February 2, 2005
ssharp@ink.org
Friends:
My apologies for not pasting the existing statute in my first email, you can now see it below. Additionally, click here for a link to the text of the amendment, and an explainer by research staff.
Yesterday afternoon, the House passed the Kansas marriage amendment on General Orders on a vote of 89-35.
Jargon alert “General Orders”: It’s kind of confusing, but the House first acts as a committee structure, Committee of the Whole, to hear legislation with House members as proponents and opponents of the bills. We then vote on the bills as the committee, this is called “General Orders”. If the bill passes, we then act as the Kansas House of Representatives, and vote on the bill again with a final, recorded vote called “Final Action”
The Final Action vote this morning was 86-37, it needed 84, a "super majority" to pass.
I voted NO, but hope that the final vote is comforting for those that supported it. Now, I pray that many of you will keep reading, and possibly peruse my previous comments on the bill in the Sharp Record from March 5, 2004. Additionally, I pray that God gives you grace in your heart to forgive what you see to be my sin in this decision. Thankfully, that final judgment is left up to Him.
My district correspondence has been running about 60 percent opposed to the amendment to 40 percent supporting it, again this year.
Beyond my many philosophical, legal, and Biblical reasons, many said we should support sending this vote directly to Kansans. This directly opposes the Framers intent and wisdom in establishing a republican, representative form of government. Why have a House and Senate? Or for that matter, City Councils or County Commissions?
For some Kansans, rural water issues are just as near and dear to their hearts as this issue is to some of yours. In Wichita, some seek to build a new arena. Others seek to prohibit water fluoridation. Still others would like to ban wind energy in Kansas. Should we vote on these issues as well? Believe me, I have received emails about rural water, the Wichita arena, fluoridation, and wind energy that are just as passionate as those on either side of the marriage amendment.
I respect those whose convictions compelled them to support this bill today. My reading of the Bible and the convictions I have developed over time from my Biblical and experiential learning are just different from theirs. The beauty of our differences and the wonder of humanity pay homage to the intent of our Creator.
Finally, Prohibition was the only other time in our history when the Constitution was used to restrict individual freedoms. We do our ancestors a tremendous disservice by corrupting their intent for the Constitution by denying freedoms. Now, maybe we can consume ourselves with business of the State.
Stephanie Sharp
17th District, KS House
Serving Lenexa and Shawnee
913-894-1201
Kansas Statute No. 23-101
23-101
Chapter 23.--DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Article 1.--MARRIAGE
23-101. Nature of marriage relation. (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract between two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. The consent of the parties is essential. The marriage ceremony may be regarded either as a civil ceremony or as a religious sacrament, but the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law.
(b) The state of Kansas shall not recognize a common-law marriage contract if either party to the marriage contract is under 18 years of age.
History: L. 1867, ch. 84, § 1; G.S. 1868, ch. 61, § 1; R.S. 1923, 23-101; L. 1980, ch. 106, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 142, § 1; L. 2002, ch. 143, § 1; July 1.