I still think that Kansas’ 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 amendment’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 wasn’t any immediate challenge to Kansas’ law, it was not unreasonable to conclude that one would eventually come.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Follow us
