Last week, in a practical response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt withdrew a case he had filed last year seeking to keep counties from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

All 105 Kansas counties now are issuing those licenses. Dropping that case is the first step for the state. Next will come a series of administrative changes to allow state employees to add same-sex spouses to their health insurance plans and allow all same-sex married couples in the state to change their names and file joint state income tax returns. The state can either act in a timely manner to make those changes or it can wait until same-sex Kansas couples take the issues to court and force the state to act. The outcome for the state will be the same either way, but avoiding the court battles will be a significant saving for Kansas taxpayers.

In the last 18 months, Kansas has spent $100,000 (not counting staff time for employees in Schmidt’s office) to fight various aspects of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it seems pointless to spend additional time and money to fight this battle.

Gov. Sam Brownback, a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, said last week that the state needed to move slowly on changes to accommodate same-sex couples. “You have to understand and get the mechanisms in place,” he said, and “We just want to make sure we’re moving forward appropriately.” The state shouldn’t rush into inappropriate action, but it seems like a relatively simple matter to extend “mechanisms” already in place for other married couples to same-sex couples.

Brownback also expressed concerns about protecting “religious liberties” for Kansans, presumably those who aren’t comfortable doing business with same-sex couples. Other states have tried and failed to craft such legislation in an acceptable way, but even if Kansas wants to pursue that avenue, it is a separate issue from granting same-sex married couples the rights that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It may be politically satisfying for state officials to drag their heels on recognizing those rights, but it just doesn’t make practical sense to force costly court battles on legal issues that already have been decided by the highest court in the land.