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

[dmcowen674]

8-3-2004 Missouri residents go to the Polls to vote on anti-Gay State Constitutional Ban

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?


CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO.2

Proposed by the 92nd

General Assembly

(Second Regular Session) SJR 29

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?

The estimated fiscal impact of this proposed measure to state and local government is $0.

YES

NO

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?

 

[DanJ]

Anyone watch the Daily Show yesterday with the "homo-nausea" guy from Florida who was convinced that all the lesbians were taking away all the straight women, hence he had no girlfriend/wife.

Yea..that was somethig.

Watch out, the gays!!! :roll:

 

[Slick5150]

I think his lack of a girlfriend may have had to do more with those Karate-esque moves he was doing at the end? I'm not even sure what that was supposed to be.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
I'm not even sure what that was supposed to be.

Vomit-inducing.

For me, anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

CkG

 

[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"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

 

[JHutch]

He summarized it, CAD. I rarely agree with Dave's politics, but you can't argue that the proposed amendment wouldn't effectively BAN all GAY marriages (by allowing only ONE thing, you implicitly disallow all alternatives).

JHutch

*edit fixed typo

 

[viivo]

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

Wow, what happened to you? When I lurked long ago I moderately enjoyed your posts as they were at least thought out, but these knee jerk responses to anything remotely resembling DA BIG BAD LIBRULZ AGENDA are almost tragic as the aging, fumbling sports star playing his last game.

 

[Moonbeam]

Marriage should be redefined as legal only between a strait and a gay of the opposite sex. I'm sure Caddy would find real happiness with a dike. Every time he popped up she shoud punch him like a schmoo.

 

[CaptnKirk]

How long before they consider this issue to be a terrorist function,
complete with the perverbial assault from the rear ?

 

[DeadByDawn]

I voted NO on that one today.

But my guess is it will pass by a large margin.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: DeadByDawn
I voted NO on that one today.

But my guess is it will pass by a large margin.

Oh well . . . it's not like gay couples are not fleeing these enclaves of intolerance for more accepting locales. By extension, I guess MO prefers promiscuous, noncommitted gays . . . makes sense . . . that way MO homosexuals will be just like the heteros.

 

[misle]

The amendment will state that marriage is between a man and woman. All it does is ban the word Marriage from being applied to homosexual unions.

There is a big argument about Judges legislating from the bench regarding this and all it would take is one Judge, one Circuit Court Judge, and 4 Supreme Court Judges to make Gay Marriage legal. (from what I heard on a local morning talk show) Thus not using the legislative method that is preferred.

It doesn't outlaw or ban gay unions, you just can't use the word Marriage.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: viivo

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

Wow, what happened to you? When I lurked long ago I moderately enjoyed your posts as they were at least thought out, but these knee jerk responses to anything remotely resembling DA BIG BAD LIBRULZ AGENDA are almost tragic as the aging, fumbling sports star playing his last game.

Nothing "happened". You can argue the outcome of such legislation or Constituion change but to claim it is a "ban" is bogus.

The question again for those of you blinded by your partisanship or agenda:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?

Now where exactly is the "ban" of homosexuals in that question? Where is the "anti-gay" part? Could one not also argue that it is "anti-***" too?(using your same "logic")

You can try to call it "knee-jerk" if you wish but that isn't the case. IMO it's dave's protrayal of this question that is both knee-jerk and sensationalistic.

BTW -where are all the "DEMOCRACY!" people? Where are the "let the people decide" folks? How about the "it's a state's choice" people? Sheesh....

CkG

 

[Kipper]

You see, this doesn't make any sense. Why should the MAJORITY be consulted to hand rights to a MINORITY? Don't say "because we live in a democracy," because the United States has never and likely, will never be a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic. Moreover, the entire purpose of a right is for the minority to be able to trump the power of the majority no matter what and it makes no sense for the majority to give up any of its power - at least, willingly.

It comes down to an issue of whether it is beyond the scope of the state to determine what is moral, good, or within the definitions of an institution such as marriage. The bottom line is - the state should not, under any circumstances, restrain the action of an individual or group or individuals unless that group poses a significant and clear enough physical (or possibly ideological) threat to either the foundations of the state itself or to another group (or individuals). I don't see homosexuals taking up arms or plotting a coup d'etat of the government. Therefore, the state should not involve itself in this matter and only act as a neutral mediator trying to solve the differences between the parties (in this case, perhaps the churches and the gay & lesbian organizations).

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Dmcowen, have some self-respect or shame and stop posting unfactual subject lines and deliberatly deception misinterpretations.

This is NOT anti-gay...it says NOTHING about gays or polygamists or anybody else...it just affirms that marriage is just between a man and a woman. The sooner you preachy liberals grasp that concept the sooner we can get to arguing the underlying issues.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Dmcowen, have some self-respect or shame and stop posting unfactual subject lines and deliberatly deception misinterpretations.

This is NOT anti-gay...it says NOTHING about gays or polygamists or anybody else...it just affirms that marriage is just between a man and a woman. The sooner you preachy liberals grasp that concept the sooner we can get to arguing the underlying issues.

What... they want to clarify marriage, just "out of the blue"? While using the word "ban" may not technically be the best term, it does effectively keep gays from marriage (in the sense of two people marrying) and is precisely why it's being brought up for vote.

 

[Todd33]

Let them have the vote and their laws. As long as they don't screw with the Constitution. If all the white trash states want to outlaw sex, marriage, masturbation, etc. let them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Let them have the vote and their laws. As long as they don't screw with the Constitution. If all the white trash states want to outlaw sex, marriage, masturbation, etc. let them.

Well no because next thing you know they will want to have slaves.

 

[Todd33]

You have info on a new bill Moonbeam? LOL.

 

[glenn1]

He summarized it, CAD. I rarely agree with Dave's politics, but you can't argue that the proposed amendment wouldn't effectively BAN all GAY marriages (by allowing only ONE thing, you implicitly disallow all alternatives).

JHutch

*edit fixed typo

I don't think it's a deliberately misleading title, just not as clear as it could be. It would be preferable if it read something like "MO go to the polls to vote on Constitutional ban on gay MARRIAGES" since that's clearer and more understandable. "anti-Gay State Constitutional Ban" sounds like a definition from a chemistry book or the engine fuel from Star Trek. "Captain, we have to go to impulse power, if the warp core's anti-gay state containment field breeches and mixes with the gay state, the explosion will destroy this entire sector"

 

[Darkhawk28]

From Missouri here....

Voted against the Gay Marriage Ban.

Live and let live folks.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
From Missouri here....

Voted against the Gay Marriage Ban.

Live and let live folks.

:thumbsup:

Have you run into many folks supporting and voting for this Anti-Gay Law???

Would you report in here when the polls close and know the results.

Thanks

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess the people of MO have no problem F***ing the gays of their state right in the ass.