GAY MARRIAGE

On Thursday, March 5, 2004, the House passed 88-36 a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages.  The resolution is known as the Defense of Marriage Act, and it is designed to create an amendment to the Kansas Constitution defining marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman.  Any other marriages, including a gay marriage from another state, would be considered void under Kansas law and not recognized by the State of Kansas.  I supported this proposed Constitutional amendment. 

This amendment is being offered to prevent the courts from deciding the Kansas law defining marriage violates the State Constitution, much like the outcome of Massachusetts' marriage law.  The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts' state law limiting marriage to include only civil unions between one man and one woman violated the due process rights of homosexuals under the Massachusetts Constitution.  By amending our state constitution, such a decision could not be reached by our state supreme court. 

This constitutional amendment would not preclude us from passing a law that recognizes certain gay civil unions.  However, Kansas would not recognize a homosexual civil union from another state unless such a civil union was in accordance with Kansas law. 

Proponents of the legislation argue that it is important to declare the traditional definition of marriage in the constitution so that the Kansas courts must recognize only marriages between "one man and one woman". Opponents argue that the measure is a form of discrimination and the state cannot treat gays and lesbians differently than heterosexual couples. The amendment needs two-thirds support from both the House and the Senate after which it must receive a majority vote of Kansans on the November 2004 general election ballot.

Those who vote against the Defense of Marriage Act don’t believe the legislature should concern itself with what adults do in their own homes, and they view legislative action concerning this issue as an infringement on part of society’s right to privacy.  In other words, these legislators equate the homosexual population’s desire to be married to the civil rights movement of the sixties.  They feel that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals and should be allowed to marry those they love. 

Additionally, some who will vote against the resolution may not actually agree with having gay marriage, but they feel that meddling with the constitution goes against their principles.  They believe that we should not be reactionary to another state’s court decision and make an amendment that singles out one section of our communities.  After all, Kansas already has a law on the books that plainly defines what marriage is. 

However, other legislators believe marriage should only exist and only be recognized by Kansas as a union between one man and one woman.  They feel the homosexual movement is primarily trying to force an activist agenda on the public by use of the courts, and this amendment will insure that the overwhelming majority of the people’s opinion is protected.  Additionally, such a definition corresponds with traditional religious tenants and has been embraced by many religious organizations. 

My personal rationale in voting to support this Constitutional amendment was based, to a large extent, on social contract theory.  Stated succinctly, society incurs considerable expenses in recognizing marriage (e.g., estate tax credits, spouse's rights in debtor/creditor matters, health insurance for employees, etc.).  Society willingly incurs these costs because it gets something in return -- the propagation of the human species in the most historically successful environment.  These benefits are absent from a homosexual relationship, just as they are also absent from a heterosexual relationship lacking committment through marriage.

In order for this resolution to pass, it must obtain a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.  On Friday, the House is expected to vote on and pass the resolution by a large margin.  If it is passed, it would be placed on the November 2004 ballot for voter approval. In order to be implemented, the voters would have to approve it by a simple majority. 

Home | About Eric | News | Issues | Kids | Contact Eric

© 2004-2005 Eric Carter
All rights reserved.

Paid for by Kansans for Carter, Cheryl Mitchell, Treasurer.