Legalizing Love: the state of same-sex marriage in the Midwest

As the Schweda-Stoskopf family climbed out of their sedan, the kids begged to go to the pool later that day. Their parents simply said they would talk about it later. This situation is not uncommon for families. The only difference some people may see is instead of a mom and a dad, the kids are talking to their two dads.

Ken and Evan dated for two years and then married in Iowa this May. The couple did not have much choice about where they would be married because Iowa is the only state a reasonable distance from their home in Overland Park that will recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

“The way that we tell other people is that we met online,” Evan said. “It turned out that we had one date and we’ve never really left the other person’s side since then.”

After about a year of dating, Evan and Ken traveled to Florida. Evan said he brought Ken out to a bridge leading into a wooded area by the beach with the sunset in the backdrop. When Ken turned, Evan was down on one knee proposing.

A year later, Evan was accepted to a school in Chicago, and they broke up for about a month.

“We got to the point where we could drink an entire bottle of wine while we talked,” Evan said. “I ended up giving up the school and moving back, because apparently crying and drinking wine over Skype isn’t a healthy relationship.”

After Evan moved back to Kansas he began the couple’s application to be married in Iowa.

“Two weeks in advance we called up our five straight buddies and drove to Iowa,” Evan said about their courthouse marriage. “His (Ken’s) best friend actually got certified, ordained, and married us right there on the steps.”

Back to reality

Kansas does not recognize Evan and Ken’s marriage. The Kansas legislature passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The state does not recognize same-sex marriages, even if they are performed elsewhere.

Because marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, it has been deemed a state government issue, not a federal issue so far. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, states are free to define marriage as they see fit.

A large portion of United States judicial history is centered around the rights and powers invested in state governments compared to the powers of the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment states,”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The state does recognize that the men hyphenated their last names. Many same-sex couples, like Ken and Evan, have found ways to work around the state ban on same-sex marriage. Kansas state laws deny rights and many tax exemptions to same-sex couples because as far as the state is concerned, the couples are not legally married.

According to Stephen McAllister, the Kansas solicitor general, if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse will receive Social Security benefits. Same-sex couples and people who are living together but not legally married do not receive the same benefits. The same rule applies to federal taxes, landownership and contracts.

Evan just bought a new home for the family in Olathe. Kansas does not recognize his marriage, so he had to write Ken into a living-will as the inheritor of the house instead of listing Ken as a joint tenant on the mortgage. When people have joint tenant status they are able to inherit property automatically.

“It’s an additional $300 to make that happen for something that straight couples get free,” Evan said.

From the beginning of the American legal system, laws were directed toward land-owning men only. Laws then moved to focusing on married and non-married as two different statuses to define individuals, and those two statuses are what most laws are currently based on.

“For most states it was just assumed that we were talking about a traditional marriage and that is how local laws were geared,” McAllister said.

The desire for same-sex marriages has changed the playing field. Milton Wendland, a professor of women and gender studies, said that throughout many communities people are looking at why marriage has to be the defining trait for how people are organized.

He referenced the Human Rights Campaign’s survey for major corporations about their business practices. The survey asks the companies if they have non-discrimination policies or if they offer partner benefits.

“Most of these companies are saying, ‘Yes, we do,’” said Wendland. “We want to attract the best candidates for our jobs and that means offering these things.”

McAllister said many aspects of the legal system are tied to marriage because same-sex marriage has become openly acceptable only in the last few decades. The American legal system is still using precedents and laws set from the earliest days of the nation.

Changing ideas

In 1972, the Supreme Court was presented with its first same-sex marriage case, Baker v. Nelson. The case was brought by two men, Richard Baker and James McConnell, who had applied for a marriage license in Minnesota and were denied on the grounds that they were of the same-sex. The Supreme Court issued its dismissal of the case in one sentence citing that the issue did not involve the federal government.

The Baker case laid the grounds for more recent legal arguments, including the 2009 case Varnum v. Brein. The case was presented before the Iowa Supreme Court, which found that under the equal protection clause in the Constitution, same-sex marriage is a legal, constitutional right. The decision was unanimous in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the state of Iowa.

“The opinion reflects a carefully considered constitutional law decision from a state supreme court that has a long history of trying to do the right thing under the law, even if it is not consistent with what other states around it or the nation may be doing,” said Ann Estin, a professor at the Iowa College of Law in Iowa City.

The Iowa Supreme Court saw that marriage is not simply a social concept. Under the law, marriage changes tax status, custody, housing and more.

Iowa is the only state in the Midwest to allow same-sex couples to marry legally. Other states have developed provisions, such as domestic partnership registries and civil unions, to accommodate same-sex couples and provide them the same legal rights that come with marriage.

“We were created to make the state of Iowa more welcoming and accepting for gay and lesbian people,” said Troy Price, the executive director of One Iowa, a LGBT civil rights group. “We work to change hearts and minds.”

One Iowa’s goal is to protect and advance civil rights for the LGBT community in Iowa. Since the group’s founding in 2005, its members have worked to educate Iowans about the LGBT community and the benefits for same-sex couples in marriage legalization.

Price said that for the most part, especially after the Varnum decision, Iowans have responded positively to the One Iowa message.

“Iowans, historically, have always been a people who live and let live,” Price said. “We don’t really care what people are doing in their house. We don’t really mind the gay couple down the street.”

Price said when the Iowa Supreme Court first announced its opinion in Varnum people across the state were asking, “How can this be?” But, he says, as time has passed more people are changing their point of view about same-sex marriage.

“A lot of people just have that inherent prejudice to begin with and then they have a conversation with themselves and they talk to their friends and they talk with their neighbors about what this means,” Price said. “They think about the gay couple down the street and actually what this truly means for them.”

Despite the change in views across Iowa, same-sex couples and their supporters living in the state are not without their challenges. In 2010, three Iowa Supreme Court justices were denied retention in a state-wide ballot measure.

“We have had judicial retention since the mid-1960s and there have been four times previously where a judge, never a supreme court justice, has been removed. And it has always been for gross incompetence,” Price said.

The campaign promoting the removal of the justices was primarily financed by the FAMiLY LEADER, a pro-family organization led by president and CEO Bob Vander Plaats. The organization released a statement in December 2010 before its “Capturing Momentum Tour” to the 99-counties in Iowa.

In the news release, FAMiLY LEADER director of development, Matt Resetter said, “Now we have an even greater opportunity to harness that election momentum and see that conservative, constitutional, pro-family principles continue to be esteemed in our state for generations to come.”

Price explained when the vote occurred, many Iowans did not think the retention vote was a real threat, but after the actions of the FAMiLY LEADER, One Iowa and same-sex marriage supporters will not allow anything similar to happen again in Iowa.

Well, what about Kansas?

In April 2005, Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. A New York Times article, “In the Heartland and Out of the Closet,” documents the social changes in Kansas when the constitutional amendment was being considered.

The article discusses the choices gay and lesbian Kansans faced in 2005, especially for individuals and couples who were not open about their sexuality. The article said the choice between standing up against the constitutional amendment and staying secretive about their sexuality led many Kansans to come out to their friends and neighbors in a way to start a conversation about rights for same-sex couples.

At the time, their efforts were not enough. The constitutional amendment passed and the Kansas constitution now defines it as, “Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.”

Despite the constitutional amendment, the number of same-sex couples in the state has grown. In the 2000 census, Kansas registered 21,411 male householders with children. In 2010 the number had grown by 34.4 percent to 28,773 householders. Ken and Evan Scheweda-Stoskopf and their children are in the 34.4 percent change.

A truly modern family

For Evan and Ken’s children, having two dads is not a big deal. The children are Ken’s from a previous marriage.

“I am good friends with my ex-wife and we still love each other,” Ken said. “We have three great kids we share.”

The children, Maddie, 13 years old, Tristen, 12 years old, and Hayley, 10 years old, split time between their dads’ house and their mom’s. The kids go to school in Baldwin City where their mom lives.

Maddie is a cheerleader at Baldwin High School and, like any high school girl, spends time on Facebook and hanging out with friends. Tristen spends his time playing football and baseball when he isn’t flirting with the young ladies. Hayley is the most out-spoken of the kids and she enjoys gymnastics, softball and art.

Evan and Ken have been open with the children about their sexuality and they credit television shows with gay characters such as “Glee” and “Modern Family,” for making it easier to talk about.

“Tristen was about six when he asked me, ‘Why don’t you like girls?’” Ken said. “I said, ‘Well, that’s just the way I was made.’ And Tristen just said, ‘Well, I don’t care, Dad.’”

Ken said he was surprised Tristen had an easy time accepting Ken as being gay. He said he believed it would be difficult for Tristen to accept him after growing up in a small, conservative town.

Evan and Ken said they really never talked about it in a formal way with the kids.

“It’s just there,” Evan said. “Just like my parents never talked about, ‘Oh, we’re straight.’”

“It’s our family,” Ken said. “We love each other and we want to be around each other.”

When politics enter the picture

In August, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry joined fellow candidates Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in signing the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In a November interview with the Nashua Telegraph, Romney said, “I’m in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don’t believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights. I do not favor same-sex marriage.”

Evan follows national politics closely, especially same-sex couples rights issues.

“It hurts to see someone actively make a pledge to tear our family apart,” Evan said. “They want to divorce us.”

Currently, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton is still in effect. It defines marriage, in regards to any thing on the federal level, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It also says states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

However, President Obama instructed the Justice Department in February to cease defending the section of the statute defining marriage. Several cases are pending in the district courts, as well as the federal court of appeals.

Following the federal action, the state of New York passed the Marriage Equality Act on July 24. Same-sex couples young and old flocked to the city to be married throughout the summer. On Dec. 1, a New York judge allowed a lawsuit seeking to void the act to proceed.

Today, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco, will hear two major motions in the case regarding Prop 8, a California measure from 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the state. In the 2010 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Prop 8 was overturned and ruled to be unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The Circuit of Appeals case is on track to be decided in early 2012. From there, the case could go to the United States Supreme Court. The court could set a precedent if it finds the ban unconstitutional, which would lift all bans against same-sex marriage as well as find DOMA to be unconstitutional.

Solicitor general McAllister said for same-sex couples in Kansas, the likelihood of the state constitutional ban being lifted is unlikely. Because the state’s voters ratified the amendment in 2005 through a ballot vote, the Kansas Supreme Court now has its hands tied. He said it will take a case being accepted into the U.S. Supreme Court and the opinion finding DOMA to be unconstitutional on a federal level to change the nation’s legal definition of marriage.

For Evan and Ken, they will continue to live and work in Kansas with their children. They are secure in the thought that as time goes on, the groups working against their marriage will grow smaller.

Edited by Alexandra Esposito

  • Updated Oct. 11, 2012 at 5:44 pm
  • Blammo

    No comments? Well, if no one else will say, it I WILL: it would be more hilarious if their names were Evan and Kevin.

  • xz007

    This is going to come off the wrong way, but I don’t care; this is, what, the third “gay lifestyles at Kansas” article this month? By the time we get around to Gaypril, even gays are going to be sick of reading about gays. I suppose it’s oversaturate this or the football chant. *sigh*

  • Calvin

    I guess people don’t understand about push back. The more you push for something, the harder will be the pushback when it comes. My writing class says to never name your characters with rhyming names. It’s distracting from the story.

    Can I say it has been getting a little too gay in the Kansan of late. “Gay” used to be such a nice word. Now we don our GAY apparrel…, I feel pretty, so pretty, so happy, so happy, so GAY!

    I would advise people to read Plessy v Ferguson. It backfired terribly on those who brought it up and had nationwide effects.

    I suppose I have to add here that some of my best friends are gay…really, I don’t know and I don’t care as long they don’t try to oppress me. At KU I feel a little bit oppressed.

    Suppose this calls for a personal story to explain; I was in New Orleans just before Marti Gras about 12 years ago. I was walking down the street, a public street that anyone could walk on. It was on the edge of the French Quarter so there were children about. I walked by a building that looked almost like a house with music coming out. I looked in the open window while I was passing and saw a strange sight. A man wearing nothing but chaps was dancing on the bar. Yep, he was swinging himself to the delight of the patrons. Do you think this was an appropriate thing to be doing when the building next door was a home and the building across the street was a home? That anyone including children could walk by and catch the “show”.

  • fiddleback

    So they should have shut the window?

    More importantly, how on earth can you compare the rank oppression of “separate-but-equal” racial segregation enacted by Plessy v. Ferguson to the gay rights movement’s drive to stop being treated as separate-but-unequal? Because you feel “a bit oppressed” by a few too many gay stories in the Kansan? What a blithely inverted citing of historical forces to serve a petty gripe.

    Here’s how you have it utterly backwards: just as the authors of that court decision planted the seeds of push-back and the Civil Rights movement, gay rights opponents, like say, religious types calling homosexuality a damnable sin, people calling it a choice, or governors keeping anti-sodomy laws on the books, are creating the seeds of push-back that fuel this movement. And what you should learn from this history you blithely misuse: both sides push, but legal equality will triumph.

  • xz007

    Sex outside of marriage and getting drunk are also sins to Christians, though legalized. And that’s all fine and good. But if you think you are going to change how those “religious types” feel about those things, fiddleback, and their own personal abstinence from it, then that oversteps your boundaries in a big way. I really don’t give a damn who gets married or not since they all get divorced just as quickly (something else that’s not religiously-endorsed, spare very specific circumstances), but what I can’t get over is the very self-righteousness from a group who claims to be so persecuted. No, I can’t defend Westboro’s idiocy any more than you can, but to paint ANY fundamentalist as a bigot shows a certain intolerance that mirrors the very people they so criticize.

  • mellotron

    Here’s a couple of helpful resources for anybody who’s interested in responding positively but firmly to the tragedy of gay marriage:

    Tim Leslie — “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage”
    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0049.html

    Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson — “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage”
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=282

    With a gay-marriage president (Barack Obama) already making his shady moves within the White House, American Christians need to inform themselves quickly and thoroughly, and share that information in the public marketplace as opportunity permits.

  • Calvin

    I thought that guy had been kicked out of hear in disgrace but let me explain (in small words) what happened with Plessy v Ferguson. Race relations (where it originated) were not as bad as you would expect in New Orleans in the late 19th century. Yes, there was racism but there was also a certain amount of tolerance between the races. Some fool decided to create a second street car line for people of color. It was not popular but some people decided to challenge the law legally. Plessy was a black man who could “pass” for someone who was white. The street car people knew who he was and knew that he was the test case. Simple so far. This case made it to the Supreme Court and they decided to that “separate but equal” should be the law of the land everywhere. These decision brought forth the “Jim Crow” laws and serious race oppression. My point is that when you go to the Supreme Court be careful what you ask for. Why do you think neither side is really crazy about taking abortion back to the Supreme Court. What would happen to the whole movement if the Supreme Court decided that gay marriage did not exist or that marriage was only between a man and a woman?

  • fiddleback

    Kicked out of *here,* my boy. Yes, quite the epic disgrace. I figured second accounts were fine so long as one used a different email address (what else would husbands and wives posting separately from the same machine do?) I opened the second account as a joke on my BFF; they must have decided the same IP meant they should cancel it. Fair enough – that mustache was stifling.

    xz007, where did I imply that I was “going to change how those ‘religious types’ feel about those things?” I simply said their dogma-based disapproval helps fuel the gay rights movement. Of course, those minds aren’t going to be changed; at this point it’s a matter of attrition and the more disapproving generations passing away. I also didn’t call them bigots, but simply said that they believe homosexuality to be damnable. But since you mentioned it, it’s fair to say that all fundamentalist religions have intolerant elements inherent to their theologies. You can call the belief in knowing the future afterlife of not only yourself but others many things: spiritually arrogant, judgmental, etc etc. For the rest of us, tolerating the people of any religion and respecting their freedom doesn’t require giving a pass to the aspects of their faiths that are nakedly intolerant.

    Yes, they’d probably say the same thing back to me as you’re suggesting, that just as they accept gay people while disapproving of the behavior, I’m no different by accepting them while disapproving of their beliefs. But that is classic false equivalence: I’m not trying to take away their freedom to practice those beliefs, but they are often intent on denying these couples basic rights involving property, visitation, insurance, etc. As the map in this piece illustrated, in 12 states including ours, it’s not just about preserving the semantics of “marriage” but a deliberate blocking of those rights. Yes, ’tis the will of the majority, but rest assured it won’t be forever.

    Calvin, this analogy still doesn’t work for your purposes. If Plessy is supposed to be analogous to the gay rights advocates, then you’re saying they should be satisfied with their status as it is, rather than challenge the dubious laws of red America and suffer an epic legal reversal? But as your own example shows, the resulting naked injustices only convert more minds to the cause, increase the push-back, and before long you have the equivalent of a Civil Rights Act for gay unions. You ever notice how religions thrive when surrounded by hostile parties? Political movements like this are no different, and reversals for those movements can actually help clarify to outsiders what is just and fair.

  • Calvin

    You just don’t understand then… you should know I put this analogy in front of some of my co-workers and they got it without the benefit of college. What is your problem?

  • fiddleback

    On the contrary, I not only understand the analogy, I seem to be the only one willing to take it to its logical conclusion. Again, if the SCOTUS somehow ruled against basic property, insurance, and visitation rights for gay couples, the ugly reversal for the movement could actually expedite a pendulum swing back towards the equivalent of a Civil Rights Act for those couples. Even in an era largely before telephones and television and long before 24-hour news and social media, it only took 68 years between Plessy v. Ferguson and the Civil Rights Act. Broad public awareness of injustice is exponentially faster now.

    Further more, if your original impetus for the analogy was to suggest that gay couples should essentially “accept how things are, learn their place, be careful what they wish for, etc.,” that simply reeks of condescension and blithe indifference to inequality. Would you have said the same to freed slaves encountering discrimination during the Reconstruction era? After all, “race relations…were not as bad as you would expect in New Orleans in the late 19th century.” “Not as bad” must mean “good enough.”

  • Calvin

    So YOU are equating slavery with gay marriage??? That’s quite a reach. Face the truth; gay people have the same right to marriage as anyone else using the current definition of what marriage is. I have said repeatedly that you should change the defintion than have some court ORDER people to accept what they don’t believe in. Talk about oppression, that is the modern left for you and fiddleback.

    If only everyone knew what their friend fiddleback has been trying to do in the last few days. He is no longer happy with giving out his uninformed opinion, he is now trying to get personal with veiled threats and unethical behavior on this site. He went on a fishing expedition earlier which was brought to my attention. He went researching the name Calvin and tried to put a last name to it on campus. I say to all of you to beware hanging with people like fiddleback (why would your parents name a child fiddleback?). Always watch your back. See apparently he feels like he has been handed his behind and so he wants to retaliate. How very left wing (assassins, bomb throwers, thuggery).

  • fiddleback

    Try to keep up and reread as necessary—Slavery? I’m not even equating the lack of legal equality for gays with Jim Crow. And all that stuff is your analogy, old boy. Nice non-rebuttal, btw.

    “gay people have the same right to marriage as anyone else using the current definition of what marriage is.” The legal inequality in terms of rights is what I’m talking about; I’m much less interested in the semantics of marriage.

    Yes, it took exhaustive research—actually, when you type “Calvin” into the Kansan search engine, your last name pops up in the first few results via a 2009 letter to the editor (I was simply looking for a hilarious/hypocritical post of yours). Yes, you’ve really handed me my behind; your acumen is a wonder to behold. Veiled threats? That’s just sad paranoia, old boy.

  • CIavin

    Hi

  • CIavin

    @mellotron

    The first article’s entire premise rests on the belief that marriage is about begetting and educating children. The entire article does little to help to positively argue the case against same-sex marriage. Even if I grant you that this is the case, what does this imply for marriage? If marriage is for the begetting and educating of children, that would even put restrictions on any couple, heterosexual or same-sex. Your arguement would follow that any heterosexual couples can’t be married either if they have no plans of begetting and educating children. Your arguement would further entail that, if marriage is about begetting and educating children, that the government should add into DOMA that marriage is only for heterosexual couples who gaurantee the begetting and educating of children.

    And you tried linking a nonpartison website from a catholic website. I would have rather you have copy and pasted it and called it your own rather than completely remove any credibility from your post at the get-go.

    The second article derives from the same premise. And then goes on to spout opinion guised as logic. Sure, they use logic for their arguments. But something being valid, something being sound, are completely irrelevant to something like the denial of legal rights against a group. Again, for the love of God, your posts do no positive of any sort. They rely on a reader’s preconceived notion of marriage to have any efficacy. And that efficacy in turn doesn’t do anything to cause a proponent of gay rights to cross over into a proponent of homophobia.

  • JeremyA

    Calvin, I always pictured you as a strident conservative and in opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians.

    Gender neutral marriage- do you support it? o_O

  • CIavin

    No.

  • fiddleback

    Just thought I’d interject that you shan’t assume that the new Clavin is me. He seems to be a colourful fellow who pefers the British spelling of words like arguement.

    I imagine this might be the guy who previously borrowed the Calvin handle. Wonder if he’ll be allowed to keep Clavin…

  • mellotron

    So what you’re saying, Clavin, is that even though the McGill scholars (Young and Nathanson) have employed logical, sound, and valid arguments against legalizing gay marriage–including a clear explanation of how heterosexual marriage is the best societal context for child-rearing even if some individual couples can not or are not able to have children–you somehow get to turn a blind eye to all that logic and rational validity, without ANY attempt to disprove it first.

    You merely offer an arbitrary, unsupported, fiat declaration that gay marriage is somehow a “legal right.” That’s not sufficient, not even slightly.

  • Calvin

    I notice that you didn’t find a hypocritical post did you. So sad for you. Fiddleback you are a bully and you’re looking for a victim. You were probably quite the cutup in high school. Your friends (if you had any here) are now learning the kind of person you are; gutless. No wonder you didn’t show up at those other events. Don’t be afraid little boy, you too will grow a pair some day.

    But lets not make this about you, this is about the fiction of gay marriage. As I posted before the Germans have two forms of marriage (though they don’t them both marriage) one is secular and the other is religious. The religious ceremony is called marriage.

  • JeremyA

    Newsflash Calvin, and this is hard for some to accept, but marriage in this country can be a religious institution but at the least is a legal civil contract. It should be gender neutral, conferring all the same rights and benefits to all couples, no more, no less, just full equality. It won’t change or alter anyone’s life, and anyone else who says so is a liar and knows that they are lying. It’s the 21st century, let’s start acting like we’re living in it.

  • Calvin

    Newsierflash! The definition of marriage is NOT gender neutral so the act can’t be either.

  • fiddleback

    So you’ve been bullied by someone half your age and girth, whose comments have never been sanctioned for assaultive content but for whose points you lack any sort of cogent rebuttal. The bully who has pointed out your hypocrisy in several threads and yet you obtusely suggest those can’t be recovered at will. And what events are you even talking about?? My pair works fine, thanks.

    Again, what the Germans do would be fine; forget the word marriage and these couples can be called civil unions or whatever—just give them the rights. The rest of the first world has already figured this out—it’s not rocket science.

  • CIavin

    @mellotron

    “including a clear explanation of how heterosexual marriage is the best societal context for child-rearing”

    Show me the proof of this. Please. It’s just another opinion man. You can have all the logically valid arguments you want. But they could be based upon moral assumptions that aren’t held by all players at the table. Just like the existence of any deity or the abortion debate, the two parties are playing two completely different language games. Those on both sides of the aisle are only preaching to a choir and will never get anyone, who doesn’t already agree with them, to change sides. I could go google myself some interesting and thought provoking articles that can also give you logically valid arguments as to why there isn’t a problem with same-sex marriage. But why would I bother? There is a difference between something being logical, and something being right. Please go back to St. Lawrence and discuss your logically valid support of unequal laws.

    Keyword, laws. Not moral, not ethical, not religious laws.

  • JeremyA

    Okay, I’m really confused- is Calvin someone else and Fiddleback the previous Calvin? What’s going on? :/

  • fiddleback

    If by “Calvin” you mean “Clavin”, then yes, you have it right. There’s a new Clavin; it’s not me.

  • JeremyA

    Ahh, I see- so he’s making a dig at you by using your old handle. Got it.

  • CIavin

    Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  • fiddleback

    I was going to say the “Clavin” re-adoption seemed like someone just picking up the torch rather than any discernible “dig” at me. But then the Bible stuff is kinda random…

    Calvin, re: the Cosby thread, a main requirement for libel or defamation is that it is untrue or misattributed. Mentioning your full name is neither, nor is it explicitly afoul of the Kansan’s user policy. This is more a matter of your privacy, but if you’re that concerned, I’ll refrain from mentioning your last name, and you may want the Kansan to take down your 2009 letter to the editor that appears in initial search results for “Calvin.” The tone is unmistakably yours, so you’ve basically already outed yourself.

  • CIavin

    No dig. I’m obviously picking the torch up. The bible stuff was just for fun. I, like Calvin, don’t really know what I post or what any of it means. I just copy and paste it from other websites.

    Rick Perry for President.

  • JeremyA

    I have to say that the Corinthians you posted isn’t accurate. Paul wrote letters and when he referenced what we translate as homosexual, he is referencing the exact word from Leviticus. But, that’s not really the same thing as homosexuality. There was a word in Greek then, and Paul could have used it but didn’t, that would have described homosexuality as we know it now- people who claim an unchangeable orientation and only go “one way”, but he chose not to. In other words, writing that word as homosexuality isn’t accurate. Paul never really wrote that- at least not in the sense your conveying with that.

    Obama 2012!

  • fiddleback

    I think we can all agree that debating the diction and sources in the Bible is like debating the ingredients in a fruitcake–not any more worth the trouble than eating it in the first place. Happy holidays to you all and farewell, at least until our favorite person compiles another easily refutable mound of nonsense.

  • Calvin

    I was surprised to find postings still happening so for JeremyA here is the straight dope on the fiddleback/Clavin/Ca1vin. You see whoever fiddleback is, and will continue to be, he is so in need of support that he created at least one (that he admits to) additional account. That is what liberal logic seems to be these days. Create astroturf by decieving the readers into thinking there is more support than is really out there. So good old fiddleback needed that support so he created it.
    Here is the big problem; he tried to pass himself off as me. It was a deliberate deception and you were the guppies who were supposed to bite the hook. So fiddleback was dishonest, unethical, and in violation of the UDK rules (despite what he claims). His posts were removed and his other identity removed. I was told that he recieved a warning. So now, he is either lying to you all, he is delusional, or the staff of the UDK is lying. Take your pick, just remember who has already broken the rules on multiple ocassions.
    Another things that liberals do according to the Alinsky handbook is to “fix” their opponent. Apparently fiddleback did some research about anyone named Calvin at KU and he took a guess. Twice now he had posted a full name that was supposed to be me which is also a violation of the rules and that I have from the editor. So you see what fiddleback won’t tell you completely.
    He doesn’t care about the rules if he gets his way.
    He is willing to try to hurt someone until he gets his way.
    Being caught once, and twice is not enough to get him to change his ways.
    He is very willing to lie to you if it gets him what he wants.
    Fiddleback is probably lying to himself or he has some psychological problems that he is currently unaware of.

    That is one difference between liberals and conservatives; liberals will change rules to get their way and conservatives believe in following the rules.

    So now you know and knowing is half the battle—GI JOE…

  • fiddleback

    But who will visit you in the retirement home besides me??

    Seriously, Calvin, I have no idea who hijacked “Calvin;” that seems to have been done several times perhaps even predating my time here. It never occurred to me to even try it. I tried “Clavin” after seeing the latest aforementioned hijacking—I was amused that switching 2 letters would make it into the mailman from Cheers, who happens to be a conservative in real life. I thought I would cancel fiddleback afterwards. See my second-to-last this thread where I proposed the idea:

    http://www.kansan.com/news/2011/nov/21/carmichael-fox-news-perception-racism-concerning/

    I even tried to use a separate email just to keep it kosher until I could cancel fiddleback. Also, if me posting your full name, especially when you’ve already outed yourself via a letter to the editor that appears in the top 5 search results for “Calvin,” is against the rules, please paste the link to that policy and show the world. Otherwise, the editor was probably just telling the angry gorilla what he wants to hear—and that also explains why I’m not banned.

    But I’ll give you credit: this has turned into an epic if totally obscure piece of performance art; a classic if lop-sided example of modern digital repartee. I’ve managed to cause you to harass the UDK editors and become even more unhinged than usual, all with fairly minimal effort, so that’s a great Christmas present to me. Feliz Navidad.

  • Calvin

    Okay, so you are proud of lying, cheating, and being an ass. Yep, you’re a democrat all right.
    Check out the book “The State of Jones”. About page 250 you will read to what ends that democrats will go to win an election including murder. That was 1876 and not a whole lot has changed if you ask me.

    By the way, I happen to know that there are two other Calvins within 50 miles of KU. I have met them. Are you willing to take responsiblity for your actions and be a man?

  • fiddleback

    Alas, you’ve proven none of those actions. I’ll read your 250 pages when you can read my previous 12 sentences and show actual comprehension rather than seeing red and spitting nonsense. Besides, more Civil War stuff??

    Sure, Calvin is not an extremely rare first name, but it’s amusing for you to imply that the 2009 letter’s partisan spitefulness could be one of the other 2 Calvin’s.

    http://www.kansan.com/news/2009/oct/29/letter-editor-defending-conservatives/

    Yes, I gladly take responsibility for the following:
    1) Reminding you how you’ve compromised your own privacy, via your username and that letter, without me ever lying, cheating, libeling, defaming, nor running afoul of any UDK policy.
    2) Creating the second “Clavin” account as an innocent but botched attempt at switching usernames. Again, no lying committed nor cheating intended.

    Pistols at dawn then?

  • xz007

    Guys, give it a rest and hang out with your families or something. Yeesh. I used to remember when comment threads actually died on here.

  • Douglas

    Go Green. Marry a frog.

  • Calvin

    I have no problem with pistols at dawn. I always was an old fashioned kind of guy.

    Besides I didn’t imply anything about the name Calvin. I said it and since I’ve met both of them I know it to be true. Lets be honest, you tried to injure me with your attempt and you can’t deny it. So why don’t you put your name out there or some kind of facsimile. 2009? Was I at KU then? I might have been still on the good side of the state line then, in Missouri.

    I could give you the email address of a much more amusing, and adult, website that had neverending discussions like this but it would be too much for some of you. I am even more famous there than here.

  • Calvin

    I went and looked at that letter that “I wrote”. Good try but that isn’t me. LMAO. That wasn’t even a good letter by your standards fiddleback. I noticed that person was a senior in 2009. Think about that. Now I see why you’re so messed up.
    I know, you’ have to say that I did write that letter and I’m trying to deny it. You have to say that in order to save face. Let me dangle this out there, since you tried to use my screenname for no good, isn’t it possible that you are not the first.

    Yes, it is official. I started classes and posting in Spring of 2010. I do have to admit that there may be FOUR people with very similiar names if not exactly the same. Bet you can’t guess my middle name.

    I guess my goal this next year is to create my own blog so I can denounce fiddleback everyday of the year. Toodles

  • fiddleback

    What a relief! So your anonymity and privacy have not been jeopardized, as you’ve assured me that you are NOT Calvin Oyler. So not only is saying that name totally innocuous, heck, even the phone book listing would be:

    Calvin Oyler

    W. 88th Circle

    Lenexa KS

    I thought you referred to yourself as a senior as a euphemism for being nearly a senior citizen, but again, since that is NOT you, a student that’s an actual senior makes sense. My mistake, and thank goodness there are no shortages of conservative Calvin’s attending this fine institution. Looking forward to that blog. Cheers!