People know that Kansas is one of the most conservative states, I think—and you might have heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and their message of hate.
Today something happened that is making local news but I don’t know if the news will go national.
The Kansas House has approved a bill that shields Kansans who refuse to serve same sex couples because in Kansas, homophobia is considered religious liberty.
House Bill 2453 was introduced by representative Charles Macheers, a republican from Shawnee. For those of you that don’t know, Shawnee is a suburb of Kansas City. This isn’t the part of Kansas that is full of almost nothing but grasslands and cows—this is the part of Kansas that’s right next to Missouri.
The bill was created for a specific reason. Kansas has a same-sex marriage ban, as some other states do. Now, I think we can all be pretty confident that in a few years all of the state bans on same-sex marriage will be overturned at the Federal level—that seems to be where the courts are going—and even the backward thinking people that want to stop gay marriage at all costs can see that.
So, they came up with a plan: if this bill is made law, then, even if the Federal government forces all the states to recognize gay marriage, (in the same way that states were forced to recognize interracial marriage and to not recognize polygamy) the anti-gay movement will still have options.
Even if gay marriage is legal in Kansas, courthouse employees wouldn’t have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if they don’t want to.
So, if you and your husband or wife go to get a marriage license, you can be turned away—and the court clerk refusing to do their job can’t be fired or reprimanded in any way.
Because they have religious freedom—and their religion tells them to be a dick.
I’m of the opinion that if your religion makes you want to be a dick, you’re probably doing it wrong.
Isn’t this pointless? I suppose that when it finally is legal, any gay couple will be able to eventually find the right circumstances to get their marriage license.
All this serves to do is make it less convenient…and make humans feel inferior.
But that’s a problem too, isn’t it?
It’s been said that the bill is vague enough that private companies could use it to discriminate too. Is this really where we are in the 21st century?
What if the court clerk decided that he wouldn’t issue marriage licenses to men that don’t have full beards? That’s in the Bible too. A religious argument could be made that not trimming your beard is just as important as not having gay sex.
I’m not a Christian and maybe that’s why I don’t understand. Who the hell decided that the part of the Bible that said you can’t have gay sex was important but the part that said don’t trim your beard wasn’t? It’s from Leviticus, right?
Don’t trim your beard, don’t have long hair if you’re a man, don’t eat shellfish, if your daughter is raped she has to marry the rapist. Why was the gay sex thing singled out as important anyway?
The implications of this are far reaching—and all because the Kansas House wants everyone to know that they really really are not comfortable with two dudes kissing.