Updated: 3:00 p.m. CST
TOPEKA, Kan. — Gay rights advocates lashed out Wednesday at the Kansas House’s leading Democrat, saying he showed only tepid opposition to a bill protecting people who, based on their religious beliefs, discriminate against gays and lesbians.
The bill would prohibit government sanctions or anti-discrimination lawsuits against individuals, groups and businesses over faith-based refusals to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to couples.
Supporters argued that the bill would protect the rights of Kansans’ to adhere to their religious beliefs even if federal courts strike down the state constitution’s ban on same-sex unions. They contend the measure is akin to protections for churches, religious groups and others in states where lawmakers have legalized gay marriage.
Davis issued a statement after a House debate Tuesday saying the bill “goes out of its way to igno re the critical challenges families are facing right now.” The statement did not mention the bill’s contents or deal with critics’ main concern, that the measure would encourage widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians.
“Every day we spend on issues like this is one day less this Legislature and Governor has to tackle the real, growing crises at hand,” Davis said in the statement.
Davis is the presumed Democratic challenger this year to conservative Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn’t formally endorsed the bill but has said he believes religious freedoms need to be protected. Davis is trying to woo unaffiliated voters and disaffected GOP moderates by emphasizing economic issues and education funding.
On Wednesday, Equality Kansas State Chairwoman Sandra Meade decried Davis’ response to a “blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status” for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Kansans.
“What is most disappointing about the House vote to pass this bill isn’t the vote of the conservatives who we know must appease their extremist base, but the lack of public action to oppose or amend the bill by those legislators who claim they sincerely oppose it,” Meade said in a statement.
“It’s unfortunate that discrimination against LGBT Kansans is seen as a distraction for the Democratic leadership, rather than a call to action,” added Meade.
Davis declined to respond to the statement.
Supporters of the bill contend that scenarios for widespread discrimination are far-fetched. They say the bill is narrowly tailored to protect florists and bakers who don’t want to supply flowers or cakes for gay weddings, or churches that want to refuse the use of their sanctuaries to gay couples. Such conflicts have arisen in other states, including Oregon and Colorado, though the supporters of the bill haven’t cited any Kansas examples.
“While homosexual marriage is not inevitable here in Kansas, this legislation would protect the rights of individuals, businesses, religious institutions and churches with sincerely held religious beliefs should subsequent court cases strike down the Kansas Marriage Amendment,” said Robert Noland, executive director of the Kansas Family Policy Council, which opposes gay marriage.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.