8-3-2004 Missouri residents Vote to Ban Same Sex Marriage - Now 5th Official Anti-Gay State

[Veramocor]

Current Poll results, 60% for 40% against. < 10% precincts reporting.

Current results.

Results like these in a conservative/moderate state like Missouri make me think that they won't be able to get the admendment passed in Mass.

In 30-40 years or so we'll probally see gay marriage across the country as demographics chage. (AKA old set in there way people die, younger people who are more for gay rights start to become a major part of the voting block).

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Missouri residents go to the Polls to vote on anti-Gay State Constitutional Ban

Establishing the definition of marriage as the majority believes it?s definition to be isn?t ?anti-gay?;

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
Current Poll results, 60% for 40% against. < 10% precincts reporting.

Current results.

Results like these in a conservative/moderate state like Missouri make me think that they won't be able to get the admendment passed in Mass.

In 30-40 years or so we'll probally see gay marriage across the country as demographics chage. (AKA old set in there way people die, younger people who are more for gay rights start to become a major part of the voting block).

It's been a consistent 2 to 1 margin. Looks like Missouri will be the first State to Officially be Anti-Gay.

Just the start of the 2nd American Civil War.

 

[FoBoT]

i voted for the amendment and it is passing by more than 2/3

the radical left/gays made a mistake by doing all the marriages this spring, they are mobilizing the rural conservatives that might not normally bother to vote. it Kerry loses in Nov. he can blame the radical gays that pushed this into the limelight in a presidential election year

the place i voted is a small rural baptist church in a town of < 100. when i voted at ~7:45 am , i was #221. when i passed it coming home from work at ~6 pm, there were cars lining the road with people coming to vote.

the radio reported that before today, the predicted turnout would be about 37% . but the numbers today were more like 60-70% voter turnout. for a "primary" election that normally would have ~20% voter turnout. this amendment is responsible for the large turnout , along with another issue, more riverboat gambling. that amendment is failing, again due to the large rural conservative turnout.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Constitutional Amendment 2 Precincts Reporting 48 of 84
Marriage Definition Yes 10,410 52.7%
No 9,356 47.3%
Total Votes 19,766

The homophobes are winning.

 

[glenn1]

The homophobes are winning.

While I disagree with their position, I have far more respect for the "homophobes" allowing their position to be challenged at the ballot box than I do for those who would just as soon enact homosexual marriage by judicial fiat. At least the homophobes aren't cowards.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Constitutional Amendment 2 Precincts Reporting 48 of 84
Marriage Definition Yes 10,410 52.7%
No 9,356 47.3%
Total Votes 19,766

Where are you pulling that info from? I just rechecked and it is almost 72% for and has been around 70% since about 20% reporting.
Currently
71.6for
28.4against
1823 of 3992 reporting.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i voted for the amendment and it is passing by more than 2/3

Originally posted by: glenn1

The homophobes are winning.

While I disagree with their position, I have far more respect for the "homophobes" allowing their position to be challenged at the ballot box than I do for those who would just as soon enact homosexual marriage by judicial fiat. At least the homophobes aren't cowards.

That's true enough. Interesting, while the Gays have "Come Out of the Closet", this has brought the Homophobes "Out of the Closet" as well. Ironic.

 

[FoBoT]

yes, it has been over 67% the whole time. that has to be for just one county or something. probably an urban county in St Louis

on another Missouri election issue, the incumbent Govenor is in a very tight race with a Democratic primary challenger. either one will have a hard race in November , if the Dems don't even like the Govenor how can he win re-election?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i voted for the amendment and it is passing by more than 2/3

Originally posted by: glenn1

The homophobes are winning.

While I disagree with their position, I have far more respect for the "homophobes" allowing their position to be challenged at the ballot box than I do for those who would just as soon enact homosexual marriage by judicial fiat. At least the homophobes aren't cowards.

That's true enough. Interesting, while the Gays have "Come Out of the Closet", this has brought the Homophobes "Out of the Closet" as well. Ironic.

Hah, well, as the saying goes, 'There's safety in numbers'.

I'll need to email my friend who moved to St. Louis semi-recently and figure out what the general response is to this from the minority side.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: viivo

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I don't see "ban" or "gay" in that question. Are you making things up again dave?

CkG

So gays could be married under this law which states "a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman"?

Yep, a male will be able to marry a woman regardless of his or her "orientation".

But again the question isn't "ban" or "anti-Gay".

CkG

he has a point.
while i dont agree with the amendment, it does not specifically "ban" gay-marriage. which means that the amendment might not have to be repealled to allow a civil union, etc etc. anyway, yeah...the wording used seems purposefully "anti-gay" to try and elicit a response.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
...
the radio reported that before today, the predicted turnout would be about 37% . but the numbers today were more like 60-70% voter turnout. for a "primary" election that normally would have ~20% voter turnout. this amendment is responsible for the large turnout , along with another issue, more riverboat gambling. that amendment is failing, again due to the large rural conservative turnout.

At the half-way point precinct wise there is already a 25% turnout if no one else voted. From what I could dig up there are ~3.8 million registered voters in MO. So it's looking like there will be about a 50% turnout for the vote. Not bad for a primary.

CkG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Constitutional Amendment 2 Precincts Reporting 48 of 84
Marriage Definition Yes 10,410 52.7%
No 9,356 47.3%
Total Votes 19,766

Where are you pulling that info from? I just rechecked and it is almost 72% for and has been around 70% since about 20% reporting.
Currently
71.6for
28.4against
1823 of 3992 reporting.

CkG

Sorry, wife had switched it to one particular county when wasn't looking. Thought those numbers were a bit light.

 

[FoBoT]

here are the numbers from my county (Johnson)

REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 22,914
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 10,816
BALLOTS CAST - DEMOCRATIC PARTY . . . 5,438
BALLOTS CAST - REPUBLICAN PARTY . . . 5,037
BALLOTS CAST - LIBERTARIAN PARTY. . . 50
BALLOTS CAST - NON-PARTISAN . . . . 291

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,571
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,065

so you can see that it wasn't just republicans voting for the amendment

and the DNC wants this type of democrat to vote for Kerry in Nov.? the most liberal Senator in the country?

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder what the vote would have been in Nazi Germany.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wonder what the vote would have been in Nazi Germany.

Some people wonder how many licks there are to a tootsie-pop too.

CkG

 

[dahunan]

Christians should buy more mirrors.

 

[misle]

Amendment 2:
At 92% reporting:
YES --- 945,069 --- 69%
NO --- 405,288 --- 30%

edit:
Looks like our governer won't even get a chance to run for re-election
also at 92%
Governer Primary - Democrat
Holden, Bob --- DEM --- 363,300 --- 45.3%
McCaskill, Claire --- DEM --- 414,429 --- 51.6%

He did suck major ass as a Governer.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

sigh.....when will people learn to stop being so ignorant. sometimes i think Christianity has done more harm than good in this country.

 

[judasmachine]

There are gay people EVERYWHERE, it's amazing that this is even an issue. I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

 

[FelixDeCat]

One down, 49 to go.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

they thought defining where blacks could and could not sit was a good thing to do too. it's exclusionary anyway you look at it....


Edit: who is defining marriage the church or the state? it has to be the state, as the church cannot make laws, and the state should never be exclusionary, especially in a democracy. these are people who want to live, love, and prosper like anyone else. and heaven forbid, i would bet there are homosexuals here at AT P&amp;N. you going to tell them that they cannot enjoy the same state sanction bonuses you do, just because you sleep with a woman (or man as i do not know your gender)?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

they thought defining where blacks could and could not sit was a good thing to do too. it's exclusionary anyway you look at it....


Edit: who is defining marriage the church or the state? it has to be the state, as the church cannot make laws, and the state should never be exclusionary, especially in a democracy. these are people who want to live, love, and prosper like anyone else. and heaven forbid, i would bet there are homosexuals here at AT P&amp;N. you going to tell them that they cannot enjoy the same state sanction bonuses you do, just because you sleep with a woman (or man as i do not know your gender)?

white conservative mail <---
also
poor, collage student;

they thought defining where blacks could and could not sit was a good thing to do too. it's exclusionary anyway you look at it....

we exclude people from cretin actions or licenses for many reasons, moral, functional, and for protection of particular constituencies. Without laws based on utility that have a moral reasoning behind them we could have polygamy and bestiality for all that ?choose? that.

I?m not saying that homosexual marriage means polygamy is coming, but I am saying that the same social traditions that call homosexual marriage exclusionary call polygamy exclusionary, so saying that all exclusionary laws are bad is a fallacious blanket statement.

who is defining marriage the church or the state?

the state, which is the voice of the people. The problem with church and state isn?t when the people agree with the church! It?s the idea that the church would think one thing while the people the other and law would be made based on the church instead of the people. In this case the people, not the belief structure, which judicial activism adding laws requiring homosexual marriage is based on, has spoken.

 

[judasmachine]

cretin? whose definition is this?

i will be the first to admit that there are some wild things that go on in the more public gay lifestyle. but there are decent normal flag waving homosexuals out there. these people would like to enjoy the same benefits as you. the sham marriages would come, and they would pass, and afterward the few who deserve it would be left free to do so. also, don't get me wrong, i think a modicum of decorum in public is nessecery if we wish to further our persuate of a civilization, we are telling people that they are wrong, and must live as second class citizens because we don't like what they do behind closed doors in THIER castle. what i hear coming from alot of people boils down to a quiet unspoken hatred. i know this feels likes opening pandora's box to many, but it was opened long ago, and the times they are a changin....


what i actually think should be done is either allow gay marriages, or strip the state of it's power over marriage.