After the vote (KC Star editorial on Kansas "marriage" vote)

[kweerwolf]

The Kansas lawmakers who drafted the successful constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage said the measure would not take away rights that individuals and businesses currently enjoy.

<snip>

Supporters of the Kansas amendment said its sole purpose was to protect the definition of marriage, not to discriminate.

Legislators can back up their words by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in the state's anti-discrimination law. A bill before the Legislature would allow gays and lesbians to appeal to the Kansas Human Rights Commission if they thought they were denied employment, raises or services because of sexual orientation.

Passage of that legislation would allow lawmakers to show they are as vigilant at protecting rights as they have been about defending traditional marriage.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/11320045.htm

[atommom]

1. Time will tell, but I don't think they ARE worried about protecting rights

... just advancing the RW agenda.

[Democrats_win]

2. Interesting. A second opportunity to prove they hate gays?

Since Kansas is downstream from Denver, maybe they should be more concerned about the envirnoment.

[Fovea]

3. They are wrong about the effects of their bill.

And anyone with a same sex partner, or even a live-in het partner will find out as soon as their S/O is in the hospital how shitty this bill it.