Senators worry marriage amendment is too broad

Topeka ? With a committee preparing to consider a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning gay marriage, some senators said Monday they are worried the measure is too broad.

The proposed amendment, already adopted by the House, also would ban civil unions for gay couples and prevent the state from extending any benefits normally associated with marriage to same-sex couples or even to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Some senators said the amendment may be so broad as to prevent private employers from extending health benefits to same-sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or entire households of unmarried relatives. Also, they said they worry it could prevent churches from holding civil commitment ceremonies for gay couples.

Supporters of the proposal said such concerns are unfounded.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the proposed amendment for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.

“I’m inclined to support the amendment, but I am concerned that its language may do unintended things,” said Sen. Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, a committee member. “I think we need to scrutinize this fairly closely.”

Previously, opponents described the proposed amendment as discriminatory or had questioned the need for it because of Kansas’ 1996 law banning gay marriage.

Supporters said the amendment would uphold long-held moral values and support traditional families. They also argue that amending the constitution will make the state’s policy against gay marriage less vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Adoption by two-thirds majorities in both chambers would put the measure on the Nov. 2 general election ballot, with a simple majority among voters needed to change the constitution.

Text of a proposal to add a new section to the Kansas Constitution on marriage:”(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 and the rights, benefits, privileges and incidents of marriage shall inure only to the parties to such a marriage. 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 between one man and one woman shall be recognized by the state as being entitled to the rights, benefits, privileges and incidents of marriage.”Source: HCR 5033.

Sen. Kay O’Connor, R-Olathe, another Judiciary Committee member who supports the proposed amendment, dismissed some colleagues’ concerns about its being too broad.

“Maybe they’re looking for an excuse to oppose it,” she said. “It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would oppose it.”

Rep. Jan Pauls, who helped draft the proposed amendment, said the measure would limit only state government’s activities, not the activities of private companies or churches.

“I think it’s written pretty clearly,” said Pauls, D-Hutchinson.

Senate Judiciary Committee John Vratil disagreed. He noted the proposed amendment states that no relationship other than a marriage shall be recognized by the state as being entitled to benefits normally associated with marriage.

“Quite frankly, I’m not sure what that means,” said Vratil, R-Leawood. “That’s part of the problem.”

And during a Friday news conference, Senate President Dave Kerr raised the question about whether churches that perform ceremonies for gay couples would be affected.

“I think there will be some effort to do some cleanup in committee,” said Kerr, R-Hutchinson. “We want to be really careful.”

Gay marriage ban is HCR 5033.