# Would This Anti-Gay Law Be 'Unconstitutional'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914 "2014-03-17T13:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/21 "2014-03-18T16:35:27Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Well it COULD hypothetically apply to these horror stories, which is why I say it is poorly drafted. Note how it says “related to…any marriage…or similar arrangement.” > > It’s not an absurd interpretation to say that a cop who arrives on a domestic battery call of a same sex couple deciding to refuse to intervene on the grounds that his religious belief precludes him from treating it as “domestic” violence. Yes, it is, because domestic violence is not limited to violence between married couples. > [@](#): > > Or even refusing to arrest the murderer of a same sex couple because in his Fred Phelps-style religious belief, the murderer was acting properly by killing fags, and the guy wouldn’t have been killed if not for his same sex relationship similar to marriage and therefore the murder is “related to” that relationship. Also absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/22 "2014-03-18T17:59:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it is, because domestic violence is not limited to violence between married couples. But it is certainly limited to “similar arrangements,” which is exactly what the Kansas bill would have considered enough. The distinction between “roommate” and “romantic partner” is the distinction that gives rise to jurisdiction for a Protection From Abuse order in Pennsylvania. In Kansas a court wouldn’t have to treat that distinction as meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/23 "2014-03-18T18:08:22Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > That proviso alone renders 90% of the hysterical handwringing in that article incorrect. You’ll excuse me if I ask you to show your work. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/24 "2014-03-18T18:11:04Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > But it is certainly limited to “similar arrangements,” which is exactly what the Kansas bill would have considered enough. Not necessarily, the Kansas Domestic Battery law describes “family or household member” as including “persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past”, which covers any basic roommate situation. The Protection From Abuse act includes “(b) “Intimate partners or household members” means persons who are or have been in a dating relationship, persons who reside together or who have formerly resided together or persons who have had a child in common.” I don’t think, on its face, that this act would allow police to ignore a dating relationship due to religion. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/25 "2014-03-18T18:22:58Z")
You’re right. If they weren’t cohabitating I suppose there’d be some potential tension for PFA purposes, but not for the battery. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/26 "2014-03-18T18:38:54Z")
Well, hopefully there are enough Catholics of character in Kansas state government who can protest this by refusing service to anyone who is divorced. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/27 "2014-03-18T18:53:51Z")
It’s worth noting that there won’t be any need for that; the sponsors killed the bill already based on backlash like the article linked in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/28 "2014-03-18T19:48:15Z")
Well, I’m sure it lasted long to accomplish its purpose - puff up the chests of Kansas Republicans and reinforce their feelings of persecution. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/29 "2014-03-18T20:56:51Z")
Those who are always for this type of legislation always disguise it in the cloak of religious freedom. They are wrong, but the argument works on some stupider populations of people. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/30 "2014-03-23T17:32:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it is, because domestic violence is not limited to violence between married couples. > > Also absurd. Yes, I agree with you that the argument is absurd. When I said “not absurd” I meant not absurd to the point that a lawyer would be violating his oath by arguing it. If I am a judge, then I throw out all of these ridiculous arguments…it doesn’t violate anyone’s religious tenets to investigate a murder. But if I were a Kansas lawyer and this bill had passed, and I was representing a police officer charged with a crime or a civil tort because of his alleged failure to investigate a crime against a gay person and he told me that it was religiously motivated, would I not try to use the law? Of course I would. I think you would as well. That’s why I say the law is poorly drafted. It could have easily simply exempted sexual orientation from state civil rights law, but it tried to draw a broad brush that could encompass other activities. At least to the point that a claim against those other activities could survive Rule 11 sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/31 "2014-03-24T16:15:26Z")
Bricker, would Romer v. Evans shed some light, it was subject to strict scrutiny! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/32 "2014-03-24T16:30:41Z")
Huh? _Romer_ didn’t apply strict scrutiny. It was the genesis of the “rational basis with bite” test. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914/33 "2014-03-24T17:29:34Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Bricker, would Romer v. Evans shed some light, it was subject to strict scrutiny! > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Huh? _Romer_ didn’t apply strict scrutiny. It was the genesis of the “rational basis with bite” test. What he said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-anti-gay-law-be-unconstitutional/683914.md?page=1)