Does Kansas need a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions for gay couples? The voters of the state now will get to decide.

The Kansas House approved the amendment Wednesday on an 86-37 vote, three votes more than the two-thirds majority needed to place the issue on the April 5 ballot.

Opponents of the amendment contend that the current state statute that recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman is sufficient. Proponents say the constitutional ban is needed to protect the institution of marriage and keep Kansas from having to recognize marriages performed in other states. It’s an emotional and controversial issue that clearly draws the line between conservative and moderate/liberal factions in the state.

Legislators and political observers could see at the beginning of the current session that there were sufficient votes to pass the amendment, which failed to gain legislative approval last year. The major question then became when the issue would be placed on the ballot. The House vote on Wednesday came in time to put the question to the voters on April 5.

That suits Democrats, who didn’t want the question on the same November 2006 ballot with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ bid for re-election. The conventional wisdom is that the gay marriage amendment will attract a large number of conservative Republicans to the polls, a circumstance that wouldn’t bode well for the governor.

Little attention has been paid, however, to the political effect of placing the amendment on the April 5 ballot. There are no statewide elections on that date, but voters across the state will be going to the polls that day to elect local city officials and school board members as well as deciding other questions. In Lawrence, the April 5 election will select Lawrence city commissioners and school board members and decide a $63 million school bond issue. How, if at all, will the constitutional amendment vote affect our local elections?

Will socially conservative voters come to the polls to vote in favor of the gay marriage ban and also cast a fiscally conservative vote against the school bond? Lawrence City Commission candidates don’t usually get labeled as conservative or liberal, but there’s a first time for everything. Will candidates delve into social issues that don’t usually get discussed at the local level in order to garner votes? If the recently passed public smoking ban becomes a hot — even a litmus-test — issue, will candidates’ stands on that issue pull conservative voters one way or another?

Across the state and in the Legislature, Lawrence is known as a liberal community. More of our local senators and representatives opposed the gay marriage amendment than supported it. Maybe it won’t be a factor in local races on April 5, but it’s hard to know.

It should be our community goal to separate the vote on the gay marriage amendment from decisions on local issues and candidates. Local voters should start now to educate themselves on city and school candidates and issues. Even if a voter’s primary motivation to go to the polls on April 5 is to vote for or against the gay marriage amendment, he or she has a responsibility to cast an informed vote in our local races. We shouldn’t let our attention be diverted from the local decisions that will have such a large and direct effect on the future of our community.