Missouri reviews same-sex marriage ruling

Massachusetts marriages might be valid in all states.
Thursday, February 5, 2004 | 12:00 a.m. CST; updated 8:01 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 15, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — Massachusetts’ high court ruling Wednesday reaffirming same-sex couples’ right to marry has fired up debate among Missouri’s lawmakers.

At issue is whether Missouri will have to recognize gay marriages.

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, states are required to observe the judicial proceedings of other states. This would allow any same-sex couple to maintain their married status, so long as they were married in a state that performs gay marriages. However, Missouri law currently prohibits gay marriages, even if they are valid where they took place.

“We’re reviewing the court’s decision to determine how it will affect Missouri laws,” said Scott Holste, spokesman for Attorney General Jay Nixon.

The court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to full, equal marriage rights, not just Vermont-style civil unions. The nation’s first gay marriages could take place as early as mid-May unless the state’s legislature intervenes.

The opinion was issued in response to a request made by the Massachusetts Senate about whether civil unions, which allow the benefits but not the title of marriage, would be constitutionally acceptable.

Missouri House divided on issue

Opponents have proposed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, which could complicate the issue if enacted. It passed out of a House committee last week and is expected to move to the floor for debate.

Rep. Larry Morris, R-Springfield, said the court’s decision has increased the resolve of gay marriage opponents to get the amendment passed.

“We will get it done,” Morris said. “When any group in our society can’t go through the legislative process and get what they want, typically they go to the courts.”

Rep. Barbara Fraser, D-St. Louis, disagrees.

“I think the courts are doing what they are supposed to do,” Frasier said. “They are looking at the law in terms of the law and not really at emotional issues.”

She added that the proposed amendment is intent on discriminating against individuals who seek same-sex unions.

“It would be the only thing within our Constitution that is specifically discriminatory,” Fraser said.

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.


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.