(Court) House May Drop on Kansas Amendment

I posted earlier, though not in great detail, about Kansas’ recently passed amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now, it’s predicted that the amendment won’t stand up in court. And this is coming from a supporter of the amendment.

Federal courts ultimately will strike down an amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning gay marriage and similar measures in other states, the leader of a group favoring such prohibitions predicted Wednesday.

“All these state amendments are going to be struck down by federal judges,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “We’re in a race now — in a race between the democratic process in Kansas and other states and the federal courts.”

Daniels’ group has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman but leave to the states other issues, such as permitting civil unions. He said such a federal amendment is necessary to head off legal challenges to state amendments.

Meanwhile, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will determine the validity of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

“Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to decide what the U.S. Constitution says about this issue,” Foreman said.

If the Kansas amendment is struck down by the courts, expect to hear more wingnuttery about the courts “not following the will of the people.” If it gets to the Supreme Court (before Bush has a chance to make any appointments), expect the court to be nearly evenly split. I won’t hazzard a guess as to which way the Supremes would decide if the matter cme before them, though I’d expect them to sidestep the issue if it came their way, by refusing to hear it and thus letting the rulings of lower courts stand.

It comes down to a fundamental question that I think gay politicos have been debating amongst themselves for some time now. Should civil rights be put to a majority vote? I think my answer is “no.” If civil rights are about justice, then they shouldn’t be put to a majority vote, because justice and the will of the majority are often diametrically opposed to each other.

Here’s another question. Is a victory in the courts meaningless if we can’t win with American voters? The best answer I can come up with here is “maybe.” I can’t say that a judicial victory would be meaningless if it would give our families rights and protections they currently lack. Would there be a lot of bitterness afterwards? Probably. Would people get over it? Probably.