A proposed Kansas constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman currently is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That probably is a good place for it to stay — at least for the rest of this legislative session. The Kansas Legislature has more important business — like funding state education — right now.

The amendment was introduced in the Kansas House largely in response to same-sex weddings that had occurred in San Francisco. Although Kansas statutes already define marriage as the union of one man and one women, some legislators were concerned that other states would legalize gay marriages that Kansas then might be obligated to recognize. A constitutional amendment, they reasoned, would provide a stronger defense.

Although the amendment already has passed the Kansas House, there seems to be no statewide consensus on the need for such a measure. Same-sex marriages have been halted in California, and Massachusetts, the only state in which such unions have been legal, is moving forward on a constitutional ban on the practice.

Before Kansas takes any additional action on this issue, it should step back and consider some of the questions that have been raised as state residents consider the meaning of marriage and the state’s role in it. Many people see marriage as primarily a spiritual or religious bond. As many have noted, the only reason the state is involved in marriage at all is to protect the rights associated with being a married couple.

Those include rights over children and property as well as legal standing in such matters as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. These are civil, legal rights that society has deemed appropriate for married couples. Some of those rights could reasonably be transferred to same-sex couples while others might be inappropriate.

A host of questions has been raised and many of the answers are far from clear. If same-sex couples can marry, they also presumably can divorce and would have to go through a legal proceeding to do so. If the state recognizes the marriage of a same-sex couple, would insurance companies that pay benefits to married couples be required to do the same? If the state’s role in marriage is to protect a committed couple’s civil, legal rights, should Kansas approve “civil unions” rather than marriages? And if so, should the rights afforded those unions be restricted to one-man-one-woman pairings?

Much of society obviously still is struggling with these questions. For good reason, the Kansas Constitution is difficult to change. Any amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature as well as a simple majority of state voters. Like a potential bride or groom considering a marriage proposal, the Legislature should take some time to consider the marriage amendment before rushing into something it might regret later.