FROM THE GALLERY
State Legislation
The atmosphere during the debate on SCR 1601, the marriage amendment to the Kansas Constitution was typically charged with emotion this week, but it paled in comparison to the marathon produced on the Senate floor last year. The debate lasted a mere 45 minutes in contrast to five hours and turned out to be a whimper rather than a shout in the chamber. An amendment to SCR 1601, introduced by newly-elected Republican Senator Vicki Schmidt, gutted the intent and purpose of SCR 1601. Several senators discussed the addition and it went down to defeat after determining that it was similar to the Oleen Amendment that was introduced last year. This amendment, which passed, caused senators to vote the entire amendment down because it changed it so much they could no longer support it. Senator John Vratil, who voted against SCR 1601, offered an explanation of the vote. This explanation is below, with our italicized commentary added. The amendment now goes to the House where a two-thirds majority is needed to pass. At this moment, the required votes are not firm; so it is essential that you call your representative as soon as possible and ask them to vote for an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and limits the incidences of that union to that union alone. Ask them to support both the a.) and b.) clauses to the amendment.
We also attended a pastor's rally at the capitol on Monday. Several hundred people participated in this rally, while others attended a rally in opposition. It was so heartening to see and hear pastors being involved in these important issues. We were so encouraged to have their support; it is essential that pastors be involved in these foundational issues that affect everyone so much. I was struck by the fact that this is a war; battles may be won and lost in the political realm, but the real battle is for men's souls. No matter what happens politically, we do not lose because we have Christ and the anchor of hope to encourage us. After the rally some of us made a trek around the Capitol to pray. I stayed and prayed over the other group on the floor below us because I knew that the mightiest battle raged there.
Senator John Vratil's "Explanation of Vote" as spread on the Kansas Senate Journal:
Some other points to consider (in italics)(Emphasis Added):
Mr. President: This is a sad day in the Kansas Senate and a sad day for the State of Kansas. (It is a sad day when the Senate elects to protect children and families and to promote stability in our culture? It is a sad day when legislators vote to allow the people of Kansas to change their Constitution?) We are unnecessarily considering a constitutional amendment (Many states are experiencing challenges against their Defense of Marriage Acts. No one can unequivocally say that Kansas will not face such a suit.) which is intended to discriminate against a disfavored class of people. (Homosexuals on average earn more than other groups of people according to a Simmons Market Research Bureau report to the Wall Street Journal in 1991 showing the average annual household income at $32,144 while gay households report $55,430 Since when do we group people together by their behavior and give them special rights? If that is the case, our laws should reflect that . . . special laws for obsessive-compulsive people; special laws for people who eat too much fat; special laws and consideration for people who snort cocaine . . . after all it is their choice of behavior.)
Never before in the history of this state have we added an amendment to our constitution which pro-actively discriminates against people. (Homosexuals are not being discriminated against . . . they too can marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage is an individual right and as individuals they can marry. They are free to make any alliances they choose . . . they just can't call it "marriage" because the definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Laws discriminate against people all the time . . . i.e. a sexual predator has to report when he moves to the predator registry because community standards have determined that his behavior is a threat to society. Society frowns on murder and thievery and precludes this kind of behavior with "discriminatory" laws that prohibit it. Polygamy is prohibited even though a religious group practiced it at one time.) To the contrary, we have always tried to avoid such discrimination. (It is not discrimination to protect a valuable institution that has given so much back to society. In fact the Legislature should do all it can to uphold marriage as an institution because it IS so important.)The people whom we are discriminating against are not a threat to my marriage or yours. (The very institution of marriage is being threatened by the proposition of establishing counterfeits. Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman . . . if the state sanctions other arrangements as "marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever, they will dilute and weaken one of the most important foundations of our society . . . that hurts everybody. The creation of "counterfeit" parallels to marriage will serve to strip marriage of its historical and cultural significance. To assume that whatever someone else does will have no effect on anyone else is naive.) They are not a threat to our children or our communities. (Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, but homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses. [Peter Sprigg, "Homosexuality and Children"; Volume 15, Number 5, November, December, 2002 p.19]) They are not a threat to our public safety or our quality of life. (What about disease in the general population and in the homosexual population? Homosexuals on average have a shorter life span . . . on average twenty years for males. [R.S. Hogg, S.A.Strathdee, et al, "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659, 1997]) Yet, we propose to treat them differently (They are not being treated differently . . . they do not fit the definition of one man and one woman; therefore they cannot be married. I cannot marry my brother or my child or an animal.) and in an inferior manner. (They have the same individual rights as you and I.) For those reasons, I vote against SCR 1601.
There is an even more important reason I am voting against this resolution. One of the first things I remember learning in Sunday school was the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because of the Golden Rule, I vote against this resolution. (The Golden Rule is about loving the other person in a way that is in their best interests. Loving does not always mean giving hearty approval to someone else's behavior when it is behavior that costs them and society so much . . . physically, emotionally, spiritually and economically. Loving one who is in a destructive lifestyle does not necessarily dictate approval of what that person does.)
Sens. Allen (R), Betts (D), Francisco (D), Goodwin (D), Haley (D), Kelly (D) and Steineger (D) request the record to show they concur with the Explanation of Vote offered by Senator Vratil on SCR 1601.
TALKING POINTS ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Civil rights are based upon discrimination against a class of people who have immutable (unchangeable) characteristics such as race, color, ethnicity, handicaps, etc. and who are disenfranchised because of those characteristics. Those practicing homosexuality are not disenfranchised; they can change and they are not helpless; in fact, on average they earn more than the general population.
2. There have always been restrictions on marriage. For instance a man cannot have three wives, he cannot marry his dog or his horse; and he cannot marry a close relative.
3. The self-evident truth of nature is that men and women are uniquely designed for each other. It is the means by which the human race reproduces. The only "procreation" for homosexual couples requires a third party.
4. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural.
5. Marriage is a civil contract which ensures that a man's progeny is his, safeguarding inheritance; it offers protection and stability to women and it acts as a safe incubator for the rearing of children.
6. Homosexual marriage denies children the opportunity to have both a mom and a dad. Each is important for development and gender identity.
7. Granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple who have sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat and uses scissors.
8. Homosexual marriage will devalue traditional marriage. Offering a counterfeit in exchange for the real thing always devalues the genuine. The government will have to treat all marriages as equal in the eyes of the law; granting homosexual marriage would be the same as government sanctioning that union. In the Scandinavian countries that have granted the privilege of marriage most people now don't even bother to get married. Out-of-wedlock births have sky-rocketed and marriage has been devalued.
9. Marriage is not just a piece of paper that gives people license to have sex. It has a far deeper meaning both spiritually and contractually.
10. One of government's main functions is to promote the public welfare; marriage has been the primary factor of providing stability, health, security and long-term viability in stable societies. Government has a duty to protect marriage.
11. Changing the definition of marriage will require changes in ALL family law, making an already chaotic court situation much worse and children will suffer. Some homosexuals' claim that is their goal . . . to transform the notion of 'family' completely. 12. Social scientists have found that same-sex "marriages" are different from heterosexual marriages. Even homosexual activists admit that these unions are more promiscuous, are of shorter duration, with greater physical, mental problems and shorter life spans for those engaged in that behavior . 13. Marriage has already been weakened by no-fault divorce with tragic results for the family, especially women and children.
14. Government sanction of homosexual marriage will change what is taught to our children in schools, much like what has already happened in California where children must be taught that homosexuality is a sanctioned lifestyle.
15. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and provides an earthly picture of Christ and His Bride, the Church.
All Kansas Representatives need to be contacted and urged to vote FOR the marriage amendment.
You can find contact information for each of them on the One Voice Kansas web site:
Phone numbers listed below are the Topeka offices. Area Code 785.
The following Representatives voted against it last year:
007 Jeff Jack, Parsons, 296-7678
016 Jim Yonally, Overland Park, 296-7654
017 Stephanie Sharp, Lenexa, 296-7616
019 Tim Owens, Overland Park, 296-7685
022 Sue Storm, Overland Park, 296-7650
024 Ed O�Malley, Roeland Park, 296-7672
025 Terrie Huntington, Mission Hills, 296-7667
031 Bonnie Sharp, Kansas City, 296-7656
044 Barbara Ballard, Lawrence, 296-7650
045 Tom, Sloan, Lawrence, 296-7677
046 Paul Davis, Lawrence, 296-7657
055 Annie Kuether, Topeka, 296-7669
056 Nancy Kirk, Topeka, 296-7673
057 Vaughn Flora, Topeka, 296-7647
060 Don Hill, Emporia, 296-7641
065 Barbara Craft, Junction City, 296-7692
066 Sydney Carlin, Manhattan, 296-7665
078 Judy Showalter, Winfield, 296-7648
084 Oletha Faust-Goudeau, Wichita, 296-7669
092 Nile Dillmore, Wichita, 296-7647
098 Geraldine Flaharty, Wichita, 296-7687
123 Ward Loyd, Garden City, 296-7655
The following switched their vote (for, then against):
020 Kevin Yoder, Overland Park, 296-7693
030 David Huff, Lenexa, 296-7672
039 Ray Cox, Bonner Springs, 296-7689
041 Marti Crow, Leavenworth, 296-7673
052 Lana Gordon, Topeka, 296-7652
058 Harold , Lane, Topeka, 296-7690
086 Judy Loganbill, Wichita, 296-7669
108 Josh Svaty, Ellsworth, 296-7680
The position on the marriage amendment is unknown:
003 Julie Menghini, Pittsburg, 296-7687
005 Bill Feuerborn, Garnett, 296-7697
028 Pat Colloton, Leawood, 296-7631
033 Tom Burroughs, Kansas City, 296-7688
037 Michael Peterson, Kansas City, 296-7648
053 Ann Mah, Topeka, 296-7690
067 Tom Hawk, Manhattan, 296-7651
088 Jim Ward, Wichita, 296-7675
089 Melody Miller, Wichita, 296-7680
101 Mark Treaster, Hutchinson, 296-7643
103 Delia Garcia, Wichita, 296-7650
Concerned Women for America of Kansas
P O Box 11233
Shawnee Mission, KS 66207
Phone/Fax: 913-491-1380
Email: director@kansas.cwfa.org
Web site: kansas.cwfa.org
|