the discrimination of gays being equal to the slavery of blacks. No one can change the color of their skin, but inter-racial relationships and homosexuality are a choice.
As I once suggested to a person who was considering a interracial relationship. You know how people feel about it, If you cant handle the talk then I suggest you don’t do the walk because you’re going to face these opinions for as long as you are involved, and even after in some cases, and you can either deal with it or go through life fighting for you and whatever children you have. It might change someday but it probably won’t be in our lifetime.
Dear Sherry,
I would want to argue against the assumption that homosexuality is a choice. But even if it were (and interracial relationships for example are), does one thing being a choice mean you should accept to suffer from discrimination?
Being an unveiled woman in some countries is “against some people’s religious sentiment”. Even simply going out as a woman is “against religious sentiment”. Watching football, listening to “pagan music”, not wearing a beard, or not doing five prayers a day as a male is also against religious sentiments in some countries. And yes, all these things are choices… so does this mean that you believe it is legitimate for businesses to refuse to serve unveiled women, or women full stop (because you are outside as a woman, which goes against religious sentiment), that it is legitimate for restaurants to refuse males who do not have the right beard length, or for people to sneer at men who play football, or for say governments to refuse jobs to those who do not show the right piety by doing five prayers a day?
I must say that I was horrified to read that there exist people who, for example, will sneer at interracial relationships, or will consider it “well-deserved” if people suffer from badmouthing as a result of their interracial relation, because, after all, they had a choice not to fall in love!
… And I do think it would be discrimination too if shops, bars, restaurants, or other businesses refused to serve conservatives (or liberals).
Most people do not suffer discrimination as a result of their choices unless they are unlawful or until they attempt to impose those choices on people who they know do not accept those choices, such as when gays insist that certain religious or business establishments violate their conscience or compromise their belief’s in order to accomdate them knowing that true Christians do not and will not. It is not that Christians hate the person, but they are not going to embrace sin. (Romans, Chapter 1)
They have not been denied their right to be gay, but they do not have the right to demand that other people embrace them.
All choices have personal accountability. If you make the choice you also must accept the price that comes with it, whether it is good or bad.
They are free to voice their preference just as is any other group of people, but they will face opposition to their life style because it is not deemed acceptable by the majority, and they know this.
Maybe in some areas inter-racial relationships are more acceptable than in others, but most of the few I have personal knowledge of are not a result of love. There are exceptions, but most are the result of teens who are in rebellion against their parents, or because young girls were lied too. After they became pregnant they have been left to raise the child as a single parent with little or no support.
As one black male once told me, He wanted a white girl because his daddy had one and his uncle had one and his brother had one, so he wanted a white girl too. That’s not love., but unfortunately that’s what many of these relationships are about.
As for Islam and their cultures, I do not approve of them. They are not Bibical, they are more of a cult, and I find it appalling how women are treated in some countries, and some even in this country, but if we allow it, all women will be at risk of being treated this way. And these people come to America wanting to change our laws so they can have the same thing they left in their country. If that works so good then why did they come here. Stay where what you want already is, but they don’t because it is their desire to rule the world, as they have openly proclaimed.
So why is it that Christians are expected to follow every wind that blows while they are the ones most persecuted and discriminated against ? Even murdered in other countries, but of course that gets very little news coverage.
When I say most people do not suffer discrimination I’m referring to these particular topics, where people have choice. Discrimiation does exist against all races, women, the handicapped, the elderly,, ect. but those are not areas where people have choice. I’m at work and I’m being distracted so my wording is not the best in some of these comments.
In the country I currently live in, I cannot have a boyfriend in my flat because it runs contrary to the general religious beliefs and feelings of what is “proper”… In a place I go to on missions, if ever I kissed somebody of the other gender and were visible from the street, I would be kicked out of the territory. Things could be much worse in other places, and a blanket agreement to allow for religious sentiment to rule public life has no control over what may happen.
I think religious freedom should just mean that you are free of your beliefs and any actions resulting from these beliefs AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT RUN COUNTER TO HUMAN RIGHTS.
Basically, religious freedom should not mean that we allow all beliefs and actions, but rather that, as long as those beliefs and actions do not contradict our basic human values, these beliefs are none of the State’s business (whether these beliefs are actually considered a religion or not is in fact immaterial).
When one knows the variety of religions that exist in the world, what does allowing religious beliefs to rule who you accept in a hotel, restaurant, or stores mean? Religious beliefs range from those who believe gays are not OK, to those who believe women should not go out without a full burka and, even then, they should be accompanied by a male family member, to those who believe that any insect’s life is precious and who live totally naked (yes, this religion exists, and I have sympathy for that one).
Kansas may well end up, in addition to anti-gay discrimination, with hotel owners refusing to accept unmarried couples, restaurants never serving lone women, and bar refusing to allow Blacks in!
Just forget about religion, it is no one’s business, but there is a set of common values that define any country, and those should be upheld very firmly.
Wise and insightful comments. Thank you.
Right now in Texas Todd Staples is running for Lieutenant Governor and one of his platforms is to change the state law to confine marriage to a man and a woman. Recently a Judge Breland in Texas performed some Valentine’s Day same-sex weddings. So I imagine they’re all headed to the conservative Supreme Court.