# Missouri officially bans gay marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 4, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291 "2004-08-04T14:33:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![BooBoo316](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@BooBoo316](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BooBoo316)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/101 "2004-08-05T10:58:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not me. The structure of government is ethically irrelavant. Whether tyranny comes from a single dictator or from a mob of millions, it is still tyranny. Only when a government, whatever its form, restrains itself to the sole duty of securing the rights of its citizens will people be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Although **Mr. Moto** and I would probably agree on many things, **Liberal** has stated my thoughts on this matter better than I could have. p. s. I don’t really have a dog in this race as far as SSM is concerned. I’ve been married to a lovely woman for over ten years. My only concern in this debate is that I would like other loving couples to have the same right to happiness (and security) that I was granted by the happenstance that I found myself attracted to women instead of men. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/102 "2004-08-05T14:13:32Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Nice. > > Everybody’s apparantly for democracy, as long as their side always wins. :rolleyes: Hogwash. If your town calls a referendum on whether or not to run you out of town on a pole, and the vote goes 11,683 to 1 in favor of the pole, it’s still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/103 "2004-08-05T14:22:05Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > The good news (for those of us who live here–and if one can term it “good news” in light of the amendment passing) is that the amendment passed with only 50.7 percent of the vote in Kansas City; in St. Louis it actually failed with 53.2 percent voting against it. Kansas City fared much better than I originally expected–it’s too bad it didn’t help, though. Yeah, and I’m proud to be a member of the 49.3%. Still tastes a lot like ashes, though. > [@LilShieste](#): > > In fact, I am kind of confused too. Here I was, thinking “There’s no way in hell this ban will pass. I mean, come on- we’re not _that_ backwards.” I can’t believe I was so disillusioned. When I saw the final outcome on CNN this morning (by the time I went to bed last night, it was winning at about ~73% of the vote), I was suprised to learn that this was the “widely expected” outcome. I really had _no_ idea that this was so “widely expected”. And I was in the opposite position. I figured that it would pass precisely _because_ there are too many people in MO who are that backward. Now, we get to wait for the Supremes to take on the state constitution. Now **that** will prove to be a good time. > [@](#): > > No wonder none of the news stations dedicated a single minute to this topic last night… you would think the only exciting thing hapenning during this primary involved the Governor. Lost that one, too. Something must be wrong with my prognosticator. > [@](#): > > Even without amending the Missouri Constitution, SSM would still be illegal in the state. But these people couldn’t let it stop there… they actually want to write in an amendment to the Constitution that blatantly discriminates against a group of people. And **this** is what really pisses me off. The only reasons for doing this were to enshrine bigotry and to make it that much harder for the courts to declare unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/104 "2004-08-05T17:56:58Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Nice. > > Everybody’s apparantly for democracy, as long as their side always wins. :rolleyes: Maybe if you could explain how there could possibly be “sides” to this issue, I’d see your point. Instead of just rolling your eyes and making throwaway comments about democracy? I was under the impression that an important part of democracy was discussion of the issues everyone was voting on. I’ve yet to hear a real argument from the “other side” as to _why_ I shouldn’t be allowed to marry, only vagaries like “most people are against it” and “we’re old-fashioned” and such. Isn’t one of the ideas of a democracy supposed to be fairness and liberty? How is it fair to deny a group of people their rights without reason? Just because the majority thinks it’s okay? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/105 "2004-08-05T19:01:12Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > True. And I completely understand what you’re trying to rally us to. But the fact is that there are some things that just aren’t up for majority rule. It is folly for the American people to think that because the majority believes things should be run in a certain way, regardless of who’s rights are being compromised. It is why we are not allowed to pass “whites only” laws. It is why we cannot hang “Catholics need not apply” signs in our storefront windows. It is why you can stand in front of the White House for weeks at a time and burn flag after flag to protest our government. > > . I concur. If we as individuals are obliged to obey laws we may think are unfair or silly, as part of living in a democratic republic, so must the legislature be compelled to abide by checks and balances; otherwise, it’s nothing more than a many-headed tyrant. (Sorry, I’m in the middle of Gore Vidal’s _Lincoln_, and I guess the florid rhetoric is rubbing off, a bit.) ---
**Author:** ![Crunchy\_Frog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ebca7d/32.png) [@Crunchy\_Frog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crunchy_Frog)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/106 "2004-08-05T19:18:17Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > I’ve yet to hear a real argument from the “other side” as to _why_ I shouldn’t be allowed to marry, only vagaries like “most people are against it” and “we’re old-fashioned” and such. I dunno. I’ve slept on it now, and maybe there’s something to be said for the “old-fashioned” ways. And I’m talking _WAY_ old-fashioned ways. Put the gays back in the closets. Take the shoes off our women, get them pregnant, and put them back in the kitchen. Let’s bring back slavery too, cuz I don’t like leaving my house to go to work anyway. Then we’ll repeal all those damned amendments that give the right to vote to people who aren’t white male land owners. Then let’s go sailing around the world, claiming other countries in the name of the USA because we have flags and plunder their natural resources. Ah yes, good times. And that’s why you shouldn’t be allowed to marry, **Sol** , cuz as you can see, the old-fashioned ways are clearly superior to these new-fangled ways, which I think is just a fad anyway. In another 15 years, no one will want to be gay anymore and VH1 will do a “I Love the '00s” special and we’ll all reminice about how “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Will and Grace” made everyone want to be all homosexual and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/107 "2004-08-05T20:33:59Z")
> [@Crunchy Frog](#): > > If two men or women want to be married, who’s getting hurt there? Where’s the fucking crime? How does that weaken a marriage between a man and woman? I just don’t understand the fear of homosexual marriages. For me, the state of Missouri officially sucks ass today. Because, if God forbid, we allow them gays to marry, who knows what comes next? Folks marrying their cousins, five year old girls, cows, dogs, diesel engines … where’s it going to stop? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/108 "2004-08-05T21:14:45Z")
> [@Crunchy Frog](#): > > Ah yes, good times. And that’s why you shouldn’t be allowed to marry, **Sol** , cuz as you can see, the old-fashioned ways are clearly superior to these new-fangled ways, which I think is just a fad anyway. In another 15 years, no one will want to be gay anymore and VH1 will do a “I Love the '00s” special and we’ll all reminice about how “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Will and Grace” made everyone want to be all homosexual and stuff. That’ll be nice. Maybe I’ll be able to forget all this nonsense and find the right woman and finally settle down to a _real_ marriage. Leave all this nonsense behind, because obviously I’m just confused or I didn’t play catch enough with my father. Man, that pissed me off just typing that, because I know that there are people who really think like that. (And I think that if anything, “Queer Eye” and “Will and Grace” will convince people they _don’t_ want to be homosexual. Who has time to come up with that many cheesy double entendres? First time I saw “Will and Grace,” I started looking into how to sign up for one of those ex-gay therapy seminars.) ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/109 "2004-08-05T21:16:13Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Nice. > > Everybody’s apparantly for democracy, as long as their side always wins. :rolleyes: So, there should be a democratic vote on whether all citizens are equal and desering of the same rights? What a humanitarian you are. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/110 "2004-08-05T21:20:32Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > (And I think that if anything, “Queer Eye” and “Will and Grace” will convince people they _don’t_ want to be homosexual. Who has time to come up with that many cheesy double entendres? First time I saw “Will and Grace,” I started looking into how to sign up for one of those ex-gay therapy seminars.) Same here. Will & Grace and Queer Eye strike me as no more than a gay Steppin Fetchit sideshow. Not that it made me wish to be straight… dating men has done that well enough for me, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/111 "2004-08-05T21:32:05Z")
Right. It’s not as if marriage isn’t already regulated to hell and back already. Yet these laws, duly decided by state legislatures, are perfectly fine, right? Where’s the vast outrage over the setting of minimum ages? Surely that’s constitutional. I’m not arguing that gays should be excluded from marriage, as I’m a big supporter of federal civil unions. What I’m arguing is that the removal of this issue from the political realm would be inappropriate at this time. Only here can the public have any kind of direct impact on the process, and some kind of say in the final social arrangement. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/112 "2004-08-05T22:11:57Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Right. It’s not as if marriage isn’t already regulated to hell and back already. Yet these laws, duly decided by state legislatures, are perfectly fine, right? > > Where’s the vast outrage over the setting of minimum ages? Surely that’s constitutional. How could it possibly be unconstitutional? And for that matter, how is it relevant? A person who’s 17 years old will assuredly (barring catastrophe) grow into a person who’s 18 and old enough to marry. I’m 33, and there are no signs as of yet that I’ll grow out of this whole “gay” phase. The existing regulations of marriage are refinements of the basic principle of the institution. Yes, you’ll see debate over the definitions of the rights and processes involved, the ages of people involved, benefits, etc. This is not a refinement – this is a denial of the benefits of the institution to a significant percentage of the population who share a pre-determined, unchangeable trait. Same-sex couples will still be subject to all the regulations and limitations of marriage – oh wait, no they won’t. Because _they’re denied the chance to get married at all_. I just read an anti-gay-marriage editorial in the National Review Online, linked to from a separate thread, and the author claims that SCOTUS rulings about interracial marriages don’t apply to same-sex marriages, because sexual orientation (or as he dismissively refers to it, “sexuality”), “clearly” doesn’t belong in the same class as race. Nothing more than that, just it’s “clearly” different, so the rulings don’t apply. Why do people keep avoiding this? _Why_ is it so “clearly” not the same thing as race? _Why_ is it merely another legislated regulation of marriage, and not a gross denial of the rights of the institution to a minority group? _Why_ do people keep acting as if it’s so capricious for homosexuals to expect to get married? > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I’m not arguing that gays should be excluded from marriage, as I’m a big supporter of federal civil unions. What I’m arguing is that the removal of this issue from the political realm would be inappropriate at this time. Only here can the public have any kind of direct impact on the process, and some kind of say in the final social arrangement. Glad you said that, because now I can finally talk more about my other pet project. I’m not arguing that blacks should be denied equal rights, as I’m a big supporter of federally-instituted facilities specifically designed for the use of black people. These will be pristine water fountains in clearly designated areas, and spacious, comfortable areas specially reserved for them on the back of every form of public transportation. What I am arguing is that it would be inappropriate at this time to remove the issue from the political realm. Only by allowing the public to voice their opinions of the Coloreds can we be sure that _everyone_ is treated fairly. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/113 "2004-08-05T22:16:32Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > I just read an anti-gay-marriage editorial in the National Review Online, linked to from a separate thread, and the author claims that SCOTUS rulings about interracial marriages don’t apply to same-sex marriages, because sexual orientation (or as he dismissively refers to it, “sexuality”), “clearly” doesn’t belong in the same class as race. Nothing more than that, just it’s “clearly” different, so the rulings don’t apply. > > Why do people keep avoiding this? _Why_ is it so “clearly” not the same thing as race? _Why_ is it merely another legislated regulation of marriage, and not a gross denial of the rights of the institution to a minority group? _Why_ do people keep acting as if it’s so capricious for homosexuals to expect to get married? It’s really quite simple: does the person in question believe that homosexuality is a mutable choice that COULD (not even necessarily should) be fixed with therapy and/or willpower, or does (s)he not? If the former, the stuff you question above really isn’t that surprising at all. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/114 "2004-08-05T22:27:56Z")
It’s pretty certain that you can fix Christianity with willpower, if you want to put it like that… and yet that’s not treated as an excuse to deny Christians their civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/115 "2004-08-05T22:28:48Z")
Gah! That would be me, again. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/116 "2004-08-05T22:31:21Z")
Well, yeah, but OTOH, with two exceptions, religion isn’t really equated with race most of the time, either (AFAIK). Besides, considering Christianity (or at least the trio of major religions) is the reason why folks think homosexuality NEEDS to be fixed, it’s sort of a circular thing, if you catch my drift… ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/117 "2004-08-05T23:30:46Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > It’s really quite simple: does the person in question believe that homosexuality is a mutable choice that COULD (not even necessarily should) be fixed with therapy and/or willpower, or does (s)he not? > > If the former, the stuff you question above really isn’t that surprising at all. It’s still not the same thing, in the case of interracial marriage – the two parties involved can’t change their race, but they COULD choose to marry someone of their own race instead. And yet, they choose not to. And yet, the government allows them to. And I don’t want to go down the path of saying that the only, or even the most convincing, justification for same-sex marriage is that homosexuals can’t change into heterosexuals. I want people to really _understand_ that “could” is not the same as “should.” And it’s not their place to turn what they think two consenting adults _should_ do, into laws that say what two consenting adults _can_ do. And the religion comparison isn’t that far out of left field – you know, an awful lot of Americans in the “heartland” are against atheism. And the Bible certainly isn’t a fan of atheism, either. And an atheist _can_ choose to become a Christian. But the last I checked, atheists weren’t legally restricted from marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/118 "2004-08-06T00:50:27Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > I hope you’re right. And even more, and I guess selfishly, I really hope I get the chance to get married before I die. I hope you do, too. God, how I hope you do. I would be proud to live to see everyone in our county have equal rights. Unfortunately, I just don’t think I will. I’m calculating that about two or three generations need to die off before it can happen. I hope I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/119 "2004-08-06T01:24:05Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I hope you do, too. God, how I hope you do. > > I would be proud to live to see everyone in our county have equal rights. Unfortunately, I just don’t think I will. I’m calculating that about two or three generations need to die off before it can happen. > > I hope I’m wrong. (Well, that was just me being melodramatic. I’m pretty sure I’d have to have a boyfriend before I could get married, anyway – do you know anyone to set me up with, by the way?) But my point, and the only reason I keep harping on **Mr. Moto** ’s posts, is that equal rights are pretty easy and pretty simple. We can get equal rights in my lifetime; there’s no need to wait. You just recognize people’s right to life, liberty, and happiness, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. In this issue, they’re already doing that in places like Massachusetts and much of Canada; we’re seeing it happen right now. But seeing everyone in the country have equal _acceptance_? That’s the part that takes a couple of generations, if ever. And we’ve seen analogous situations in other civil rights struggles before – you’d be a fool to say that the U.S. has race relations all figured out and comfortable, and yet we’ve already got laws protecting the rights of non-Cockausian races. There’s still not universal acceptance of the equality of women in this country; we haven’t “beaten” sexism. And yet we’ve got laws protecting the rights of women and have had them for years. Why, then, is it acceptable to say that we have to wait until a majority of Americans are comfortable with homosexuality, before we put the framework in place to ensure that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291/120 "2004-08-06T02:42:33Z")
Why can’t those rights be enshrined in a civil union, and leave marriage, with all of its attendant cultural and historical notations, be left to heterosexual couples? I realize this isn’t quite equal, but it quite possibly is the only way to make it work in American society. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-officially-bans-gay-marriage/258291.md?page=7)