Previous   Next

Do you think that Kansans will vote to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on December 30, 2004

Browse the archives

Photo of Jake Lasorsa

“Unfortunately, I think the rest of the state probably will because the majority of the voters are Republicans, which is too bad.”

Photo of Candace Davidson

“They are stupid enough to ban it. The longer I live here, the more close-minded I find people to be.”

Photo of Jamie Kramer

“I think they will, but I don’t think they should. I think it should be everyone’s right to choose.”

Photo of Ben Sweely

“Yes. I think that right now, that is where the conservatives in Kansas seem to be on the issue, and there are a lot more of them.”


Liberty 12 years, 11 months ago

Only one of you is right. Wonder which one it is?

Richard Heckler 12 years, 11 months ago

Another tool for wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Same sex marriage is probaly illegal now in Kansas.

Also they are avoiding the discussion of public school finance and sensible insurance coverage for Kansans

fivelcom 12 years, 11 months ago

f@#k god. enough said. if a couple wants to marry, by defintion of equality, all people must be given the same opprotunites and therefore be allowed to marry reguardless of their reasons. this means that some people will have to start thinking for themselves for a change instead of listening to societie's false opinions, their pastors, or anyone else that is not is called independent thinking..however this will never happen especially in a conservative state full of simple stubborn farmers...(i grew up on a farm so i know how it is) relax and stop being stubborn hipocrits.....DOWN WITH RELIGION

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

With all that has happened in the world in the past so many it that important to vote on who should marry who?

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about ban this and ban that, I feel like we are regressing instead of progressing.

Who gives a rat @$$ who someone in love marries.

Are these people so bored with their lives that they feel the need to bother others?

Are they so unhappy in their own relationships that they need to make others unhappy?

Have they never been in love or maybe their marriage failed, so why not wreck everyone else who happens to be in love miserable?

Geez people......get a life will you.

David Ryan 12 years, 11 months ago

I wish -- knowing it's only a fantasy -- that Americans would actually understand our Constitution.

But that's what you get when you devalue education -- real education, not learning by rote -- at home and in general.

There is no way to see this issue but thusly: certain Americans wish to deprive other Americans of civil rights simply because of the manner in which they engage in sexual practices.

That's flatly wrong.

If Kansans do vote to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, you'll have a good index of the degree to which those same Kansans have no idea of the demands and responsibilities of our wonderful American experiment.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 11 months ago

I find myself often asking what point will we begin counting a homosexual as 2/3 of a person?

Apparently these citizens, who happen to have a sexual orientation, that deviates from the conservative threshold, obviously are not to be provided the same basic tenets established in our American freedom principles.

So...somebody enlighten me, since they are not worthy of the same American rights that I am...when will we begin counting them as 2/3 of a person?!!?

badger 12 years, 11 months ago

I'm with italianprincess on this one.

Who cares who someone in love marries, and why aren't we worrying about more important things than voting each other into and out of the fiscal and legal rights associated with making a committed relationship permanent (or semi-permanent, given the state of marriage today)?

However, I'm reasonably certain that the people of Kansas can't think of anything better to do than add things to the state constitution that restrict rights, instead of protecting them.

And yeah, I think same-sex marriage is already illegal in this state, which means that an amendment would just be a posturing gesture to show our statewide commitment to hating on those gays and telling them they're not wanted here.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Yep, that's all it is - political posturing. If anything we should be making it legal, it would be more true to our Kansas roots. It's getting more and more embarrassing to be from Kansas, or to be living in Kansas. This state had such fine origins there was a time I was proud to be a Jayhawker. Marriage bans, teaching creation in science class - what's next? Mandatory school prayer? Banning non-christian worship?

Fishman 12 years, 11 months ago

I don't get it, but if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, then there shouldn't be discrimination. I think it's probably fear that keeps some people from dealing with it. Who cares as far as I'm concerned. There's alot more important things to think about besides who's with whom. It's almost like saying to rich kid Johnny: You can't marry that girl from the other side of the tracks, because she is too different from us, and they have no money. I'm sure if they could make a law to ban black/white marriage, alot of the people that support not allowing same sex marriage would support that too. Thank God I have more important things to worry about.

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

I fully agree with fisherman.

Theres so much more to worry about then who marries who.

For the ones who are afraid of this issue and gay people in general...........get a life.

ms_canada 12 years, 11 months ago

Homosexuality has been with us for a lonnng time and it is not going away. We might as well face it. First I must say that I believe that it is against God's law. That said I will go on to say that we have to accept that it is not going away. There has long been an agenda held by the gay community to legitimize their activity in the eyes of the world. I believe this stems from their feelings of guilt and their belief that if the whole world accepts their behavior, then they also can accept themselves without the guilt. At one time gay activity was against the law and punishable by prison. There was open hatred of gays and terrible acts of violence against them. Remember those times? I do, being of the elder generation. There still are remnants of that time with us, but we are becoming more tolerant. I believe that we cannot stop the progress of the agenda and it is useless to try. Soo, even though I believe that it is wrong, I say let them practice their lifestyle as they will and take the consequences later. I believe in civil rights for them as to insurance, inheritance, etc. but to call it marriage, wellll!! You can call an apple a pear, but it is still an apple. We have gotten so far away from the ideals that your country and mine were founded on, it is lamentable. Abortion is now legal, adultery is not longer a crime, restrictions are placed on religious activity, no prayer in public schools. We are going to hell in a hand-basket. It has all been prophesied in God's Word and we have to accept it as inevitable, but as an evangelical Christian I believe that we still must do our best to speak the truth of God's Word. And that is my last word on the subject.

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Hey Daemon, get over it. This country is ruled by the will of the people. 60 million or so people voted for Bush, the most votes ANY president in history has ever received. Take your Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker off of your car and move to Canada for goodness sakes--I am sure it will do us a lot of good!

No one has answered this question: If society overwhelmingly has voted (in the states where it was on the ballot) to define marriage as between a man and a woman, why should it be changed to allow homosexuals to marry? Why is it okay for those of you to discriminate against marriage as being between a man and a woman and try to redefine it to allow homosexuals to marry? See, there is no easy answer to this, but the will of the people should prevail in our society, and the will of the people has convincingly supported marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Jay_Z 12 years, 11 months ago

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why should it have to change because one small part of society wants it changed? In states where a gay marriage ban has been voted on, it has passed overwhemingly--60%-70% in favor of it. Let the masses decide.

When gays are allowed to marry, then you'll have to allow polygamy to be legal and allow men to legally marry multiple wives, and you'll have to allow family members to marry one another. It's a slippery slope. If gays are allowed to marry, then other "alternative" lifestyles should be allowed to marry too, correct? If not, then wouldn't that be discrimination? Marriage must be properly defined.

I'm not afraid of gays and am for gays to have rights as far as insurance and so forth, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I am for civil unions for gays. If we don't define marriage, marriage will lose its meaning.

usurped 12 years, 11 months ago

Firstly, marriage was initially a contract that made a woman the property of the man she married. That has changed - for most people anyway. Secondly, if people are concerned that allowing homosexuals to marry will undermine the basis of marriage then they need to look at their own marriages. Previous to the 1960s there was a law that prevented inter-racial marriage. That law was struck down. Any law prohibiting gay marriage is the same thing. I think what most conservatives fear is that homosexuals will have abortions...

badger 12 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, Jay_Z, because the marriages of Britney Spears, Liz Taylor, Donald Trump, and the like are so very meaningful. That argument only holds water if you buy into the idea that gays can't have stable, meaningful relationships and that heterosexuals automatically do--which is incorrect.

As for the 'slippery slope' argument, I think that's really a straw man. Frankly, though, if a man wants two wives, and both women are in favor of it, I don't see where the state really has a right to stop them or gainsay them. But that's legally a lot more tangled up, and same-sex marriages won't necessarily lead to multiple or polyamorous relationships.

Regarding sibling marriage, though, there are many more reasons than just the taboo of sibling marriage, specifically the genetic disadvantages of producing offspring with siblings, and the fact that sibling sexual relationships, by nature, are going to be an inequal balance of influence and power. Thus, there is an argument against them beyond, "EW! It's just wrong and I don't approve!" Ergo, the allowance of gay marriage won't necessarily provide precedence for people marrying their sisters or their dogs. It's a meaningless hyperbole and a scare tactic.

Two consenting adults in an equal relationship want to commit their lives to each other and affirm that vow before community and friends, and they want the same universally applied legal, fiscal, and property rights allowed any other consenting adults in an equal relationship who commit their lives to each other and affirm that vow before community and friends.

If same-sex unions were legal, I wouldn't just support it. I'd register with the state of Kansas and perform the ceremonies myself. I've been to same-sex weddings. They're going on already in Kansas. You can't stop people from getting up in front of their communities and saying, "I love this person, I commit myself to this person, and I ask you, my community, to affirm and support that commitment," just as you can't stop communities from supporting and affirming it.

Ironically, same-sex marriage is already happening. It's just not legally recognized. You want to implement the reverse, but whether they gain the legal rights or not, they're going to keep standing up in front of their communities and affirming their vows to each other, and you can't do anything to stop it, no matter how many amendments or laws you put up.

12 years, 11 months ago

Look JZ, i only brought it up because casey did. i accept that a lot of easily manipulated, uninformed dimwits live in this country. i'm fine with that. i still support the freedoms that this country offers us, including free speech, etc.. but times will continue to change, and our interpretation of government must adapt with us.. that being said, i do not have a kerry bumper sticker, in fact i don't believe he was the best man for the job, but anybody is better than bush!
And nothing bush has done yet has shown me that he is capable of anything.. watch what he does with the tsunami situation, and lets see if can manage not to screw it up.. he is in a position to make a positive change and to better the us's standing in the world (after iraq) but will he?

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

Polygamy is very well known in Utah and men do have more then one wife ( even sisters have married the same man ) . The men have a number of wives up to what ever number they choose and have tons of kids running around. They share everything from chores, and who gets to spend time with the husband at night. I guess you would say its a guess its your turn tonight thing with them.

So you could say its.....LEGAL to have more then one wife even here in the states for some who believe its okay.

Same sex .....who cares who marries who as long as they are happy.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

It sounds as if most people would be willing to accept civil unions for gay persons so that they may be granted the same legal rights of insurance and inheritance as opposite sex couples.

If civil unions are accepted by the state, and the state should not interfere with religious ceremonies, then why can't some churches marry gay people and others refuse them. I think that is just fine. It seems to me to be the best compromise and should make conservative and liberal churches happy.

The state should not be in the business of recognizing or approving the sacntity of any religious ceremony. Let the state concern itself with civil unions / laws and churches concern themselves with religious ceremonies.

PigFarmer 12 years, 11 months ago

You bet we are going to insure that marriage is defined as a man and women. You folks over there in Douglas are out voted, perhaps you should all pack up and move to Calif or Canada. Bye Bye Losers look toward 2008 and Ms Clinton losing - again!.

12 years, 11 months ago

In my opinion, this whole idea of marriage has been warped because legal civil unions according to our government take on the same name and hence the same connotation as religious civil unions. I think that, especially because there is and should be a "separation of church and state," marriages according to law should no longer be called marriages when simply referring to the legal aspect of the union, only when referring to the religious aspect of it. Henceforth, they should only be called civil unions. I think that would help a great deal in this whole argument. We would no longer have to hear that "marriage is only between a man and a woman." If thats how your religion views it, fine. Get married in your church and file for a civil union with the government. That way, if a homosexual couple finds a church willing to "marry" them or not, they can still file for a civil union with the government, and receive the benefits that such a union affords us as citizens of this great nation. I really see this as the only way to make headway in our current situation, unfortunately, since with the term "marriage" the issue seems to get way too clouded.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

I don't know. Hey, ms_canada do you mind if we move up there? I've been to CA and for the most part like it there, but I've never been to Canada.

Won't that be great Pigfarmer when everybody who disagrees with you moves away then you'll nobody but your pigs to argue with. Your children, growing up close-minded and ignorant will never say a word, and your wife will be too afraid of public stoning to differ. Yep, that ought to make you proud.

nicegirl 12 years, 11 months ago

Why is it that someone who supports a ban on gay marriage is closed-minded and ignorant? Maybe the people who support gay marriage are ignorant. Did anyone think of that? Maybe someone is not stupid or close-minded just because they are conservative. Everyone is allowed to have their own views. I used to post here regularly and have quit doing so because it has turned very nasty. We used to be able to have a civil discussion but unfortunately people who cannot rise above name calling an belitttling people with a difference of opinion have started posting here again. It's just not enjoyable to have a "discussion" with people who think they are always right and have no tolerance of other viewpoints.

nicegirl 12 years, 11 months ago

And just to clarify, I am not saying that people who support gay marriage are stupid. I was simply pointing out that most of the name calling was done by those who DO support gay marriage. How is that not being close-minded?

PigFarmer 12 years, 11 months ago

It does at that, I am as proud as if I won a blue ribbon at the 4H fair! Don't pack just move and I will priority mail all your belongings. Really trust me. Leave me and my family to relish in our victory.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

nicegirl - I was responding to pigfarmers comment at 1:27. I reserve my "close-minded and ignorant" label to those who persistently say that if I have an opinion that differs from the majority that I should "pack up and leave". Perhaps I over reacted to his/her post, but the "love it or leave it" argument drives me crazy. I hope you will note that my post have been civil up to this point. Darn it! I'm still mad!

ms_canada 12 years, 11 months ago

Yes, username, you can come to Canada but if you are against gay "marriage" you better stay where you are. Our stupid federal government just passed a law stating that gay couples can legally marry, BUT, churches could not be compelled to perform a religious wedding ceremony. But I suspect that it won't be long before a couple of gays will challenge that. You know, homosexuality is really a moral issue, and morality cannot be legislated. No law can compel one to think a certain way. Gays can unite in the eyes of the law, but does that make it morally right? I guess it all depends on your ideas about an almighty Creator and His intention for His creation.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Pigfarmer - If you are serious I will happily take you up on your offer to cover my moving expenses. Seriously, I hereby promise that if you will pay for my move - I will move, and with a smile. I cost me 7K to move out here - so put up or shut up!

nicegirl 12 years, 11 months ago

That's alright username. I know that you are a regular poster and generally keep your opinions stated in a civil manner. Sometimes it is hard not to react to someone else. I was referring more to people like fivelcom.

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

ms_canada - I think the canadian government has the right of it. A church should have the right to outline it's own religious beliefs and should not be compelled by the state to do anything against those beliefs. Denying the rights of a state civil union to somebody of different sexual preference on religious grounds is an example of a church or religion compelling the state to be unfair to a group of people the state has a job to protect. The two (church and state) should be isolated as much as can be from each other. Or else we open the door to the tyranny of the majority.

badger 12 years, 11 months ago

See, mscanada, if gays challenge a church to force them to perform a marriage ceremony, you'll find me and most of those I know solidly on the side of the church.

You can't legislate morality, or social acceptance. You also can't legislate (in the US, at least), how a church does or does not follow its own tenets.

Currently, for example, a Catholic church could not be legally forced to perform and recognize a wedding between non-Catholics, or divorced persons, because that's against the tenets and policies of the church, and the state is barred from forcing churches to offer services to people on demand.

No one challenges the Salvation Army's policy of refusing to allow people who are drinking in their shelters, no one forces synagogues to serve ham sandwiches, and no one forces churches to offer low-carb bread for communion. This is as it should be.

However, if a community (not just a church, but what about pagan communities of faith, which have no objection at all to homosexuality? Pagan priests can currently perform legal marriages, and to do so for same-sex couples would violate none of their tenets) chooses to perform and acknowledge gay marriage, I think that the same laws that prevent the state from forcing a church to perform them should allow other communities to do so as they choose.

As for the name-calling and nastiness, nicegirl, it appears that PigFarmer has picked up the slack on the conservative side quite nicely, and so now we have a balance of ignorance on both sides to offset the generally reasonable discussion taking place.

badger 12 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, I should have been clearer above...

Sometimes people DO challenge church policies, but the state can't determine how a church operates with regard to its congregation unless that operation is specifically against the law (for example, if one of the rites of the church was that every Sunday the congregation knocked over a liquor store, the state would have the right to tell the church they couldn't have that as a religious ceremony).

In other words, separation of church and state means that someone could take a synagogue to court to demand ham sandwiches, but that for the state to grant that, it would be unconstitutional. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

3rdBird 12 years, 11 months ago

The real issue here should be why do people who couple get more benefits than people who remain single? Those of us who don't want to marry a man or a woman are left with fewer breaks (governmentally speaking) and that's not fair. They should do away with marriage altogether.

nicegirl 12 years, 11 months ago

While I am not a supporter of gay marriage due to my religious beliefs, if the state were to pass legislation allowing homosexuals to marry, it wouldn't exactly ruin my life or anything. I wouldn't sit around and be pissed off that it became legal nor would my beliefs change. So I guess in all honesty I don't really care.

pimp11 12 years, 11 months ago

mar*riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj) n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Whatelse has to be said about that? Isn't the definition of marriage? Or is the dictionary wrong? If that is the case then lets start changing all the other words just to make "different" people happy. If it wasnt 'wrong' then wouldnt the definition be as follows..... The legal union of two individuals regardless of sex. But that is not what the definition is so quit being fags!!!!!!!!!!!

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

pimp11: If you think that Truth, or right or wrong, if you care to call it that, can be found in the official definition of a word in a dictionary, then you are a fool. All a definition shows is the general, popular consensus of a given population at a given time. Definitions can be changed just as easily as viewpoints and ideas.

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 11 months ago

It is absurd for people to think that two guys/gals tying the knot is going to interfere with the sancity of anyone's marriage. The conservatives need to MYOB. As I have said before - though due to work, family, etc. I have to post pretty late and not too many have read much of what I post - What destroys the sanctity of marriage is what the couple brings to thier relationship. Third parties, monstrous step children or exes, addiction, abuse, whatever. It's none of my business what goes on in others' relationship, and it's nobody else's either. Period.

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 11 months ago

To answer your question Liberty: That would be me.

Casey 12 years, 11 months ago


With all due respect, the "Truth" of the matter is we've yet to hear of any same sex couple being able to reproduce. Also, based on the recent presidential election, the "popular consensus" does not support your way of thinking.


12 years, 11 months ago

Casey - since you brought it up, i just wanted to reminisce on how disappointed i was that, according to exit pools (and as you just indicated) The People voted infavor of the politics of "family values" such as hate and oppression. It is truly a sad state of affairs when an individual's leadership shortcomings and deceptions can be overlooked because they want to keep our fellow man (or woman) down. And then call it "family values." Pathetic.

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 11 months ago

Popular consensus? The guy got 51% and a lot of that by manipulating people in to think he's going to keep our country safer. What baloney!! Additionally, there are an abundant number of married couples who either choose not to have children or simply can't. Because a couple is childless doe that mean their marriage is lesser for it? NO!! Your point is lame, Casey.

italianprincess 12 years, 11 months ago

Pimp 11,

A fag ( according to the dictionary ) is a student at an English public school who is required to perform menial tasks for an upperclassman.

A fag is a cigarette

And a faggot if you choose to use this word is.......a bundle of twigs or sticks.

You were using the dictionary to find the meaning of the word Marriage, but I bet you didn't know the true meaning of the word " Fag ".

Next time you call someone this name....think about it first.

Casey 12 years, 11 months ago

Say what you will, it's still a "popular consensus".

Regarding the reproduction issue, you're clearly confused. Yes, many male/female couples choose to refrain from raising children, and many simply cannot due to a host of reason. However, you cannot argue the fact that no same sex couple can reproduce.

Daemon, I doubt anyone cares about your disappointment regarding exit polls. The fact remains, "The People" voted for family values which does not include same sex marriage which should in no way be confused with hate or oppression.

Plain and simple, both of you are misguided.

jonas 12 years, 11 months ago

Casey: Are you suggesting that you need to be married in order to reproduce?

Casey 12 years, 11 months ago

Not at all. However, there's no way one can dance around the fact that in order to reproduce, it requires a man and a woman.

BunE 12 years, 11 months ago

The homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I am afraid that the whole state might catch "gay". We would all start dressing better, and being fabulous! The crops in the fields would be harvested to the beat of "YMCA"! The churches would be empty because the dance clubs would be full! No wonder the religous leaders are running scared. Holey cow, I get it now, we need to stop this madness and re-write the Consitution.

Oh wait, you can't catch "gay"

remember_username 12 years, 11 months ago

Ok, now that was great! I have a wonderful image of a bunch of people out working the fields to YMCA. Really funny. Thanks, BunE

Todd 12 years, 10 months ago

I'm so glad this issue is being sent directly to the people. When it's all said and done we will decide directly on the issue. Everyone with a lick of sense knows it will pass by a wide margin in KS.

All that's being done it to copy the law into an amendment so federal courts can't overturn the the law. See the federal constitution has to balance federal powers and state's rights. As far as I'm concerned it's just lawyer-balling the issue versus addressing it.

Also, all you 90%+ posters here that complain what have you been doing to overturn the existing law the last couple years? If you had been putting time, money, & energy into over turning the law in the first place then that would have scared away enough politicans preventing this issue from coming to a vote.

As for my person view. I'll vote yes on the issue but I would much rather have government out of the issue altogether. Go libertarians!

12345 12 years, 10 months ago

Yes, Badger, same sex marriage is already happening. But while some homosexual couples are receiving the blessing and support of their loved ones, they are not enjoying the same rights that heterosexual couples receive the instant they tie the knot. Homosexual partners do not have the legal right to visit their partners in hospitals and to make the decisions that their beloved partner would want them to make for them. They can name each other as responisible for decisions in living wills, but that is an expense that heterosexuals are not required to suffer, and everything can be challenged in court requiring more legal fees. They cannot collect on the social security benefits that their longtime partner accrued. They may be able to name their partners as beneficiaries to life insurance policies, but if challenged in court the surviving spouse has no protection under the law, and again, they may have to pay court costs just to protect the intentions of their beloved.
I can pick up prescriptions for my husband when he is ill, just because I am a woman and he is a man. But my sister cannot do the same for her wife. If my husband and I had a child, we would automatically have the right to share the responsibilities of raising our child. If you don't think that this issue matters to you, remember that caring for one another is something there is too little of these days. Let love live where it can.

DblDown13 12 years, 10 months ago

If committed gay couples can't enjoy the same freedoms as straight people, then why do gay people have to pay taxes?? Just a thought!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.