TOPEKA,Kan. (AP) – Kansas voters will decide Tuesdaywhether to approve a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, and theban’s supporters are using a California judge’s recent ruling in favor ofsame-sex unions as one of their chief arguments.
Gaymarriage is already banned under Kansas law, and the law is not beingchallenged by anyone. But supporters of the ballot measure say the ban must beput in the Kansas Constitution to insulate it from legal challenge.
In Kansas and elsewhere, that argumentwas bolstered when a San Francisco judge ruled March 14 that California’s lawagainst gay marriage violates the California Constitution.
”That’s precisely what I would like tosee prevented here in Kansas,” said a supporter of the proposed amendment, DanRobison, a retired banker and Air Force pilot from Wichita who has been married49 years.
Kansasvoters are expected to approve the gay marriage ban overwhelmingly.
Kansaswould become the 18th state with such a prohibition in its constitution; 13others approved bans just last year. Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee planelections next year on constitutional bans, and proposals are pending in 13other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Members ofCongress, including Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, continue to press the issue atthe federal level.
The Knightsof Columbus, the nation’s largest lay organization for Roman Catholics, donated$100,000 to supporters of the Kansas amendment, giving them a 4-to-1fund-raising advantage.
Bill Rich,a law professor at Topeka’s Washburn University who opposes the Kansasproposal, said he doubts courts in other states would issue rulings similar tothe one in California. In California, he said, courts have long held that theCalifornia Constitution offers greater protections than the U.S. Constitution.
Gays inKansas warn that the measure on Tuesday’s ballot could be especiallyoppressive.
It wouldnot only reinforce the long-standing definition of marriage but would alsodeclare that only unions of one man and one woman are entitled to the “rightsand incidents” of marriage. That, they say, could ban civil unions and preventcompanies from offering health benefits to employees’ partners, gay orheterosexual.
“Theconsequences of this are totally unknown,” said Sandra Kobets, a 55-year-oldPrairie Village nurse with a female partner of nearly 11 years. “Nobody has anyidea where this could go.
