F**k you, Sam Brownback

Jan 21, 2012 Full story: www.dailykos.com 11

Today's New York Times reports that Brownback created an Office of the Repealer "to recommend the elimination of out-of-date, unreasonable and burdensome state laws that build up in any bureaucracy over time." Guess which law, disabled by a 2003 decision of the Supreme Court, hasn't been sent to the Office of the Repealer for elimination.

Full Story

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#1 Jan 22, 2012
Well, if Newt Gingrich and his ice princess ever enter Kansas, they better arrest them for ORAL. She loves to give it to Newty..in a car...while his wife is in the hospital.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2 Jan 22, 2012
Sodomy laws are in place due to religion and are purely religious in nature. Which means they violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 {1970} The court provided a three part test for Establishment Clause analysis.

The Lemon Test

1. Does the law have a secular purpose? If not it violates the Establishment Clause.

2. Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

3. Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

I do not believe Sodomy Law pass any of the three. In fact I do not believe DOMA or any states constitutional laws that say "one man one woman" pass any of the three.

To get a better understanding of how some of the drafters of our constitution felt about religion people need to do some searches in our history.

Madison's original proposal for the bill of rights concerning religion was this.

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretense infringed".

Madison and Jefferson wanted a wall of separation between government and religion. They clearly wanted to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. They were so gracious that while making it law that religion has no power or influence or control over government they also made sure those that wanted to be involved in a religion can do so freely.

Unfortunately we have these fundies that are hell bent on using their religion to oppress law abiding citizens of the United States. It's real simple, keep your religion in your personal life and out of mine, it's the law.

“Gay & Proud & Lawfully Married”

Since: Jan 07

Porterville CA

#3 Jan 22, 2012
Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 35: Sex Offenses
Statute 21-3505: Criminal sodomy.(a) Criminal sodomy is:

(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;

(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or

(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.

(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, 21-3505; L. 1983, ch. 109, 5; L. 1992, ch. 298, 23; L. 1993, ch. 253, 6; July 1.

In Sec 1 it is not exclusive to same sex it is inclusive of ALL people so those Hetros that engage in sodomy as defined by this law are also guilty of a misdemeanor.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#4 Jan 22, 2012
Brock93257 wrote:
Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 35: Sex Offenses
Statute 21-3505: Criminal sodomy.(a) Criminal sodomy is:
(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;
(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or
(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.
(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, 21-3505; L. 1983, ch. 109, 5; L. 1992, ch. 298, 23; L. 1993, ch. 253, 6; July 1.
In Sec 1 it is not exclusive to same sex it is inclusive of ALL people so those Hetros that engage in sodomy as defined by this law are also guilty of a misdemeanor.
Of course, why aren't Newt and Calista doing HARD time in prison today for their crimes against nature?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5 Jan 22, 2012
Jalene in the wild wrote:
Sodomy laws are in place due to religion and are purely religious in nature. Which means they violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 {1970} The court provided a three part test for Establishment Clause analysis.
The Lemon Test
1. Does the law have a secular purpose? If not it violates the Establishment Clause.
2. Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
3. Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
I do not believe Sodomy Law pass any of the three. In fact I do not believe DOMA or any states constitutional laws that say "one man one woman" pass any of the three.
To get a better understanding of how some of the drafters of our constitution felt about religion people need to do some searches in our history.
Madison's original proposal for the bill of rights concerning religion was this.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretense infringed".
Madison and Jefferson wanted a wall of separation between government and religion. They clearly wanted to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. They were so gracious that while making it law that religion has no power or influence or control over government they also made sure those that wanted to be involved in a religion can do so freely.
Unfortunately we have these fundies that are hell bent on using their religion to oppress law abiding citizens of the United States. It's real simple, keep your religion in your personal life and out of mine, it's the law.
Very nicely said. You clearly identify the problem as fundies wanting to use their religion to get laws passed against consenting aduls. They believe that the pursuit of happiness is what is destroying America and that gays pursue happiness more than anyone. They do not understand Ron Pauls message of tolerance instead listening to Rick Santorum's anti-American anti-gay twisting of reality and support of collectivism. They believe American was created a Christian country and no amount of facts, evidence and proof is going to bring them to the truth that American was created a Libertarian Republic instead.

Christianity is an abomination; it is a crime against humanity and it is the biggest hoax ever sold. The Bible is contradictory and inconsistent, it is unreliable and can not be trusted.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6 Jan 22, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, why aren't Newt and Calista doing HARD time in prison today for their crimes against nature?
Because we are a Nation of Hypocrites.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#7 Jan 22, 2012
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we are a Nation of Hypocrites.
Sad, but true. It goes back to the original days. The sum of it is in the old Nathaniel Hawthorne book: "The Scarlett Letter". The hypocritical people of the town shun the sinning woman, but it turns out the man who brought her down was the town minister, the chief hypocrite.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Jan 22, 2012
Brock93257 wrote:
Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 35: Sex Offenses
Statute 21-3505: Criminal sodomy.(a) Criminal sodomy is:
(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;
(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or
(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.
(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, 21-3505; L. 1983, ch. 109, 5; L. 1992, ch. 298, 23; L. 1993, ch. 253, 6; July 1.
In Sec 1 it is not exclusive to same sex it is inclusive of ALL people so those Hetros that engage in sodomy as defined by this law are also guilty of a misdemeanor.
You may want to read Section 1 a little more closely, Kansas law only criminalizes consensual same sex "sodomy". Consensual heterosexual "sodomy" has been legal since the 1983 revision of the law.

It's actually about as surprising as Monday following Sunday that repeal of the constitutionally gutted aspect of this law didn't make the Governor's list. Given that Kansas is about as close to a one party state as you would ever want to get and our honorable Gov and he overwhelming majority of our Legislature make most conservatives seem liberal, most of us are just thankful that they aren't making life miserable for us. Right now they are so focused on beating up on the pro-choice movement movement and strangling abortion access, that they have pretty much forgotten we exist. Which is probably a good thing, if these clowns were to turn on us, we could end up with laws making those being rammed through in Tennessee seem almost reasonable.

“Gay & Proud & Lawfully Married”

Since: Jan 07

Porterville CA

#9 Jan 23, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You may want to read Section 1 a little more closely, Kansas law only criminalizes consensual same sex "sodomy". Consensual heterosexual "sodomy" has been legal since the 1983 revision of the law.
It's actually about as surprising as Monday following Sunday that repeal of the constitutionally gutted aspect of this law didn't make the Governor's list. Given that Kansas is about as close to a one party state as you would ever want to get and our honorable Gov and he overwhelming majority of our Legislature make most conservatives seem liberal, most of us are just thankful that they aren't making life miserable for us. Right now they are so focused on beating up on the pro-choice movement movement and strangling abortion access, that they have pretty much forgotten we exist. Which is probably a good thing, if these clowns were to turn on us, we could end up with laws making those being rammed through in Tennessee seem almost reasonable.
Actually if you read closely

"(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members" makes the statement inclusive of same sex as well as any person 16+ not exclusive for same sex

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 Jan 23, 2012
Brock93257 wrote:
Actually if you read closely
"(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members" makes the statement inclusive of same sex as well as any person 16+ not exclusive for same sex
Only if you leave out the next four words, "of the same sex". The Legislature eliminated any suggestion of consensual opposite sex "sodomy" for those 16+ back in 1983.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

#11 Jan 23, 2012
"Brownback submitted 51 bills, and this one isn't on it. There will be another round later in the year, but, as Paul Davis, the Democratic minority leader of the lower house in the state legislature, suggested that Brownback is "trying not to run afoul of a very socially conservative constituency."

IOWs he didn't want to piss off the bigots, homophobes crowd he is a member of.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 6 min Currywurst 19
Southern Governor Fights Same-Sex Marriage - An... 6 min politically incor... 9
How long before being gay is a fireable offense? 7 min Lawrence Wolf 29
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 8 min Frankie Rizzo 1,286
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 22 min cpeter1313 241
Two Lesbians, one Gay man elected to Belfast Ci... 23 min Hungarian 101 23
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 34 min Cali Girl 2014 56,028
Biggest Gay Lies 51 min Pierre 2,075
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 890
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••