Posted on 04/05/2005 8:57:52 PM PDT by srm913
Kansas voters gave a resounding yes Tuesday to a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, providing what supporters hope is momentum for more bans nationwide.
With 133 of 210 precincts reporting statewide, the measure was leading with 70 percent of the vote. In Johnson County, with all precincts counted, the measure passed with 60.14 percent of the vote.
The Rev. Jerry Johnston of Overland Park, who pushed for the ban, said the amendment was not about discrimination, as opponents claimed.
“This was about being pro-family,” he said, as he monitored results with a small group at his First Family Church.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, another supporter, said he believed opponents would have been highly motivated to vote.
“That's why I think these numbers are very good,” Naumann said. “Marriage has always been understood as between a man and a woman and I think people understand that today and feel strongly about it.”
Opponents who gathered near the state Capitol in Topeka were disappointed but not surprised by the outcome.
The vote is not reflective of the typical Kansan, said Steve Brown of Prairie Village, a member of Kansans for Fairness, a group that worked to defeat the amendment.
“Eventually, moderate Kansans are going to stand up and say they've had enough,” Brown said.
With the victory, Kansas becomes the 18th state to incorporate such a ban in its constitution. Thirteen of those states, including Missouri, passed similar amendments just last year. Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee have votes scheduled for 2006, and legislation has been introduced in 14 other states to put such a measure on the ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
This will be appealed and some activist judge will toss this in the trash in a skinny minute.
Hasn't this point gotten home yet?
How is this different than what is happening in California where, at this point, a state appeals court has overturned a similar law that passed by a similar wide margin as "unconstitutional" to the state constitution?
I thought the MSM told us that passing such bans were to controversial and there would be public backlash if we tried.
I don't think the Cali thing was IN the constitution. It was just a law.
At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
the aclu will come in threaten litigation and it will all be for naught. wait and see. they have ALL the power!
Sure. The 70% are just a small fringe group. Poooolease! Get a grip on reality, dude!
No one in their right mind sees a perverse, dysfunctional sex fetish as a "marriage."
you are misinterpreting the amendment
It does not do that.
That is what the no voters want you to think.
Since common law marriage is recognized as legal in Kansas, the amendment doesn't change that.
I met Sebelius. She is actually pretty nice. But, her policies aren't.
The head of my College Republicans chapter met her, too, and said the same thing.
Oh YES it does. Common law marriage in Kansas is now history. Did you read the whole question on the ballot?
"War! – huh – yeah- What is it good for? Absolutely nothing ..."
Edwin Starr
p.s. Well, Edwin was just a musician. What did he know about the need for war. ;-)
"War! – huh – yeah- What is it good for? Absolutely nothing ..."
Edwin Starr
p.s. Well, Edwin was just a musician. What did he know about the need for war. ;-)
Don't you wish more Republicans were?
If some federal judge rules that it violates the U.S. Consitutiton.
Where does question B outlaw it, considering question A does nothing to get rid of common law marriage, which means it is a LEGAL MARRIAGE still and complies with question b?
Even Equality Kansas, the group that fought against the amendment partly on the basis it would supposedly gut common law marriage, say part A doesn't change a thing. If true, since COMMON LAW MARRIAGE IS UPHELD BY PART A, IT OBVIOUSLY IS STILL UPHELD UNDER PART B.
This isn't rocket science.
(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. 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.
(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.
between the ACLU and the AARP, the supposed "helpful" organizations, seem to have been taken over by communists!
The way the ammendment read, and the way that a local talk show guy also read it, common law marriage is now not recognizable.
This isn't a huge deal. In many states (like Nebraska) there is no real common law marriage.
Where's that? I'm in JoCo.
Totally up for a get-together, BTW (schedule permitting.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.