Constitutional gay marriage ban passed in Missouri

[Wax_off]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5865252


O.K. Once again, this brings up constitutional issues that I don't quite understand. Does Missouri still have to recognize legal gay marriages from Massachusetts? The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution would seem to say so. Can a state's constitutional amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS? How would one go about challenging a state constitutional ammendment? Would it be in state court or federal court? HuH?

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Missouri voters on Tuesday made their state the first in the United States to approve a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage since a Massachusetts court decision last year set the stage for challenges to such unions.

In another key vote, Democratic Gov. Bob Holden was trailing in his party's gubernatorial primary. With 59 percent of the precincts reporting, state Auditor Claire McCaskill led Holden, 53 percent to 43 percent.

With same sex marriage a heated national issue, the primary drew a high turnout as voters overwhelmingly rallied behind the amendment, which states that "marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

With 59 percent of the precincts reporting, the amendment was supported by 73 percent of voters. The vote gives the amendment final approval.

Missouri, like 39 other states, already has a law that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, but proponents of the constitutional ban said the amendment would prevent courts from following the lead of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled last year homosexuals had the right to wed.

"We want to make sure that marriage in Missouri stays as it has always been," said Kerry Messer, a conservative lobbyist and president of Missouri Family Network, which backed the amendment. "This was 110 percent a grass roots project from conservative traditional people across the state."

At least nine other states are planning similar votes on proposed constitutional amendments later this year, and four states already have similarly worded amendments.

Last month, the U.S. Senate blocked an effort led by the White House to amend the U.S. Constitution with a same-sex marriage ban, which several Democrats said was a blatant Republican effort to politicize the issue in an election year.

In Missouri, the same-sex marriage issue galvanized voters on both sides, leading to an estimated turnout of more than 40 percent of the state's 3.48 million voters, significantly more than primary turnouts in 1998, 2000 and 2002.

Both Holden and McCaskill oppose gay marriage but also opposed the amendment to the state's constitution as unnecessary, according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

The winner of the gubernatorial vote will face Matt Blunt, Missouri's secretary of state, in the Nov. 2 general election. Blunt easily beat out five lesser-known candidates.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Rekna]

sigh well were at it i think we should add a constitutional amendment that removes a woman's right to vote, a black man's right to own property, and a black man's right to vote.

Afterall if you're going to go you should go all out.

[pan6467]

When you allow a religion to dictate government policy this is what you get and unfortunately this is what is happening. If religion didn't take a view this wouldn't be an issue.

UT OH religion vs. politics rant coming.....

We can argue seperation of church and state and what the meaning in the Const. is all night and day, BUT until religions and religious leaders stop preaching politics the Const., doesn't matter because those church leaders and churches can get a majority of their followers to vote how the church wants.

It's definately a catch 22, the state can't recognize religion and can't make laws in regards to religion, yet religious leaders and sects can push voters to vote what the religion deems it wants. So we'll never have true seperation.

IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views.

I find it interesting Mo. put it on a primary ballot, when voting is always down and usually a more conservative base votes than the true populace in a Nov. Pres. election.

[Journeyman]

We want to make sure that marriage in Missouri stays as it has always been," said Kerry Messer, a conservative lobbyist and president of Missouri Family Network,

The what with the whatnow? Is this not the same state that did not repeal it's interracial marriage ban untill 1969? So what, really, does the Missouri Family Network want?

[Paq]

heh, SC didn't allow interracial marriages until well after 1969. Heck, SC doesn't allow any sex other than missionary position, man and woman only. Dont' even think of changing positions or doing oral. It's considered sodomy and there are several anti-sodomy laws in place...talk about politics from the pulpit.

and yeah, i don't get why so many people are so much in favor of the status quo. If that were the case, we'd still be living on farms with slaves or having sweatshops in the north for little children. the only constant is change, we grow, we learn. Gayness doesn't kill anybody, why should the government care whom you love. Hell, i'm just shocked that anyone could love anyone in this world anymore...i always thought it was something to be celebrated.

and yes, part of the nonprofit/nontaxpaying status is not taking political sides at all and anyone preaching to a congregation about political issues and how to vote should instantly lose the nonprofit status and pay the back taxes on the millions of dollars the land and building is worth along with the revenue generated over the years.

religion is such a fun thing

[Superbelt]

O.K. Once again, this brings up constitutional issues that I don't quite understand. Does Missouri still have to recognize legal gay marriages from Massachusetts? The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution would seem to say so. Can a state's constitutional amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS? How would one go about challenging a state constitutional ammendment? Would it be in state court or federal court? HuH?

Yes Missouri DOES have to recognize them. Now, they will try to not recognize them at first, then someone goes to the SCOTUS and brings a case based on the full faith and credit clause. FFCC wins because US Constitution supercedes any state constitution. It's the ultimate law of the land.
Missouri now never has to actually allow a gay marriage to be performed within it's borders, but constitutionally it will always have to recognize such unions coming in from other states.

This constitutional amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional as it does not voilate any tenets of the US Constitution itself. Now, if it were contradictory to the US constitution, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS
There is no basis to actually challenge this amendment, though. If you were to challenge a state constitutional amendment, it would go to the state supreme court.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by pan6467
IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views.

*Bounces up and down, like an idiot, pointing at pan6467*

BINGO!!!!

I've been saying that for years.

[pan6467]

HAPPY FUCKING BIRTHDAY OLD MAN BILL (JUST TEASING I'M UP THERE WITH YA MAN)...... AND GLAD WE AGREE ON SOMETHING.

[fuzyfuzer]

i live in Missouri and i did vote yesterday. i voted against gay marrige for one reason benefits if gays are allowed marrige then there spouses instantly get benifits from there employer. then what if he gets hurt he gets government benefits and lose my hard earned money. simple as that, i encourage a civil union but i don't want marrige for this reason because it is going to end up costing me more money.

[balderdash111]

Originally posted by Superbelt
Yes Missouri DOES have to recognize them. Now, they will try to not recognize them at first, then someone goes to the SCOTUS and brings a case based on the full faith and credit clause. FFCC wins because US Constitution supercedes any state constitution. It's the ultimate law of the land.

FYI, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton in the mid-90s purports to overrule the full faith and credit clause by stating that states do not have to recognize other state's gay marriages.

That in and of itself may be unconstitutional, but it is another obstacle.

[archer2371]

However, the Tenth Amendment could be made as a basis for the defense case. The case of gay marriage is pretty much in limbo, and it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that gays can marry, have civil unions, etc. Therefore, the powers are left for the people and the state to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriage or not. If I were the plaintiff, I wouldn't sue on FFCC, I'd sue on 1st Amendment rights to freedom of expression, that would definitely be able to hold more water as an issue, rather than the FFCC, which could be thrown out the window by the Tenth Amendment.

Note: This post was written with my own personal feelings aside and as an analysis of possible avenues of the inevitable upcoming SCOTUS case.

[matthew330]

"IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views."

I don't go to church much - but i've never been to one that did this. The church doesn't dictate what becomes political. When political and church realms overlap, you can be sure politics is the one that ventured over.

[DelayedReaction]

i live in Missouri and i did vote yesterday. i voted against gay marrige for one reason benefits if gays are allowed marrige then there spouses instantly get benifits from there employer. then what if he gets hurt he gets government benefits and lose my hard earned money. simple as that, i encourage a civil union but i don't want marrige for this reason because it is going to end up costing me more money.

Your opinion is one that I suspect a great majority of people support, but why would be so concerned over such a small amount of money? On the statewide scale of things, I doubt this would cost you more than a dollar.

Why not just turn things around and ban all marriages, since your reason is purely monetary?

[Wax_off]

Thanks for the info superbelt.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this whole thing turnd out.

[ShaniFaye]

Originally posted by pan6467

IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views.

that is exactly why I have no use for organized religion anymore.

The church has no problem bashing the government on issues it doesnt agree with but it seems the preachers I have known, have no problem telling me who I should be casting my ballot for come election time.

Of course it pisses me off that that the courts dont want the 10 commandments in the courthouses but yet when someone testifies they put their hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth so help them god.

sorry, I know that didnt have anything to do with the original post but pan6467 post just really struck a chord with me

[Charlatan]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
i live in Missouri and i did vote yesterday. i voted against gay marrige for one reason benefits if gays are allowed marrige then there spouses instantly get benifits from there employer. then what if he gets hurt he gets government benefits and lose my hard earned money. simple as that, i encourage a civil union but i don't want marrige for this reason because it is going to end up costing me more money.

Are against benefits in general or just benefits to gay spouses?

If you are against benefits in general, this doesn't seem to be the forum to cast a vote against them... it is an entirely seperate issue.

However, if you are against, gay spouses receiving benefits then why don't you just come out and say you are against gay marriage and stop hiding behind your excuse...

[MSD]

Originally posted by pan6467
IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views.

I will go farther than this and state that tax exemption, while not establishing a religion as prohibited in the constitution, is clearly favoring certain groups over others, giving the government the righ tto dictate what is and isn't a religion.

Originally posted by matthew330
"IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views."

I don't go to church much - but i've never been to one that did this. The church doesn't dictate what becomes political. When political and church realms overlap, you can be sure politics is the one that ventured over.

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport in CT required that every church in the area read a statement that told parishoners to fill out the cards in the lobby and mail them in to the state legislature stating that they oppose same-sex marriage. They did the same with abortion.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by matthew330
"IMO if a church uses it's pulpit to preach politics then it should have to lose it's tax exemption and pay taxes. I believe a church's duty is to provide hope, sanctuary and help others not dictate political views."

I don't go to church much - but i've never been to one that did this. The church doesn't dictate what becomes political. When political and church realms overlap, you can be sure politics is the one that ventured over.

What about the Catholic Church threatening to deny (or maybe they did deny, I'm not clear on how that played out) Holy Communion to those lawmaker's whose voting record did not parallel church doctrin? That was fairly recent. I'd say that's a huge example of religion becoming political. Also another reason to start taxing the Catholic Church.

[fuzyfuzer]

Originally posted by Charlatan
Are against benefits in general or just benefits to gay spouses?

If you are against benefits in general, this doesn't seem to be the forum to cast a vote against them... it is an entirely seperate issue.

However, if you are against, gay spouses receiving benefits then why don't you just come out and say you are against gay marriage and stop hiding behind your excuse...

i am really against marrige completely. i don't like it because they take my money. i am 18 and i make just under 30000 they are able to take 30% of my money and i get nothing from them because of how much money my dad makes. doesn't seem like a fair thing to and i am sorry that gay couples are being singled out because of this vote but every dollar counts.

my decision was not part of the church in any way. although i would bet a lot of the votes in the area were becacuse this is a very catholic area. they do a lot to try to control people and it gets really anoying.

[Charlatan]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
i am really against marrige completely. i don't like it because they take my money. i am 18 and i make just under 30000 they are able to take 30% of my money and i get nothing from them because of how much money my dad makes. doesn't seem like a fair thing to and i am sorry that gay couples are being singled out because of this vote but every dollar counts.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused... You are against marriage completely (my emphasis).

The 30% of tax that you are paying will likely be paid regardless of who is collecting benefits on any given year... I can't imagine a tax system that would increase based on something as fluid as that... Again, benefits in general are a seperate issue from gay marriage. It sounds more like you are upset with taxation.

To me it sounds like either a) you aren't clear on what taxes are or b) you don't like gay marriage

[Polyphobic]

Let me get this right. You are 18 and make around 30,000. I assume you live with your parents? Most 18 year olds do not make anywhere near this amount of money. Hell, I'm 29 and make about that. It seems to me that you are nitpicking about a relatively small amount of money (no offense intended). I just think your tune will change when or if you get married.

[Superbelt]

Originally posted by balderdash111
FYI, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton in the mid-90s purports to overrule the full faith and credit clause by stating that states do not have to recognize other state's gay marriages.

That in and of itself may be unconstitutional, but it is another obstacle.

We've covered this here already, the DOMA is a paper tiger. It is only effective as long as it isn't actually being used. Once a state uses it, a case can be brought to the Supreme Court and there is a 0.000000% chance that it will hold up.
DOMA is a simple law, Full Faith and Credit is part of the Constitution. Any simple law is the FFCC's bitch.

[fuzyfuzer]

Originally posted by Charlatan
Sorry, I'm a bit confused... You are against marriage completely (my emphasis).

The 30% of tax that you are paying will likely be paid regardless of who is collecting benefits on any given year... I can't imagine a tax system that would increase based on something as fluid as that... Again, benefits in general are a seperate issue from gay marriage. It sounds more like you are upset with taxation.

To me it sounds like either a) you aren't clear on what taxes are or b) you don't like gay marriage

my issue is about taxation and how marrige is going to end up raising taxes.

if i were not royally screwed over i would not be so bitter about this. what really pisses me of is that i have to pay taxes like that and still have to pay full tuition at colleges. maybe if i were allowed financial assistance i would be more willing.

you probably find this pretty shallow but i need that money to pay for college because i will never ask my parents to pay that tuition.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
you probably find this pretty shallow but i need that money to pay for college because i will never ask my parents to pay that tuition.

It's not shallow so much as selfish. To deny roughly half a million people rights because it might cost you a few dollars -- not great.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
i am really against marrige completely. i don't like it because they take my money. i am 18 and i make just under 30000 they are able to take 30% of my money and i get nothing from them because of how much money my dad makes. doesn't seem like a fair thing to and i am sorry that gay couples are being singled out because of this vote but every dollar counts.

Anyone else read this and think bullshit, bullshit, bullshit?

For starters, I highly doubt you can make 30,000 a year and still go to college fulltime at eighteen. That situation really seems to be unlikely considering the skills of the average eighteen year old. Also, who is the they who are taking 30% of your money ? Federal income tax for 7,000 to 29,000 is 700$ + 15% over 7000. I can't see how that, even with state taxes added, would come close to 30% of your income. I'm also confused how your father's earnings reflect on how much you pay in taxes. The only thing I can think of is that he is claiming you as a dependent and that affects your tax return.

Also, this statement might seem mean but it needs to be said.

If you don't qualify for any fiancial aid, your family has enough money to pay for your college. I would kindly ask you to hush because some people, born without the silver spoon, actually have to take-out things called "massive loans" because they have poor families.


But hey you are making 30K a year; so why do you care about tuition costs ?

[skyscan]

Originally posted by pan6467
I find it interesting Mo. put it on a primary ballot, when voting is always down and usually a more conservative base votes than the true populace in a Nov. Pres. election.

Another Missourian here. I can explain this fully. It was simple politics. OK, gay marriage, who would be really likely to come out and vote on it? Here, let me answer that. The group commonly referred to as "the religious right." Now, if you waited till November to have this vote that would have the state's electorial votes for president up for grabs. The religious right would sway the balance to Bush's re-election. The Dems. in the state do not what that to happen. Thus, it was put on Aug. ballet so that the chance of the same showing from the religious side of Missouri would be less likely and Kerry would have at least a chance of winning Missouri (personally don't think he has a chance for Missouri).

Just some FYI, every person I know that goes to Church was told to vote against gay marriage and against a casino on the same ballot. So, yes, preaching politics does happen in Missouri. Any questions?

I also want to apologize on behalf of Missouri. =(

[fuzyfuzer]

apparently you have no fucking clue how to make money. i have been running my business since i was 15 and will tell you right now you don't make money by doing the work yourself. i have other people that are employes of mine that i skim off the top from. my business is simple you want your lawn taken care of you talk to me. average charge is about 50-75 dollars the worker keeps about 20 i take the rest. i do very little i am just there to make sure everything runs smoothly so for me to make my money it takes little more than a cell phone and a car nothing more.

i am no way against anyone who has less money getting financal aid it just since i am paying for it i want a peice of the pie as well and in my mind that is more than fucking fair.

[skyscan]

People pay 50-75 dollars for lawn care?
(in other words, can we get back on topic?)

[Wax_off]

Really, I think the topic has already been taken care of.

Unless anyone else has something to say about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage and state constitutional amendments... Please let us know.

[98MustGT]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
apparently you have no fucking clue how to make money. i have been running my business since i was 15 and will tell you right now you don't make money by doing the work yourself. i have other people that are employes of mine that i skim off the top from. my business is simple you want your lawn taken care of you talk to me. average charge is about 50-75 dollars the worker keeps about 20 i take the rest. i do very little i am just there to make sure everything runs smoothly so for me to make my money it takes little more than a cell phone and a car nothing more.

i am no way against anyone who has less money getting financal aid it just since i am paying for it i want a peice of the pie as well and in my mind that is more than fucking fair.

I had a neighbor who moved to Southern Cali that was a landscaper, he did not realize that the illegals will work for about half what he would charge so don't move here until you graduate! He is going back to Des Moines

[98MustGT]

First I do not care if people are gay or not
Second homosexual unions should have all the rights that heteros do.

Here is my analogy...

Chess is an interesting game and the rules have been etched in stone for years. If we change the rules of chess and change that fact that you have a king and queen, change it so you can have either two kings or two queens it is no longer chess. Kind of looks like chess but it is not.

Am I wrong here?

[Delvid]

I voted no. You do not change the state constitution to suit religious beliefs. Where does it end?

[Wax_off]

98MustGT, well, yes and no. Marriage is way more complicated than chess. Families don't have hard and fast rules about what each member can do.

But the first part of your post is pretty good. I see civil unions and marriage as totally different things. A marriage should be something sanctified by your church, without any legal benefits conferred. Your church gets to decide whether it will bless your marriage or not, but not whether you can visit your partner in the hospital. The problem really seems to be this blending of church and state, that a religious ceremony gets to decide who has legal rights and who doesn't. The best way I can think to deal with this is to make the legal rights separate. If you're married in a church, you still have to go to the state to get a civil union in order to receive the legal rights. In a way this is already true. You have to get a marriage license. All that needs to be done is to change the name of what you get from the state from a 'marriage license' to a 'civil union' Problem solved, then gays who want to still want to get married have to convince a church to give them the title 'married' and any church would be well within their rights to deny that title.

[Dwayne]

If I lived in Missouri I would have voted against the Gay Marrige ban. The constitution should not include any admendment that prohibits rights.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by skyscan
I also want to apologize on behalf of Missouri. =(

Don't. There's no need.

I live in Nebraska. Religion runs this state as well. I knew that the amendment to the Nebraska State Constitution, banning gay marriage would pass. What I didn't realize, and scares the hell out of me to this day, is the overwhelming margin by which it was passed. I guess you don't mess with "The Good Life".