Sharp Reactions to Missouri's Decisive Vote Against Gay Marriage
Monica Davey. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 5, 2004. pg. A.17
Missouri voters' overwhelming decision to bar gay marriage with a constitutional amendment has sent a resounding message around the country.
With at least nine other states expected to vote on similar amendments this fall, including four swing states in the presidential race, leaders on each side of the issue viewed Missouri's 70 percent approval of the amendment on Tuesday as a glimpse of what might lie ahead.
Supporters of amendments to ban gay marriage in states like Ohio pointed to Missouri's record election turnout -- 41 percent in a primary election that in most years draws 15 percent to 25 percent -- as a clear and exhilarating sign that the issue will lure their voters to the polls.
''What this has done is brought the people of faith to the table like I have never seen before,'' said Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, the group leading Ohio's effort to amend its Constitution. ''This is what the Democrats biggest fear was -- that something would energize the people of faith. And it has.''
Opponents of the amendments said that they were distressed, even hurt, by the outcome in Missouri, but that they planned to study exactly what had happened in the brief months of campaigning there to learn which strategies had worked and which failed. The spending had been lopsided here, with supporters of gay marriage spending $450,000 to fight the measure with television advertising and polling, compared with $19,000 spent by opponents.
''Still, we were just a little bit out-organized,'' said Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington group that helped pay for the Missouri opposition. ''We can't let that happen again.''
Missouri is only the first in a wave of states that have chosen to hold elections on the question since Massachusetts' highest court ruled last year that gay marriage was not prohibited under that state's Constitution. State law in Missouri and in more than 30 other states already bars same-sex marriages. But organizers in states around the nation said they feared situations like the one in Massachusetts and decided that amendments to their state constitutions were the only sure way to ward off a similar fate.
In the days leading up to Missouri's voting, polls had shown that the ban on gay marriage would very likely pass, but with the support of about 60 percent of voters, so the size of the approval startled some people. The amendment passed in every county except the City of St. Louis, where it failed by about 3,500 votes out of about 60,000 cast.
Few had anticipated the scale of the turnout either. In state records kept since 1980, there had never been comparable participation in an August primary. Nearly 1.5 million people voted, a fact that Vicky Hartzler, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, attributed to grass-roots efforts, including notes in church bulletins, neighbors holding up signs along busy thoroughfares and preachers talking to their congregations.
''Even though we were outspent and we had a national political machine descend on our state to try and defeat this,'' Ms. Hartzler said, ''people got out and worked and called neighbors and said a lot of prayers.''
On Friday, leaders of Missouri's anti-gay-marriage effort will offer advice in a conference call to those pushing for amendments in other states, she said.
Her own best advice to the other states, Ms. Hartzler said, would not be about politics. ''The No. 1 thing is prayer,'' she said, ''and a passion for protecting the sanctity of marriage.''
The group that led the opposition to a ban in Missouri, the Constitution Defense League, said it would also probably share observations with its counterparts elsewhere. Next month, voters in Louisiana will cast ballots on a similar amendment, and even Christopher Daigle, a leader of the opposition there, conceded on Wednesday that he would not be surprised if that state's results mirrored Missouri's.
''I guess we had hoped there would better news from there so that might be able to provide some momentum and encouragement for us down here,'' Mr. Daigle said.
In November, 8 other states -- and perhaps as many as 11 -- will vote on similar provisions, placing the question of banning gay marriage on the same ballots as the presidential race. The swing states of Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon are among the 11.
Some opponents of the amendments accused Republicans of using gay marriage as a tool to draw out large numbers of conservative voters in November. ''This is a deliberate effort to energize the right-wing base,'' said Ron Schlittler, the executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Republican officials in Michigan and Ohio disputed those claims and pointed out that Massachusetts' highest court -- not Republican political consultants -- had prompted the flurry of proposed amendments.
Yeah, not much to say about this one. I could rant about how democracy like that is unconstitutional (the states are required to be republics), but that's really tangential.
The good news is give it a few years and this will be just as easy to repeal as it was to pass, unlike a federal amendment.
This one shouldnt get any debate, since I thought everyone agreed gay marriage was a state issue..
So the states are taking to the voters and they are responding..
Right on the money. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, it should be handled on the state level. Let the people decide for once instead of the legislators.
Lies! Horrible horrible lies! The fact that marriage is even mentioned in the constitution is a mistake. This should be handled at the CHURCH level. Let the state go **** itself. A step up from handling it at national? Yes, but not enough. Government has no business poking its nose into religious activities - marriage of which is one. To really fix this stuff, we need to abolish the recognition of "marriage" per se under the United States government. Switch the wording to "Civil Union" which is what it is. The government should issue Civil Unions to churches for their own individual marriage/handlock/whateverthehell ceremony. Now, since its a religious issue that wants to keep "the gays" from getting married, its the church's to deal with, and washington keeps its nose the **** out of it. State government / National government - neither is right!
Sorry, but this is one of the few issues I get really charged about.
so if 2 athiest ( Man and a woman) get married, then what?
and by the way it isnt jsut a church issue that doesnt want gays to be married..
Well, if two athiests wanted to get MARRIED, they'd have to go through a church or some other organization that gets MARRIED... this isn't that hard of an issue. The government issues Civil Unions - which basially means you get to file jointly on your tax return. A church OR a person (I apologize for my original oversight) applies to get their civil union and call it whatever the hell it wants. The government fulfills its part (the joint tax return) and the church gets to apply (or not apply) whatever holy sacrament they wish and call it whateverthehell they wish.
**edit** Sorry, didn't see the second part of your post, Aid. I would LOVE to hear an argument against gay marriage that, in no way, involves religion. I'm not doubting that you have one; I've just yet to hear anyone step forward with a cogent one. **edit**
For those of us who think the "anti-gay marriage movement" is a thinly-veiled attempt at trivializing and discriminating against a specific group of people based solely on sexual orientation, "leaving it to the states" is nothing but a weak political ploy so that the politicos in Washington can take a Teflon approach to the situation ("Oh, well, it wasn't our fault that it passed/didn't pass. I was on your side. Vote for me!).
If they had any balls, they would realize the essential disenfranchisement of the homosexual community (being a minority) and stand up for the freedoms they have so long been denied, yet have been enjoyed by heteros for so long.
News flash: the majority is not always right. And when an issue like this clearly runs contrary to every ideal of freedom this country was founded upon, it's time to recognize that fact.
People like to cry "states' rights!" in an effort to hide behind some imaginary political wall to push discriminatory legislation like this through. Ask any revisionist historian and they'll say that the Civil War was fought over "states' rights." I'm sorry to inform you, but no matter how many rights the states have, under the Constitution, the law of the land, no one has the right to be bigoted discriminationists, no matter in what legal manner they try to cloak themselves.
_____________________________
Vindicor
Proud member of the Leet Gizmo Strike Force
Sorry, Aidden, i was using present tense with an implied hypothetical.
This whole thing really extends into the realm of Gay rights as a whole. That means this thread is gonna get a lot larger a lot quicker because we're bringing in, that's right, Gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" isnt really enough, if'n ya ask me. If a soldier can be openly straight, a soldier should be able to be openly gay. Make the whole thing ambiguous and kick someone's ass out if you find out that they have any sexual preference whatsoever - that's the only way to make it just with the current system. (Although I realize that this would provide particular advantages to the asexual community.)
Currently, every argument against gay marriage or gays in the military does nothing but turn my stomach... mainly because I haven't seen any good ones. All the arguments I've seen come down to "its tradition and we must protect tradition." I'm not saying trample traditions into the ground. Some are good, but any tradition that says "You must treat this type of person as sub-par" should be rolled up, pissed upon, lit on fire (once the piss is let dry, of course) and rolled down a hill into a river that runs out to sea...
Show me a good argument and I'll listen, but spout the same religious bull **** (not to say ALL religion is bull ****, but using it to discriminate against people is), and I see very little difference between you and the sod-covered rednecks carrying nooses and bearing hoods. Drastic comparison? You be the judge.
I still don't see how it is discrimination. I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a gay person is allowed to marry another person of the same sex.
Yeah, sorry for whipping out the KKK card so early, but I do see a direct comparison that can easily be made.
*sorry for all the edits, I'm having a hard time keeping up in posts*
Yeah, that's a little bit of a shaky comparison Kai. If we suddenly banned all mosques from the United States would that not be discriminating against Muslims? I mean, I'm not a muslim and I can't go in a mosque any more than they can.
I still don't see how it is discrimination. I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a gay person is allowed to marry another person of the same sex.
You're allowed to marry the person you love. Homosexuals don't have that freedom.
Well, ****, in that case..."MA! Get my shotgun and pillowcase!"
I have nothing against gays or civil unions, however, marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want same sex unions, find something else to call them.
Edit: Show me a law that defines love.
Edit #2: Aura, that's religion...I thought we were trying to keep that topic out of this discussion?
Please read the previous posts, Kai - no one's arguing that religions have a right to define marriage as "man and woman" but (I assume) most of us are arguing that it is not the government's place to do so.
I think the gov't, fed, state, county, city, neighborhood association, etc has no business giving folks tax breaks or penalties for being married or single or whatever.
The below are areas I am aware of where a government definition has some practical implications on peoples lives. If I am missing any, please someone point them out to me.
* Tax deduction for a dependant - ok
* Different tax bracket for being legally married - not ok
* Social security reduction for being legally married - oh so very not ok
* Defining what is "family" vs "not family" in a manner that legally over-rides an individuals definition with respect to visiting an incapacitated loved one in the hospital - not at all ok
* Defining parental rights based on a mix of biological relationships, desire to parent and ability to parent - ok
I fully agree with Aura to leave it up to a church to decide what they will recognize as a marriage.
It should be irrelevant to the government to begin with. If it isn't irrelevant, then the laws that somehow distinguish "married" from "single" people are the problem. By the time we start talking about 'how' any gov't should define marriage, its too late. The problem all starts with 'whether'.
To me, the whole argument should be rendered moot by removing any legal distinction between married folks and non-married folks - leaving only whatever moral distinctions individuals choose to bring to bear.
If someone can list examples for me where there is grey area that truly does need a gov't to help mediate, please do. I may be overlooking something.
If they had any balls, they would realize the essential disenfranchisement of the homosexual community (being a minority) and stand up for the freedoms they have so long been denied, yet have been enjoyed by heteros for so long.
News flash: the majority is not always right. And when an issue like this clearly runs contrary to every ideal of freedom this country was founded upon, it's time to recognize that fact.
Nice blanket statement that just because someone doesn't agree with homosexuals getting married, they lack any courage. Ignorance is truly bliss.
I happen to have a news flash for you as well. Democracy (Republic, whatever) = will of the majority, whether you happen to think it is right or not. Right now, the majority of people in the US are against the idea of legally recognizing gay marriage. Just because you happen to think it is right/wrong doesn't change the fact majority (usually) rules.
Vindicor said:
People like to cry "states' rights!" in an effort to hide behind some imaginary political wall to push discriminatory legislation like this through. Ask any revisionist historian and they'll say that the Civil War was fought over "states' rights." I'm sorry to inform you, but no matter how many rights the states have, under the Constitution, the law of the land, no one has the right to be bigoted discriminationists, no matter in what legal manner they try to cloak themselves.
Under the constitution, no one has the right to push their different views into law unless the majority of Americans agree to allow it, theoretically at least. Just because you strongly believe in something doesn't make it right. Otherwise the people who do not agree with you would be right as well, eh?
The bottom line is, right now, gay marriage is NOT socially acceptable. If/when that changes, so will the law (usually a few years behind). Keep fighting for the change, if that is what you want, but don't try to tell someone else their beliefs (primarily religious, some through ignorance) are wrong just because you happen to disagree with them. Clicking your heels three times and saying "They are cowardly, stupid rednecks" three times won't make it change, just because you think it should.
I still don't see how it is discrimination. I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a gay person is allowed to marry another person of the same sex.
You're allowed to marry the person you love. Homosexuals don't have that freedom.
No, Adulterors, Pedophiles, People in incestuous relationships, and Polygamists are all subject to that particular hurdle.
I happen to have a news flash for you as well. Democracy (Republic, whatever) = will of the majority, whether you happen to think it is right or not.
Democratic republic = will of the majority under the provisions set forth by the charter of said society, in this case the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom for all people. Even though America is predominantly Christian, despite some trying, we do not legislate Christian dogma into law. It could easily pass through majority rule, yes, but it is blocked by the basic structure of the society. If a town were to decide that they as a majority wanted to discriminate against blacks, despite having that majority, they could not do so. The same premise should apply with homosexuals.
I did read them. You hinted that, in your opinion, banning same sex marriage was on par with the KKK's brand of racism and you wanted to see an argument against same sex marriages that didn't involve religion.
I made a statement that showed same sex marriages are, in fact, not discriminatory because it applies to every man and woman regardless of their religion or sexual preference.
Vindicor then stated that it was discriminatory because as a heterosexual I could marry the person I "love" and homosexuals could not.
I then asked for a legal description or definition of "love".
My argument here is that you have society, government, religion, and emotion all balled up into one giant debate. You are NEVER going to find a way to solve it that doesn't piss a whole bunch of people off. You have your points to argue and they are your beliefs and opinions and you know you are right. I am of the opinion that the only true way to settle this debate is to make sure the MAJORITY of people are happy with the outcome.
That is what has happened in Missouri and I think it's right.
Edit: And I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuals. I happen to find women with a bit of a belly attractive. I don't know why, but there's something about a little bit of a pooch-gut on a woman that drives me wild. If there are people that find their own same sex attractive, then who the hell am I to argue with them or tell them they are wrong. If they are HOMOsexuals, being different than HETEROsexuals, then what is the freaking problem with them being satisfied with a civil union that gives them the same rights as marriage but is called something DIFFERENT?
* Tax deduction for a dependant - ok
* Different tax bracket for being legally married - not ok
* Social security reduction for being legally married - oh so very not ok
* Defining what is "family" vs "not family" in a manner that legally over-rides an individuals definition with respect to visiting an incapacitated loved one in the hospital - not at all ok
* Defining parental rights based on a mix of biological relationships, desire to parent and ability to parent - ok
Add to that:
Various estate planning issues.
Employee benefits and pensions issues (some are related to estate planning).
You know, even the most vitriolic anti-gay-marriage posters on this board have been civil, and referred to homosexuals as homosexuals instead of fags or pillowbiters. (And I use the words here simply for illustrative purposes - I never refer to homosexuals by these terms)
But its ok to be a bigot if your target is rural southerners, I guess?
I happen to find women with a bit of a belly attractive. I don't know why, but there's something about a little bit of a pooch-gut on a woman that drives me wild
This warrented its own response - you are right on the money. The belly is maddeningly hot if women allow it to go beyond boring adn flat and into curvy and feminine...
News flash: the majority is not always right. And when an issue like this clearly runs contrary to every ideal of freedom this country was founded upon, it's time to recognize that fact.
The key word here is Majority. If the Majority of the country, state, city or township of anywhere feels that grocery stores should be outlawed, then guess what? There going to be outlawed.
We seem to have forgotten in this day and age of the "I" or Me if you want, that just because someone someplace feels that they should be allowed to do what ever they want, that is not (ok, should not) be the case. We are a "community". We all have different ideas, values and morals. But we all have to live together. There is only one way that we can do that. It is up to all of us as a democratic society to jointly decide the rules and rights of those that live in this country. That's why we have elections. That's why we vote. That's why we have a court system. That's why we have checks and balances.
My brother has been married for years to his partner. They went out of country to find a church that would do so. The only reason that they are interested in a "union" that is recognized within the US is so that they can share benefits...and guess what...those items are not based on what the Federal or State governments dictate, but what your employer and benefit company are willing to allow you. Maybe we should try and get that changed, could be the issue would be mote after that...
Nah, people (i.e. the Majority) are not interested in the community as a whole, just in what they want, because dang it, you driving 45 in a 35 zone is just WAY too slow for me!!!
If there are people that find their own same sex attractive, then who the hell am I to argue with them or tell them they are wrong. If they are HOMOsexuals, being different than HETEROsexuals, then what is the freaking problem with them being satisfied with a civil union that gives them the same rights as marriage but is called something DIFFERENT?
!@#$ get over it, crybabies.
But it's more than just what it's called. Most employers will not allow you to claim your significant others as dependents and let them be qualified for benefits such as health care unless they are legally married. If I'm not mistaken, that is among one of the major reasons why homosexuals are lobbying to legalize same sex marriage.
I happen to have a news flash for you as well. Democracy (Republic, whatever) = will of the majority, whether you happen to think it is right or not.
Democratic republic = will of the majority under the provisions set forth by the charter of said society, in this case the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom for all people. Even though America is predominantly Christian, despite some trying, we do not legislate Christian dogma into law. It could easily pass through majority rule, yes, but it is blocked by the basic structure of the society.
The Constitution expressly forbids "Christian Dogma" from becoming the law of the land, otherwise it probably would be already. Not because the society doesn't want it, but because our legal foundation says no.
So you are claiming that the society in place right now says Gay Marriage is OK? What non American country are you living in right now? A vocal minority != society.
You have kind of defeated your own argument. Until the society demands the change, it doesn't happen. As I said before, a vocal minority != society. Therefore, society as a whole does not want this change right now.
Allowing the states to put this as a voting issue before the people will let us see if there truly is a majority of the society who want this. Missouri had a landslide vote of almost 3:1 against allowing it. One out of every four people surely can't represent our society as a whole.
Society doesn't want it RIGHT NOW. Maybe in 10 years it will, maybe 20. But for right now, our society doesn't want it. Whether that is due to personal dislike for the lifestyle, ignorance, or religious choice is irrelevant. As far as can be told, it is not wanted right now.
No, Adulterors, Pedophiles, People in incestuous relationships, and Polygamists are all subject to that particular hurdle.
All of these hurt, or have the potential to hurt, other people uninvolved or victimized. Adulterors disrupt a family unit in such a way that is generally considered harmful to any children. Pedophiles, I don't even need to explain I hope. Incestuous relationships, if there is possibility of a child then yea, it's bad, otherwise, I couldn't care less and neither should anyone else. Polygamy is its own thing, I don't have a problem with it but it could easily be a huge headache if legally recognized just to take care of the tax benefits and whatnot.
The largest argument against gay marriage is the act of calling it a MARRIAGE. If this purely semantic issue is all you have to argue against, you're pretty lacking in a valid concern, imnsho.
Well... Bush wants to get rid of the IRS, so if we vote him into office, you won't have to worry about "tax break" issues. It seems to me that the whole issue would resolve itself with Bush in office again. :D
Other than tax issues... why do homosexuals want to get married? I'm not contesting any reasons at this point, but I don't know why it is so important to them.
(I'm from Kansas btw... and yes, Missouri is generally considered "redneck".)
Other than tax issues... why do homosexuals want to get married? I'm not contesting any reasons at this point, but I don't know why it is so important to them.
1. It's important to them, they are able to, can, and do genuinely love their significant others. Just because they are homosexual, doesn't mean they lack the ability to love, and experience the emotion of love like heterosexuals. If 2 people love each other, why shouldn't they take the step to devote to each other for the rest of their lives?
2. Medical benefits. Homosexuals should be entitled to the same medical benefits as heterosexuals. They're humans too and are subjected to the same risks and medical conditions as heterosexuals.
1. Sooo... if you aren't married then you love isn't valid? If you aren't married, you can't really be devoted to someone? With so much divorce, marriage is no longer recognized as life long devotion anyway. I don't understand how that is even an arguement.
2. I understand this one. I didn't think about insurance. No one, however argues that homosexuals are subhuman and therefore do not deserve medical treatment. As a heterosexual, I do not have ANY benefits that a homosexuals doesn't have.
While I don't condone calling people rednecks, to answer Kambic's question I think most people generally consider a state to be a "redneck" state if that state fought for the South during the Civil War.
No, look up above, there are a lot of legal benefits to marriage.
(1) Who gets custody;
(2) What happens in the event you separate;
(3) What happens when you die and don't have a will;
(4) What if you are incapacitated, who does the state make the caregiver;
(5) Huge tax advantages
etc.
I think civil unions only cover the health insurance part...
As a heterosexual, I do not have ANY benefits that a homosexuals doesn't have.
Your Spouse does! If you are legally married your Spouse has full access to your insurance, bank, benifits and other things just by being married to you. If you are gay. You do not have those rights!
1. Sooo... if you aren't married then you love isn't valid? If you aren't married, you can't really be devoted to someone? With so much divorce, marriage is no longer recognized as life long devotion anyway. I don't understand how that is even an arguement.
I'm not saying that if you're not married that your love isn't official. Marriage is an option that a couple who are in love (usually) take. But as it stands right now, homosexuals do not have the option to make their union legal like heterosexuals do. As a married heterosexual who dated her husband for quite a few years before marrying him, I remember how much I was looking forward to being officially recognized as a united couple with him by all facets be it legal, religious, or otherwise. As a newlywed, I can assure you, there are vast differences between being officially married, united, and a civil union. Even if you were living with your significant other for years, no one recognizes you as anyone significant other than your personal circle of people. I get so much futher now when I call various people such as credit card companies, insurance, doctors offices etc as a wife than as a girlfriend. No one will talk to a girlfriend about a guy's issues, but they will talk to a wife.
Lisboa said:
I think civil unions only cover the health insurance part...
Only if you have a very generous employer, which most aren't. My husband and I lived together for 4+ years, 2 years before I even started working for the company I do now. And under Colorado law, we were considered common law married, but yet he still did not qualify as my dependent and did not qualify for any medical benefits. He did after we got married, and his coverage were retro-dated to our wedding date.
The Constitution expressly forbids "Christian Dogma" from becoming the law of the land
No no it doesn't, know waht the constitution says before you try to quote it. It forbid Congress creating laws that support or impede a religion. It does not mention "Christian Dogma" as you say.
What you are so horribly misquoting is the first ammendament which states : " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So technically trying to pass a law that is based on religion is legal, what is however not legal under the constitution is the establishment of a state religion (read as the signers hated the Anglican church and didn't want something like that happening)
That is one thing that really bugs me. People don't know what exactly it say, but then say "oh but is says this" no, it doesn't, you're wrong and even though you don't like it, it is legal.
Aura
