Get continually updated legislative coverage from the Journal-World sent to your e-mail box or cell phone.

Topeka ? Legislators are likely to debate gay marriages this session. They probably couldn’t have avoided the topic for too many more years.

True, state law is unambiguous, declaring that only a marriage between a single man and a single woman is valid. Also, no lawmaker or group has submitted a bill or announced a push for recognizing such unions or gay marriages.

Yet House Speaker Doug Mays predicted legislators would consider an amendment to the Kansas Constitution to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. He is confident, based on conversations between his staff and lawmakers drafting a proposal.

A ruling in November by Massachusetts’ highest court, striking down that state’s ban on same-sex marriages, is one reason. But even before that decision, forces were in play to force a debate.

“I am certain there is a constitutional amendment coming forth,” Mays, R-Topeka, said during an interview. “I expect that effort to be successful.”

For decades, Kansas law defined marriage as a union between two parties “who are of opposite sex,” a clear enough statement.

In 1996, legislators enacted what supporters called a “marriage protection act.” Not only was marriage defined as a union between parties of the opposite sex, but the law also said all other marriages were declared void.

The law was a delayed response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision striking down that state’s ban on same-sex marriages. In 1998, voters in Hawaii approved an amendment to their state’s constitution to “reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

Legislative support

Mays and other legislators believe Kansas voters would react similarly and approve a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly. It is easy to imagine a proposal receiving the two-thirds majorities needed, 27 of 40 votes in the Senate and 84 of 125 in the House, to go on the ballot.

Those two facts suggest any attempt to change the current marriage law would fail — badly — in the Legislature.

“The Kansas Legislature has firmly reinforced their view on marriage,” Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said last week. “I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.”

If Kansas law seems unlikely to change, a “defense of marriage” amendment to the Kansas Constitution also seems unlikely to address attempts by a gay couple married in one state to have the union recognized in Kansas.

The U.S. Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court decisions of other states.

Sen. Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said while he was open to a Kansas amendment, “I’m not sure it accomplishes anything.”

Nor do many state constitutions have explicit provisions against same-sex marriages. Alaska and Hawaii voters approved theirs in 1998; Nebraska and Nevada voters, in 2000. In contrast, 33 other states, including Kansas, rely on state laws.

So why is a debate likely?

Courts

First, as Mays pointed out, supporters of an amendment worry about how the Kansas Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex unions. Four of the seven justices were appointed after August 2002.

“We have a new Supreme Court, basically,” Mays said. “We have no idea where the Supreme Court will come down.”

Second, a court test is a real possibility.

The Kansas Court of Appeals is reviewing the case of Matthew R. Limon, sentenced to 17 years and two months in prison for having sex with an underage boy in 2000. He argues his sentence represents an unconstitutional form of discrimination because, had he engaged in sex with an underage girl, he could have been sentenced to one year and three months behind bars.

The Court of Appeals rejected Limon’s arguments in 2002, but the U.S. Supreme Court told it to reconsider in June after striking down laws criminalizing gay sex, including one in Kansas.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Limon, argued afterward that the state cannot treat gays and lesbians differently merely to “express its own moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

National interest

Finally, there’s a national debate on marriage and civil unions for gay couples, with groups on both sides ready to stir up the issue.

The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which seeks to defend “time-honored family values,” worries about gay rights advocates chipping away at state prohibitions on gay marriages and civil unions.

Spokesman Brian Burch said gay rights advocates hope to win marriage-like benefits, then argue in court that there’s no reason to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples.

“All these major questions now are court questions,” he said. “Even when a Legislature decides to act, it’s overruled by the courts.”

Meanwhile, the National Gay and Lesbian Rights Task Force in New York City worries that social conservatives are trying to lock their values into constitutions as a hedge against growing acceptance of same-sex marriages.

“They have a closing window of opportunity to keep that from happening,” said Matt Foreman, the task force’s executive director.

For all of those reasons, Kansas legislators appeared destined to debate gay marriages and civil unions for same-sex couples in the near future, even before the Massachusetts ruling put the issue on the 2004 session’s agenda for some of them.