advertisement

Mo. House bills divert drive for gay rights

Committe votes to weaken anti-discrimination
Thursday, April 1, 2004 | 12:00 a.m. CST; updated 1:58 a.m. CDT, Saturday, July 19, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — Gay rights suffered two setbacks in the Missouri House on Wednesday.

The first loss came when a House committee approved a bill that would prohibit state-funded public institutions from using anti-discrimination policies that exceed federal standards. Federal standards do not include sexual orientation.

The second came as the House joined the Senate in voicing its approval for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages. The House gave the measure first round approval with a voice vote following hours of debate.

The bill limiting the scope of state institutions’ anti-discrimination policies passed out of the House Committee on Workforce Development and Workplace Safety and will move to the House chamber for debate.

The measure would place institutions with sexual orientation clauses, like the University of Missouri, in jeopardy of losing state money.

“The University of Missouri would be forced to choose between protecting their (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) students and faculty from discrimination and losing money from the state,” said Jeff Wunrow, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group PROMO, in an interview earlier this month.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, said his intent was to protect the state’s resources from liability.

“It’s an economic issue,” Wilson said. “When you add protected classes, you open yourself up for lawsuits.”

Lawmakers seeking to protect the “sanctity of marriage” said a constitutional amendment is necessary to combat the antics of “activist judges,” despite current state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

“We have radical judges that just completely disregard what the law says,” said Rep. Mark Wright, R-Springfield.

Opponents called the measure “discriminatory” and said it would be a step backward for civil rights.

“Never has the constitution been amended to restrict the rights of certain individuals,” Rep. Vicki Walker, D-Kansas City, said. “We don’t put discrimination into the constitution. ... We remove it.”

Rep. Susan Phillips, R-Kansas City, argued the amendment was not about discrimination.

“It’s about supporting traditional marriage,” Phillips said. “If we forbid a father from marrying his daughter or a man from marrying two wives, we don’t call it discrimination, we call it good public policy, and so is this.”

Representatives on both sides of the issue agreed that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution could eventually require Missouri to recognize a gay marriage from another state, regardless of the proposed amendment’s outcome.

The Senate passed a similar constitutional amendment earlier this year.


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.


Comments

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.

advertisements