In Scott County, the Marriage Amendment passed by 87% to 13%. Statewide it passed 70% to 30%. A portion of those in the 30% were concerned supposedly not with the Homosexual discrimination, but with other inequalities. Let me explain.
One site says this, "The extremists who wrote the Kansas Marriage Amendment are telling you only half the story. The amendment, as passed by the Kansas Senate, could deny all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to enter into private agreements that might "resemble" marriage. The implications of this are far-reaching and are just being felt in other states with similar amendments.
"The same site also says, "The hidden agenda of Paragraph BParagraph B is an unprecedented attack on the rights of Kansans. It takes away your right to enter into any private relationship that doesn't meet the extremists' definition of marriage. Independent legal scholars have said that Paragraph B will leave Kansas courts unable to enforce any agreements between partners, including heterosexuals, who are unmarried. This ban on all relationships other than marriage is a dangerous attack on the basic rights of all Kansans, gay or straight."
Now for those of you who don't follow the argument by those who call 87% of people in Scott County, Kansas extremists (we did know that was what the law meant), they are saying that any people who enter into a private relationship (how is a private relationship legally binding anyway?) should have the same benefits of marriage.
Proponents of the Amendment have known this all along. It is exactly this reason we wanted the law written that way. Should insurance companies be forced to recognize private relationships? Should the IRS tax single people who have private relationships the same? What about homosexual private relationships? Not writing the law in this fashion would leave the open loop hole that homosexuals have been exploiting for some time. It also does not stop at homosexuals but polygamists and other "private relationships".
"Kansans For Fairness" don't mention the above problems because that would give away their real premise and false assumptions. But wait. What about the great emotional arguments such as this one from the same site:
"In Utah, language in that state's marriage amendment is being used to deny "Protection from Abuse" orders to unmarried heterosexual victims of domestic violence ('Attorney Cites Amendment 3 in Fighting Protection Order', Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2004)."
Ahhh, you have to be married to get a restraining order against someone? Who is telling the half truth here? The lesson ought to be "Don't shack up!" In other words, we should abandon God's Law in order to accommodate some legal technicality for those who break God's Law.
The underlying assumption is this, God's Law is irrelevant to people today. We shouldn't be making laws that reflect the bible. Religion should be kept private. God may be the Creator, but He does not have the right to define marriage? It also assumes that everyone has the same rights in all situtations. Single people do not have the same rights as married people do.
Why did God destroy the pre-flood world, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Canaanites again?
A La Carte (April 16)
19 hours ago
