Something is seriously amiss in Kansas.
1. Using Taxpayer Funds To Clone The Cleavers
Beve, June, Wally, Ward…I’m so sorry you got pulled into this…
Are there conservatives who can’t see how hypocritical, presumptuous and wrong this is?
I know one who doesn’t, at least: Kansas State Sen. Forrest Knox ( R-Altoona), who has introduced Senate Bill 158 . It will use the power of money to persuade foster parents to live like a “Leave it to Beaver” family. That’s Knox’s description, not mine.
Senate Bill 158 creates a “special category” known as licensed CARE families, who can receive “substantially higher” pay from the state than foster families who don’t qualify.
According to the language of SB 158, a CARE family is…
- A husband and wife team married for at least seven years,
- …in a faithful, loving and caring relationship and
- …with no sexual relations outside of the marriage
- …no current use of tobacco by anyone in the family’s home
- …no alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages in the family’s home
- …either the husband or wife, or both, does not work outside the home; and
- …the family is involved in a social group larger than the family that meets regularly, preferably at least weekly.
In other words, if I really have to spell it out, “church.” The law can’t say church, because that would violate the Bill of Rights. I suppose they could all join a cult.It is not the business of the government to micromanage personal choices by any citizen, whether they are receiving state funds for foster parenting or not, to this oppressive, excessive and presumptuous extent. I wonder why the bill doesn’t also ban the use of profanity, dictate the use of an electric car, include a list of acceptable TV shows, music and books, and require artwork that doesn’t suggest nudity. Do Republicans really ant a less obtrusive government, or a more intrusive government as long as it imposes behavior that Republican approve of?
This is also a profoundly stupid bill, as it would either be impossible to enforce, or would require such police state measures to enforce it that the Bill of Rights would throw up. The requirements will merely guarantee that foster children are raised by greedy, duplicitous liars, or in the alternative, principled normal people.
“Let’s Make Sure Everyone Knows Republicans Hate Gays”
What is Kansas Governor Sam Brownback trying to accomplish, if not that?
In an executive order, Brownback essentially declared open season on gays. The governor rescinded a previous executive order that forbade the state government from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) declared the now-retracted policy with her executive order in 2007, before becoming Health and Human Services Department Secretary in 2008. Kansas law bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, ancestry or age, and Sebelius ordered that the Kansas government shouldn’t discriminate against LBGT individuals either.
Brownback’s rationale is ethically obtuse, and probably disingenuous. He argued that his order now, “ensures that state employees enjoy the same civil rights as all Kansans without creating additional ‘protected classes’ as the previous order did. Any such expansion of ‘protected classes’ should be done by the legislature and not through unilateral action.” Problems:
1. Leaving the status quo in place sends a different message than removing protection that has already been put in place. Think of Roe v. Wade: would the overturning of Roe be seen as a anti-abortion, or as “simply returning the decision regarding abortion to the states, where it always belonged. We’re back where we were pre-Roe!” ? Before Roe, abortion rights were moving forward. If Roe is reversed, abortion rights will be moving backwards. Brownback’s action operates as an official rejection of equal rights for gays and protection under the law.
2. Sending the message that the state is so opposed to protecting gays against discrimination that it would remove the protections that have been in place for eight years communicates approval and endorsement of anti-gay bias and hate.
3. That’s dangerous and irresponsible. I would not be surprised if it prompted some homophobic troglodytes to beat or kill someone.
Hey, but it’s worth it, if you show your base that you’ll stand-up to those godless gay-marriage proponents, right, Sam?
“Stripping anti-discrimination policy already in force is a mean, ugly step,” concludes the Washington Post.
The disgusting thing is, it’s intended to be.
______________
Ethics Alarms 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/arkansas-legislature-passes-bill-allowing-lgbt-discriminatio#.gfWR4zgB5
Some of these nullified ordnances are over a decade old.
Tennessee already has such a bill in place – the first part removing existing protections at state level first.
Similar bills are in the pipeline in several states. The Governor of Kansas is by no means alone.
Important opposition parties have an obligation to be more responsible than this, smarter than this, and more rational. Destroying a party’s credibility with moderates, independents and sane people to fight a battle that 1)is a guaranteed loser; 2) looks petty and mean, and 3) has nothing substantive at stake whatsoever except pride, outmoded tradition, the loss of fanciful scaremongered horror stories is just irresponsible stewardship. The Republicans risk becoming the ugly anti-integration Southern Democrats of the 50’s and 60’s. (Come to think of it, a lot of them became Republicans…) They can’t get other minorities to trust them when they are pro-bigotry in this realm. How hard is that to see?
Click to access HJR0071.pdf
In Jesus name, Amen…
That particular horse bolted some time ago, Jack.
That’s just standard natural law cant, though. I don’t see how that means anything other than endorsing Jefferson, who said that rights were a part of human birthright, not bestowed at the whim of governments. The Bible isn’t “God.”
The key words are “and savior“.
If a claimed human right doesn’t originate from “the savior”, then it can’t exist.
Which particular religion do you think that refers to?
Oklahoma Rep. Dan Fisher (R) has introduced “emergency” legislation “prohibiting the expenditure of funds on the Advanced Placement United States History course.” Fisher is part of a group called the “Black Robe Regiment” which argues “the church and God himself has been under assault, marginalized, and diminished by the progressives and secularists.” The group attacks the “false wall of separation of church and state.” The Black Robe Regiment claims that a “growing tide of special interest groups indoctrinating our youth at the exclusion of the Christian perspective.”
Fisher said the Advanced Placement history class fails to teach “American exceptionalism.” The bill passed the Oklahoma House Education committee on Monday on a vote of 11-4. You can read the actual course description for the course here.
Yes, Zoe. And they’re right, too.
Indeed, the course relies on the separation of church and state. It even teaches that there is one. Can’t have that, can we?
http://www.blackrobereg.org/
Wrong. Nothing in the Constitution states that.
That was Christine O’Donnell’s point, which should tell you something. It says the government can’t compel (establish) a particular religion, nor endorse a religion over others, nor interfere with a citizen’s choice of faith. That’s mighty close to separation from where I sit.
Jack; the Constitution only states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. In other words, the FEDERAL government cannot designate an official church for the nation, such as the Church of England… which was undoubtedly what Madison had in mind. It did NOT prohibit any of the states from doing so, if they wished… as Madison’s home state of Virginia had. Nor can the exercise of religion be prohibited. Madison realized that churches must be free from government constraints in order to do their job properly as a necessary function of a free and decent society.
“We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
That’s why those Commandments and the image of Moses are prominent on the Supreme Court building. That’s why there are chaplains in Congress to deliver a benediction. And that’s why this incredible concept that the First Amendment is against God instead of for Him is a negation of everything America stands for at its foundations.
You’re about 75 years out of date.
The guarantee of free exercise of religion was incorporated against the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). The guarantee against establishment of religion was incorporated against the states in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
The federal courts have been practicing judicial revisionism as a de facto means of amending the Constitution for some time now. Granted. They continue to do so. It only proves that the federal judiciary itself is badly in need of reform. Jefferson warned us about this.
Well, you’re an originalist through and through. But that ship has sailed, the horse has left the barn, the die is cast, the bird has flown, the fat lady’s sung, the party’s over, Mighty Casey has struck out, the curtain has come down and the fate is sealed. The Bill of rights almost completely applies to the states now, and it wasn’t all that controversial. One of the consequences the South had of losing the Civil War.
I think that’s better termed as “one of the consequences America had because of the Civil War”
The trouble is, Jack, that it no longer applies AT ALL to the federal government. One way or another, that’s got to change. If it doesn’t, it either means authoritarianism or another War Between the States. It’s one or the other.
As an actual matter of fact, religion, more specifically Protestant Christianity, played a major role in the forming of our country and, subsequently, our government. The First Amendment was written to prevent the establishment of a State religion, like the Anglican Church, not to exclude any and all religions (read ‘Christianity’) from our various governments.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/
Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.
Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend the lawsuit, saying he agreed the new law violated the state constitution. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, hired Madison attorney Lester Pines to defend the state.
Walker, a Republican, replaced Doyle in January and fired Pines in March. On Friday, Walker filed a motion to stop defending the case.
“Governor Walker, in deference to the legal opinion of the attorney general that the domestic partner registry…is unconstitutional, does not believe the public interest requires a continued defense of this law,” says the brief, filed by Walker’s chief counsel, Brian Hagedorn.
Boy, THAT sailed under the radar. Thanks. Yeccch.
Yesterday, Republican State Rep.Paul Shepherd (right) introduced a resolution to the Idaho State Affairs Committee which asked that the U.S. Congress impeach any federal judge who changes state law.
Now, a lot of bills are introduced into various committees and never see the light of day, but the Idaho State Affairs Committee found this bill so compelling that they took it up immediately. The members were concerned that the language was too broad, so they changed it to target only judges who strike down states’ same-sex marriage bans. This was A-OK with Rep. Shepherd, because it was those judges he was aiming at all along. According to the Idaho Spokesman, Rep. Shepherd complained to them that “federal judges are adjudicating against the intent of U.S. Constitution.”
The bill passed out of the Republican controlled committee with the four Democrats voting against it, and all the Republicans voting yes. It now goes to the floor of the Idaho House for debate. The good news is, even if the resolution passes, it is non-binding. Neither of Idaho’s U.S. congressmen are obliged to present it to the U.S.House, and even if they did, the House is not obliged to take it up. I guess that makes this more of a symbolic gesture of contempt than a serious legislative effort.
— http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/idaho_wants_congress_to_impeach_federal_judges
There’s a lot of stuff sailing under the radar at the moment.
It’s no longer a case of the “embarrassing uncle” that every party has saying something egregiously outrageous: these things are getting traction, and votes along party lines, in every Red state.
They don’t care about the “moderates”, as they gave up on both parties a long time ago, so don’t bother voting. They cater to the fanatics who can “get out the base” for their team.
And it’s bipartisan – just as Alabama voted in their Chief Judge, just look at the number of drug addicts and crooks who get out the D vote.
No wonder the sane have given up.
That’s because the “sane”… aren’t. They’re either cowards who have given up trying to defend America’s honor, traditions and society… or they’re actively trying to destroy it. That’s why the Tea Party movement came about. Your fear and hatred of it, Zoe, clearly categorizes you, even if your previous statements hadn’t.
The problem is… some of those “discrimination” laws and ordinances are being used to compel expression. A fair bit of the push for such laws is coming from the fact that the LGBT community has been suing people who have declined to provide creative services (photography, baking cakes, etc.) to same-sex weddings.
In short, because the LGBT community is using those laws to compel expression, there is now a push to repeal said laws.
If they had shown a bare modicum of tolerance for the owners of businesses like Elane Photography, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Masterpiece Cake Shop, and Arlene’s Flowers, and people like Angela McCaskill, Carrie Prejean, Julea Ward, and Jennifer Keeton, – tolerance that they were asking Americans to show not so long ago – we wouldn’t be at the point where repealing such laws was seen as a reasonable course of action.
It comes down to two simple questions:
Are you in favor of using the government to compel expression that helps celebrate same-sex weddings (photography, baking cakes, creating floral arrangements)?
Are you in favor of fostering de facto discrimination against faithful members of religious denominations (including Mormons and Roman Catholics, among others) that will NOT accept the re-definition of marriage that the Supreme Court is imposing?
In any case… I am sure that those repeals will be fought in federal court, and that the judges will once again trample all over the democratic process It’s what the Left has become very good at these days.
Are you in favor of using the government to compel expression that helps celebrate same-sex weddings (photography, baking cakes, creating floral arrangements)?
The courts ruled that a generic wedding cake isn’t expression, and I agree. I think the photography ruling is problematical. But courts draw lines, and citizens, gay or not, have a right to ask them to do so.
Are you in favor of fostering de facto discrimination against faithful members of religious denominations (including Mormons and Roman Catholics, among others) that will NOT accept the re-definition of marriage that the Supreme Court is imposing?
Other people doing what my religion doesn’t approve of in no way discriminates against my religion or anyone else’s. The existence of people your religion chooses to marginalize is not an offense to religion. It’s a terrible argument.
Except several states have already forced Catholic Charities out of adoptions precisely because they hew to Catholic teaching on marriage. It’s not a terrible argument… it cuts to the heart of the matter.
When it already leads to religious discrimination and compelled expression, it is beyond dispute that the LGBT agenda poses dangers to rights protected by the First Amendment.
Unless you are arguing that faithful members of certain religious denominations are so ethically deficient that they must be rendered second-class citizens, their votes subject to cancellation by the whims of unaccountable federal judges.
Adoptions aren’t religion or the practice of religion. Bad analogy. (I think the laws are bad policy, though.)
The thing is this just might be winnable, because economic benefits don’t have to meet the strict scrutiny standard. That’s how the Federal government was able to force a nationwide drinking age of 21.
In Kansas they aren’t the opposition. They are the entrenched establishment. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that state-level party organizations have an obligation to the national party not to do things that might win them the battle but lose them the war?
Of course. To everyone outside of Kansas and a lot of people in it, Republicans are Republicans, and Republicans have been saying a lot of dumb, racist, repellant things lately. I’m sure Democrats are celebrating wildly. Their insanity sounds kind, inclusive and compassionate, like allowing any poor immigrant who wants to do so come into the country. That’s stupid and reckless, but NICE. And it will win more support than legally defensible but mean and intolerant every time.
The vast majority of my family and (childhood) friends are Republicans. I just had dinner with my best friend from high school (a staunch Republican) over the weekend. We both agreed that the Republicans need to put a gag on their mouth-breathers and assholes if they have any hope of winning a national election. It’s pretty bad when die-hard life-long Republicans are embarrassed about these guys.
Didn’t know the GOP was running Darth Vader this time out.
NowHE would get my vote!
It’s when Republicans run on a solid platform of conservative values, justly applied in the American tradition, that they win. The consequences of the lack of those principles is manifest throughout the country.
I have no problem with a state requiring that potential foster parents be of high moral standing. Nor do I see how “church” and the Bill of Rights are in conflict in any way… particularly on a state and local level. Certainly, the state has a responsibility not to deliver children into the hands of people who are liable to abuse them, including in the worst manners possible. The real issue has been state CPS’s being lax in this aspect.
Yes, because Christians never do anything wrong.
Its not: Christians never do anything wrong.
Its: Christians tend to have more stable families and cultural values that produce more ethical and productive citizens than less principled families
I’m no friend to religion in general but the emphasis that Christian values systems place on guilt based regulation of behavior, communal involvement, and love/forgiveness are among the best lessons absorbed by western society. You don’t need to be Christian in order to have those values, but you cant be Christian and not have those values (whether or not individuals live up to them is a separate issue).
Using tobacco isn’t “un-Christian” Having two working parents isn’t “un-Christian.”
Right but the central theme of this comment thread and of the proposed law was conformism to the ideal American christian nuclear family. That holds true even if some of the individual stipulations aren’t perfectly consistent with that ideal.
There’s nothing wrong with the ideal. The problem is that imposing or forcing it is also a violation of American ideals.
Right, see below. ↓ ↓ ↓
You’ve conflated 3 of the “bullet points” above.
The requirement doesn’t claim that using tobacco is “un-christian” nor that having two working parents is “un-christian”…even if we require the “weekly attendance of a larger social group” to mean “church”, which of course it could also mean “community theater”…
I was referring to the comment, equating the law to an endorsement of “Christian values.”
( A community theater wouldn’t qualify—they have rehearsals, not meetings, and you wouldn’t want to go to the same show two weeks in a row. It’s also rare to cast a whole family…)
Fair enough.
I was referring to the comment, equating the law to an endorsement of “Christian values.”
( A community theater wouldn’t qualify—they have rehearsals, not meetings, and you wouldn’t want to go to the same show two weeks in a row. It’s also rare to cast a whole family…)
The state does have that responsibility but this goes well beyond a reasonable standard and well into intrusive government involvement for personal ideological reasons. The same thing we give lib fascists shit about.
I like the face-value effect of the law (deliver kids to safe and loving families with productive cultural values) but the way it’s implemented here and the secondary effect of the law (discrimination against otherwise qualified non-conformist families) are undoubtedly unethical. I’m also not sure there would be a way to implement the face value effect without the secondary effect.
That law won’t last past the first Satanist family or other unacceptable group like the permanently unemployed. Paying people to be good is a minefield as I think most people think at least one of those strictures is over the top. They’re trying to make a law to prove a negative, that these people are good parents because they don’t do this laundry list of possibly bad things. Where are the aspects that actually address being a good parent, like keeping weapons out of the reach of toddlers?
Exactly. What a naive, simple-minded law.
Now wait just a minute. What about my toddler’s second amendment rights?
The proposal is over the top and probably just symbolic. Legally, Brownback is within his powers to rescind the executive order. The Civil Rights act of 1964 did not include sexual orientation as a protected status, and the states are not required to extend that protection. If they want it, let them propose a bill, but the GOP dominates the legislature, and it will go nowhere. If the other side whines about it, Brownback can just throw Obama’s line back in their face and tell them to go win some elections.
I don’t think he declared open season on gay people in the sense of telling young men fueled with testosterone and hate to go pull a “chuck-a-homo bridge” incident (reference to an incident in Bangor, ME where several such men threw a flamboyant gay man off a bridge). However, if a gay man with a grating personality is sacked from his job because he “doesn’t fit in” the firing will stand, just like a white man fired for grating on coworkers. I have to ask, Jack, with respect, you’ve been pretty clear about being against hate crime legislation, how do you reconcile that with this position?
These days, the Left tends to use federal judges. Supporters of traditional marriage WON elections passing amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
What happened in those cases? Oh, yeah, they used the federal courts to overturn those elections.
They would “overturn” elections of officials who decided to decree that children had to go to church or cameras needed to be put in homes to make sure that citizens weren’t doing naughty things too. You really should drop this line—it’s silly and disingenuous. Currently, The Hill is making that same argument about GOP challenges to Obama’s executive orders and the fact that the text of the ACA is contradictory. Elections don’t mandate unconstitutional and illegal conduct: they can’t. Voters approve officials to act responsibly, including not putting incompetent laws on the ballot. A law that banned “cruel and harmful speech” would win a ballot measure in every state. Would it be “overturning” democracy to take such a law to court? Come on. I know you’re smarter than this, at least when the topic isn’t gay marriage.
Pure partisanship on The Hill’s part. The fact is that both sides have a particular set of policies and views they want to impose. Over the last few years the tendency has been to impose them by hook or by crook, whatever means necessary. Obama has been and still is the biggest offender with his talk of working with Congress when he can and around them otherwise. It should not come as a surprise when other executives do the same thing, and it should not come as a surprise when their enablers cheer them on for it. I am not saying that one side’s wrongs justify another’s but I think there is a perception, as the GOP begins to recover its power that “if only one side is shooting then the other side will soon be dead.” So the GOP ramps up the affirmative conservativism and the Dems scramble to freeze the law where they want it. What’s good for this nation or fair under the Constitution is almost secondary to that.
Exactly. It’s now about whose foot is on whose throat. I want the foot off my throat, thank you very much.
I’m not stupid. I see where cases like Elane Photography and Arlene’s Flowers are headed. Even though I am a somewhat lapsed Mormon, I am still smart enough to deny those who view me as an enemy weapons to use against me.
I’m not stupid either. I’m still very much a practicing Catholic, and although the Church has had PLENTY of problems (as most large, very old organizations do) we’ve also put up with our share of abuse over the years, including here. I’m not about to bare my back for the scourge from those who view me as a horrible, backward enemy, and those who view me as such shouldn’t be too too surprised if I view them as a disgusting threat.
The language is over the top and makes you sound deranged. Nobody’s foot is at your throat because a florist is ruled to be a public accommodation—it’s a defensible position. A florist who hates gays so much that they won’t sell them flowers is 10 being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, and 2) unethical. Gratuitous disrespect and cruelty is always unethical.
Foot on the throat is a little extreme, but you’re slightly off. A florist who hated gays so much she would not sell them flowers at all would in fact be unethical, just as a diner owner who wouldn’t allow blacks into his establishment would be. A florist who refuses to lend her talents to a ceremony she sees as a sin is a slightly different animal. I’m not willing to concede that arranging flowers is any different than other “custom” art. Again, the way around these things is to offer certain generic arrangements and say we do those and no others, so no “artistic expression” is involved. You want white rose centerpieces with “congratulations to the happy couple?” Fine, that’s #5 in the catalog. You want rainbow roses with “One small step for man, one giant leap for two men?” Sorry, that’s a custom order, we don’t do those. Please choose from the catalog or not at all.
Again, the way around these things is to offer certain generic arrangements and say we do those and no others, so no “artistic expression” is involved. You want white rose centerpieces with “congratulations to the happy couple?” Fine, that’s #5 in the catalog. You want rainbow roses with “One small step for man, one giant leap for two men?” Sorry, that’s a custom order, we don’t do those. Please choose from the catalog or not at all.
Bingo. Exactly right.
The vendor can probably bend the rules for his “close friends” but he probably does that at his peril. I would not want to be in court trying to defend a baker who did a complicated chess board cake not in his catalog on the occasion of a friend’s grand mastership but who turned down a simpler order from a gay couple.
You’re assuming the gay couple even KNEW that the chess buddy got a cake. Probably would not happen.
Still a tough case to defend if that came out in discovery.
It’s one thing if a state were to pass laws that are clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights, Jack. It’s another when an unelected federal judge strikes down a law that doesn’t meet with his personal philosophy and institutes a ruling which is, in itself, unconstitutional in wording and in principle. “Hate speech” is one of those measures that is unsustainable constitutionally- no matter how or by whom it’s imposed. Forcing businesses to accept clientele and denying them the right to set their own standards is another. In recent times, the number of these outrages against the rights of the citizens and the sovereignty of the “several states” has become an enormous compilation.
You know that the majority of Federal Judges sitting today were appointed by Reagan, right?
How does it matter by whom these judges were appointed in any case? The question is if this gigantic collection of life tenured nabobs have any right to exist in the first place. I maintain they do not.
Because Leftists think that righties think the way they do, so they think appeals to authority make a difference.
They usually think that way in their traditional arrogance, Tex. If you don’t parrot their line, you’re either ignorant or being deceitful for political reasons. As usual, also, they merely describe themselves in that. No lie too big, no hypocrisy too great.
No, it is more a comment on “activist Judges.” That term usually is applied to liberals, but the fact is that Judges (regardless of political affiliation) are ALL activist. And the fact is that we have more conservative Judges right now than liberal ones.
Which, of course, explains why the bulk of federal judges have ruled consistently against the power of the states and the people. When they don’t (like the recent ruling against Obama’s amnesty decrees) it’s big news. For a reason, it’s big news. Finding people who’ve gone through law schools in the past 40 years and have come out sound of mind and spirit is a difficult quest.
Appeal to Authority…
P.S. Progress can mean moving backwards if it moves you away from the wrong direction.
Progress, sorry.
True, but you’re using the word differently than the sense intended. Progress in developing a new neutron bomb is not progress in disarmament and world peace.
And some folks might see this as progress toward moral decay.
“Do Republicans really want a less obtrusive government, or a more intrusive government as long as it imposes behavior that Republicans approve of?”
Frankly, that has been my impression for many, many years. It’s a broad brush but same-sex relationships are a good example.
truth
Republicans want government in the bedroom and nowhere else. Democrats want government everywhere except the bedroom.
It’s not a matter of “government in/out of the bedroom”. It’s one of a solid, responsible family that can care for its children and raise them to be good, responsible citizens. Without this family unit, a free society is dead. Both sides know this, too. The Left denies it only because its destruction is one of their major goals, something they dare not admit at this stage. To establish their alternate society and State, though, the Christian family must be destroyed. The State cannot allow a rival.
Close .. and funny. Democrats don’t want government anywhere in their homes. Don’t forget all the pot smokers!
I have to assume that everyone is aware that there is a hell of a lot of difference between a “relationship” and a “marriage”.
Of course, that’s a false generalization. But hey, as long as we can expand one issue to smear the entire platform, I can find some more wells to poison for you…
I’m looking forward to the first faithful Islamic family applying for additional funds from this legislative effort.
As am I.
I need your name, by the way (see Comment policies)
SCK said what I was thinking. Such families might even make for unfair competition with same-sex couples/triples/quadruples-with-swinging-and-rotating-motorized-chandeliers, and scoop-up the majority of needy kids. Throw in the seemingly inevitable cowardly indifference to Sharia law, and it’s not your old-TV-show kind of “Cleaver” family that’ll be cloned…
Leftists keep hearkening to the classic 1950’s family sitcoms as some sort of anathema. What do they object to? I can only assume it’s the ideal of a strongly knit, loving, responsible and self-reliant family; unthreatened by government regulations, intrusiveness, corruption and hostility. It also offers a stark contrast to the tawdry shambles that the Left has brought about in the present day. Long live the Beaver! Now… let’s roll.
I was raised in a household very much like the Cleavers’ only funnier. I think the objection is no more or less than unrealistic yearning for a lifestyle that the culture no longer supports or permits. The internet alone would transform the Beve and Wally, and June would be working around season 4, after Jerry Mathers forgot how to act.
Fifties music was pretty terrific too, but it’s in the same category as the minuet to today’s youth.
Would a weekly AA meeting count? Or my book club meeting? Crazy.
You can’t bring a family to an AA meeting, unless it’s a family of drunks. Or an Irish family… (I’m here all week, folks!)
No beer? No Scotch? That’s it, we’re moving to another state. And how, exactly are they going to define a “faithful, loving and caring relationship”?
This is horrifying. I was reading above about how the GOP in instances like this is using “affirmative conservatism” to counter the left’s tactics. What they don’t realize is that the left has drawn them in, using yet another tactic, to living up to the caricature image they’re trying to sell. I hate to admit it, but conservatives don’t have the combination of sophistication and resolve to beat them at their own game.
In Kansas it might not matter. In Arkansas it might not matter, and so on throughout the Deep South. As long as we can keep the caricature bottled up there I think we are ok. I’m not sure sophistication is always what’s needed, since both sides seem to succeed a lot with visceral tactics. The key is to keep the affirmative conservative stuff where it will always pass, and also to keep it from leaching into the general election until after the next GOP president is elected. At that point we can start unconstructing some of what Obama has constructed, including stepping back and letting those states who want to extend protections do so, those who do not, not.
So, how is this different that the current system? With the current system, the state will give my filmily a lot more benefits if I divorce my wife. Isn’t this the government pressuring people to conform to the preferred family model, the single-mother family?
I wish the people pushing this bill in Kansas were just pushing this bill to illuminate the problems with the current policies, but I know they are just clueless.
The Republicans in Kansas are not caricatures. The people of Kansas vote them in year after year because this is what they want: to dismember the public schools, alienate gays and immigrants so they leave the state, create a version of “Leave it to Beaver,” just as Jack said. He apparently missed the bill to eliminate “no fault” divorces, setting the state back 60 years:
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1133769.html
There is a laughable movement to recall Brownback. What possible basis could there be for recalling a governor that is doing exactly what you elected him to do? They pretend to be shocked that he is taking money from the public schools and the highway fund to make up for deficits created by his tax cuts–just like he pretends to be shocked that the deficits are there in the first place. They deserve each other. Unfortunately, this pot can’t call the kettle black because we are probably going to lose our Democratic governor of Missouri in the next election and will be going down the same road. These people are real and do real things–it is no exaggeration.
Bingo, Jan. And it’s a mirror image of what is getting Democrats defeated now. Alienating moderates with extreme and unnecessary positions that discredit the entire agenda, even the valid parts.
I’d be tempted to say the place is a Republican Massachusetts, but that would grossly oversimplify both. I also would be tempted to say a few other things, BUT I don’t want to sound any more crazy-right than I already have.
Mat they just want a free and decent American society, Jan. One that’s not ruled by alien criminals, communistic elitists and aggressive deviants who want access to their children’s minds and bodies. Ever think of that, Jan?
When I start thinking like that I look into a twelve-step program. Your comment sounds like a b-movie trailer. Bwahhahahhah!!!
Far better, I’d say, than the cheap, R-rated film that liberals have scripted for America. If you consider the Constitution and Christianity in this light, that’s for you to live with. It’s not for you to drag us all into your nightmare.
Bwahahahahahahahah!!!
I’m glad I brought a little joy into your humdrum life, Janny!
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/14/kkk_issues_call_to_arms_over_alabama_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/
Another Salon article!
Here you go: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ku-klux-klan-supports-alabama-chief-justice-rory-moores-attempts-to-stop-gay-marriage-10044956.html
Who cares what the KKK thinks, Jan? There aren’t enough of them to cater a wedding!
1) There’s probably any number of ways to ensure Kids don’t get dropped off with shlubs in Foster homes.
2) If a specific-group-targeted protectionist law/order is necessary because that group of people have been traditionally maligned, is there EVER a time in the future that the law/order can be ended IF the nation as a whole has culturally gotten past the “troubling times”? Or would it always be seen as an endorsement for open season on mistreatment again…and therefore the law/order would forever need to be on the books despite essentially telling the group who was traditionally responsible for the mistreatment that “Hey, your kind used to be assholes, and may very well still be”?
You know the answer: White male heterosexual Christians will ALWAYS be racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful persecutors of all others unlike themselves. “All you need is Love” (for Big Brother).
So let’s say we have 2 adopted children. One is adopted by a CARE family. One is adopted by family who was approved for the adoption but is not deemed a CARE family.
How is this not a violation of the equal protection clause for the children who are adopted? I mean the money that a family gets is supposed to be for the benefit of the child and not the betterment of the parents, yes? So a child who is adopted by a family that was deemed acceptable by the state has to deal with less because the parents have only been married 5 years, both have at least a part time job, or god forbid one might have an occasional beer?
I don’t want to hear about how Republicans are for small government. And I don’t want to hear the excuse given by many that they are just RINO.
Great point—let’s punish the children being raised by those godless, drunk, smoking, hard-working, unfaithful slobs. Nice policy.