The Kansas proposal, besides defining marriage, would declare that the state shall recognize no other relationship as "entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage." The proposal is before the House, and supporters hope for a statewide vote April 5.
<snip>
In Kansas, critics suggest a proposal adopted by the Senate to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- as well as civil unions and other legal recognition for gay couples -- is broad enough to affect private companies and unmarried heterosexual couples sharing health insurance.
<snip>
Sen. John Vratil, an attorney who opposes the amendment, said he believes private companies could still offer domestic partner benefits if voters amended the constitution but, "That could have a chilling effect."http://www.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/story/193268I don't know what will become of the amendment. It seems to me to be unnecessary and wrongheaded, but it could be that only the threat of economic loss will convince Kansas to give up on it.