Ah, so proud of my Kansas roots...

Surprise, surprise: the same-sex marriage ban in Kansas passed(registration info):

With 209 of 210 precincts reporting statewide, the measure was leading with 70 percent of the vote. In Johnson County, with all precincts counted, the measure passed with 60 percent of the vote.

But, as Bobby O. mentioned in the comments the other day, Douglas County, where KU is located, was alone in rejecting the ban and is now officially the only county in the state that believes in the U.S. Constitution. A few comments on the article in the KC Star I linked to above:

Only a handful of states have adopted an amendment as broad as the one in Kansas. Besides limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the Kansas amendment states: “No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”

Opponents contend the additional language could complicate rights and benefits for homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples in arrangements such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Among the areas that could be affected, they say, are health benefits, medical decisions and inheritance issues. Proponents contend the ban will have no impact on heterosexuals.

No impact on heterosexuals? Why bother with the damn ban then? Isn't that the point of "protecting" marriage? At least this makes it plain that the sole purpose is to discriminate against those sinful gays.

The two sides raised thousands of dollars in a short time. According to the latest campaign-finance reports, supporters raised nearly $153,000 — $125,000 of which came from donors outside Kansas. The biggest donor — the national Knights of Columbus — donated $100,000. Focus on the Family, a conservative group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., donated $23,000.

Opponents raised about $36,000, much of it in small donations. The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign donated $5,000.

"The two sides raised thousands of dollars..." No. That's not exactly what it sounds like to me: the bigots raised over four times as much money as the opponents of the ban! This means they had to spend more per vote than the opponents! Over half of which came from the Knights of Columbus! I feel sooo betrayed for all those little Tootsie Rolls I bought as a kid. Of course, as I complained in my last post, the "he said, she said" school of "neutral" journalism can't even make clear the most obvious points.

The Star also doesn't point out a side of the story that gets prominent coverage in the Lawrence Journal-World article:

Opponents said they were confident they could reverse the amendment in court.

"It's only temporary. This amendment is truly unconstitutional, and it won't withstand the light of judicial review," said Bruce Ney, of Lawrence, and chairman of Kansans for Fairness, which worked against the amendment.

[Insert the upcoming charges about "activist judges" here.] Of course, "activist judges" would also strike down a proposal to reinstate slavery, even if 90% of Kansans voted for it. Remember all that crap about "inalienable rights" and "being created equal" and protecting these things from the "tyranny of the majority"? Oh, wait, what am I thinking: none of this applies in the new law of the land: the Bible.