I still think that Kansasâ€™ gay-marriage amendment was unnecessary, as we already have a long-standing, court-tested state law limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. I also still think that the amendmentâ€™s part B provision restricting benefits likely will be tossed out as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. But the approval of gay marriages by the California State Legislature, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he will veto, is more evidence of the threat that many supporters of the amendment felt. It is clear that there is movement in the courts and the political process to expand rights to gays. So while there wasnâ€™t any immediate challenge to Kansasâ€™ law, it was not unreasonable to conclude that one would eventually come.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.
Do you tweet? Follow us on Twitter: @WE_Tweet.