Kansas House passes resolution denouncing planned ‘black mass’ at state Capitol amid First Amendment debate

The Kansas House of Representatives voted Tuesday to adopt House Resolution 6016, a measure that denounces a planned “black mass” event scheduled to take place on the State Capitol grounds.

Proponents, led by Representative Dan Rogers, said the resolution was intended to make a formal statement of condemnation without blocking the event. “We as a house, this is what we can do,” Rogers said as he introduced the measure. Supporters said the ritual was sacrilegious and painful for Catholics and many practicing Christians and argued the House could condemn the action while respecting constitutional protections.

Opponents urged caution on First Amendment grounds. Representative Emily Miller and several colleagues argued that government statements that single out and condemn religiously motivated speech risk state action that could be challenged under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and could waste public resources defending legal challenges. “A state house resolution being an official action of a state legislative body is considered state action and therefore subject to first amendment scrutiny,” Miller said during debate.

Other members framed the vote as an opportunity to distinguish between legal protections for speech and moral or civic condemnation. Representative Carmichael said he would defend the right of an opposing faith to practice, even when he found it “abhorrent,” while urging the House to issue a moral rebuke. Several speakers, including Representative Simmons, quoted court rulings and First Amendment principles in urging the chamber to protect offensive but protected speech.

After roughly two hours of debate from members across the ideological spectrum — including extended remarks about religious liberty, free expression and community respect — the House voted 101 to 15 to adopt HR 6016. The resolution text states the House’s condemnation of the planned activity while acknowledging constitutional protections for assembly and speech.

The vote followed an extended public and member discussion that emphasized two recurring points: (1) denouncing the planned activity without using government power to stop it and (2) acknowledging the legal protections that allow even offensive speech. The resolution’s language stresses condemnation rather than prohibition. Representative Rogers, the bill’s sponsor, told the chamber the measure was not “pandering” but an expression of the House’s views.

The measure now moves on to any procedural steps required by the legislative calendar. The debate highlighted a broader discussion that has recurred in statehouses across the country: how to respond to deliberately provocative public demonstrations while remaining mindful of constitutional protections.

Ending: Supporters said the resolution gives moral support to Catholics and other faith communities who found the planned event offensive; opponents warned the state could face legal challenges if government statements are worded in ways that cross into state action. The House adopted the resolution by voice, and the roll-call result recorded the final tally as 101–15.