Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
A lot of people have told me to get a letter written, so here it goes.
Instead of closing streets, they need to be getting our streets fixed. I was born here and I believe this council is one of the dumbest except for one man and most of the people know who I am indicating. I believe we need to get rid of the people that are on the council and get some that have some sense. I grant you that I will not ever vote for any of the people on the council except for one man, and you know who. I hope we will have some people run that have some intelligence in what to do to help the town. They are supposed to abide by the people who vote and mostly us who pay property taxes.
Also, who wants bird roosts downtown?
To the editor:
The League of Women Voters believes that the individual liberties guaranteed by the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions should not be weakened or abridged. On April 5, Kansans will be asked to decide whether to include an amendment that does just that. We urge you to vote "no."
The first part of the proposed amendment is redundant to Kansas law, which already defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Whether or not you agree with it, there is no need to include this definition in the Constitution: it is already law.
The second part of the amendment is more insidious, as it would deny some Kansans fair and equal treatment in the courts and even in their place of employment. It raises legal questions regarding a relationship between any two persons that does not meet the state's definition of marriage. Similar constitutional amendments in Ohio and in Michigan have denied justice to both homosexual and heterosexual couples whose relationship is consistent with common law marriage, denying domestic violence protection and prohibiting public employers from providing health benefits to partners. The proposed Kansas amendment would do nothing to protect the stability of some families; it would do great damage to the stability of others.
Denying some citizens the rights and protections of state-sanctioned marriage is innately discriminatory. If you are proud of our state's history of tolerance, we urge you to reject this amendment.
President, League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County
To the editor:
April 5 will mark a very important day in our lives. In addition to voting for school board positions, city council and mayor, we have the chance to affirm our position, as a state, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman with no variations to this description. Many opponents are claiming this amendment is not necessary, others cry discrimination.
The sad fact is, the amendment is a necessary piece of legislation at this point in our state's history. Marriage has come under assault across the nation as rogue judges and local officials try to undermine the will of the people and rule against the sanctity of marriage by allowing "marriages" of two men or two women. This amendment allows the people to unequivocally voice our positions on what constitutes marriage. More now than ever, we must stand for moral decency and protect the sanctity of marriage.
On the discrimination front, let's examine where we are: marriage is available to any two people of the opposite sex with the exception of blood relatives and subject to age restrictions. By removing the "two people of opposite sex" clause we would eliminate one qualifier, thus leaving two, "relatives" and "age." Shall we remove these restrictions as well? Of course not! The discrimination argument is fallacious to its very core.
Support the amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage in the state of Kansas. Vote "Yes" on April 5th.