Today's Question: Should gay marriage come to Missouri?

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 | 1:29 p.m. CDT; updated 10:26 a.m. CST, Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Columbia City Council voted unanimously Monday to establish a domestic partnership registry.

The registry will provide partners with a document they can use for employee and health care benefits. At city-owned recreational and other facilities, those domestic partners on the list will be treated as married couples in regards to access and discounts.

Sixth Ward Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe said the registry does not put employers under any new obligation. It is just a tool that they can choose to use.

Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community gathered at the meeting to show their support of the ordinance, share personal stories and discuss the benefits of the registry.

On Tuesday, the Vermont Legislature voted to override a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas, making same-sex marriage legal in the state. Vermont becomes the first state to make same-sex marriage legal through legislation rather than a court ruling.

Vermont joins Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states currently allowing same-sex marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday to uphold a lower-court ruling that a law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Despite the ruling, a survey from October 2008 shows that 62 percent of Iowans oppose same-sex marriage, though many of those opposed favor civil unions.

The case originated in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in Iowa seeking to marry.

On August 3, 2004, Missouri adopted an amendment to its constitution stating "that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

With victories for proponents of same-sex marriage across the country, should Missouri rethink its amendment?

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ray Shapiro April 7, 2009 | 3:58 p.m.

Today's Question:
Should gay marriage come to Missouri?
My answer for Today:
No. Gays who want to marry should leave Missouri. In fact, let them all move to France.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 7, 2009 | 4:39 p.m.

How about straight adults who are in a relationship but not married, Ray. Shall we kick them out as well? What message are they sending to the youth of our state by not settling down and doing the (straight) marriage thing? Shall we also kick out divorced individuals since they obviously let the institution of marriage down?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 7, 2009 | 5:47 p.m.

I'm not kicking anybody out. I do not have such great power. I am, however stating my preference. And, IMHO, the message concerned heterosexuals should be sending out to our youth is that heterosexuality is much more preferable to homosexual behavior. (What is your answer to the question of the day?)
As I've said before, I'd like to see our government get out of the marriage business, entirely. This will just make it more difficult to get the government out of this administrative quagmire.
While I acknowledge that the LGBTQ community has a right to advocate for their "gay agenda for America," I would rather see them advocating for our government getting out of this gay/straight marriage thing altogether.
What are your personal "feelings" about homosexual behavior?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr April 7, 2009 | 6:42 p.m.

ray shapiro great points as we see the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County spouting off to others on their views on this issue and he keeps demanding smaller government at the same time but he is not advocating for smaller government involvement on this controversial issue now is he?

Me smells a hypocrite or a closet member of the LGBTQ community.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 7, 2009 | 9:18 p.m.

As usual Chuck, you see things that don't exist and don't understanding my reasoning. I agree with Ray that government should get out of the marriage business (marriage licenses came about for the most part to prevent inter-racial marriage in the post-Civil War years). Until Missourians wise up and repeal the constitutional amendment from a few years back, I think Columbia's registry is a suitable band-aid.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 7, 2009 | 10:04 p.m.

Since the post-Civil War years the government has done much more with their power over marriage and the American Citizen. Why allow them to institute another layer? If the gay movement truly cared about America, they'd be advocating to dismantle this "branch of government." Like other "special interest" groups they see it as "what can the government do for me?" (The government will legitimize my behavior and I will reap some kind of benefit from them.) Personally, I see at as collusion, social engineering and a ploy on the general extreme left and those who are unwitting gay sympathizers.
I believe that many members of the LGBTQ community, and their straight friends and family members, are missing out on making a significant contribution to what America can truly become.
People are "fighting" over the wrong thing. We get caught up in the civil/moral battle when it's really an administrative/political/government issue. "Family Value" Religious Rights and Gay Leftists are missing an opportunity.
It would take the LGBTQ community to become enlightened on this "government involvement in their life" issue, however the entrenchment of the movement in the "politics of the secular progressives" makes this a difficult road to hoe. Religious Rights are so caught up in the government administering morality that they don't see the better alternative of having government out of the marriage business.
I hope the partner registry is nothing more than throwing them a bone.
I also hope they figure out that they are being duped by a movement separate and more powerful than LGBTQ.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr April 8, 2009 | 4:34 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
John Schultz April 8, 2009 | 9:50 a.m.

Wow Chuck, when logic escapes you (as usual), the spittle, venom, and clueless attacks begin. I would really like to see such an explosion in person if you ever dare to come to one of the Beat Board lunch meetings. I don't think you have the guts to say such invective when you're not behind a computer screen in your taxpayer-funded apartment.

And for the record Chuckles, I was against the gay marriage ban in the state constitution a few years back. How does that gibe with your claim that I don't want to fix the problem (never mind you don't state just what the problem is, nor how you would fix it). Typical Chuckles, get all worked up when he has no solutions. You're a joke, Dudley, a sad joke.

(Report Comment)
J W April 8, 2009 | 9:56 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Charles Dudley Jr April 8, 2009 | 8:24 p.m.

John Schultz chairman of the Libertarian party of Boone County the only joke is you.

Why should I attend any lunch invite with a joke like you around anyway? There is no good reason to at all.

Keep it classy there Mr Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Bone County.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 9, 2009 | 6:29 a.m.

Chuck, once you learn what keeping it classy means and start living it, you can expect the same courtesy from those you spray with your Internet spittle.

(Report Comment)
Ryan L April 9, 2009 | 9:32 a.m.

Not to break up this lovefest, but I think same-sex marriage (a better term) will not be coming to Missouri anytime soon.

For one, we have a Constitutional Amendment that prevents any court in the state from striking the ban down. This is how all states but Vermont have gained same-sex marriage. Second, for the voters or the legislature to repeal that Amendment would require a pretty significant social upheaval in this state. With our status as a bellwether, look for other states to gain same-sex marriage first, especially in the Midwest.

That being said, I would be the first to support such an institution in Missouri.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr April 9, 2009 | 1:17 p.m.

John Schultz and what do we call your posts the dribble that spilt onto your keyboard because you forgot to tie your bib on?

(Report Comment)
shardae watkins April 17, 2009 | 8:08 p.m.

a person can rap, kill or steal, go to jail/prison and still be allowed to be married. its crazy to me that you can be allowed to get married behind bars but not allowed to be married because of who u choose to love. loving someone is not a crime. all ppl deserve equal rights including the right to be married in the state that you live in.

(Report Comment)
Tom Methvin October 19, 2009 | 6:30 p.m.

so let me put a different spin on this.... if government should stay out of the marriage business..... should those that agree with this file single with zero dependents on their Federal taxes and not receive the benefit of a larger federal tax return..... equality is just that, we as Americans should stand together when there is injustice in our society, we as Americans will go to war to the unjust treatment of those around the world, yet we do not do the same for all people of our own society. While I understand and have served in our nations military, I abhor the double standard that my sacrifice provides the American people

(Report Comment)
m madison January 14, 2010 | 10:56 p.m.

It has been brought to my attention that it has become common practice for a clause to be put in a divorce decree about who can stay over at the home of a divorced individual. The clause says something to the effect that "neither party will have a party to whom they are not married in their house overnight.". Well isn't that a nice tidy and "legal" way of making sure that that the bisexual or gay individual ramain alone or have to maintain two households for the rest of his/her life. I will never be "allowed" to marry like a free citizen, but he could. What a cruel joke!! You have got to be kidding me!! Government supported discrimination against anyone has got to stop! People don't realize how deep the marriage ban cuts into peoples' basic rights to happiness. The law should be fairly represent and protect the rights of all its citizens. This is wrong wrong!

(Report Comment)
Ashton Baker February 6, 2010 | 8:16 p.m.

John Schultz,

I respect and stand behind everything you said in your defense against gay marriage. We all hope that someday gay marriage will be legalized in our home states.

(Report Comment)
john bakert March 1, 2010 | 6:30 p.m.

well i thank you all should get out of ur set way and let us gay ppl or (fags) as u might say let us do as we plese cuz we r not hurting u at all we r ppl just like u and ur family at home just cuz we have the same sex partners that dose not make us any diff then u and ur wife.... You say we should be kicked out of missouri i do not see that happen at all so get over it for real and like i said we r not hurting u ppl at all!!! so y dont u ppl let us get married is it cuz u cant sleep at nite cuz u thank that gay ppl should not be in this sate rather this world well guess what we r here and we going to stay so u might as well get use to it and to all u gay hater out there how do u no when u go out to eat that a gay man it not cooking ur food or bring it too u..... and how do u no that the close on ur back is not made but a gay person... but all in all we r no diff then u and ur family at home and reather u all band gay marrage now we will get it one day and then u will have to look back and say god y did i have to stop ppl from been happy cuz god knows u like been happy so y cant u let use be happy as well

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.