Missouri voters approve gay marriage ban

[Nambe]

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP)

Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday to ban gay marriage, the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as the gay marriage battle spreads to ballot boxes around the nation. At least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, will vote on similar amendments this year.

The amendment had garnered 72% of the vote with 58% of precincts reporting. ...

[KareBear]

1. So dissapointing... *sigh* <nt>

[dolstein]

2. At least the timing was good

I know the Republican Secretary of State was trying to get this on the November ballot. Better to have gotten it out of the way now.

[sistersofmercy]

3. It's embarassing

Dems are voting "yes" on this one, it's not just the Repubs and the fundies x(

[MODemocrat]

63. The wording was so confusing on the amendment

I did some research on it before going to the polls because my husband and I had heard it was not well presented. So in my opinion,
people just voted without giving it much thought. What a shame.:crazy:

[w13rd0]

4. I hate living in this friggin backward ass state...

...no further comment. PFFFT!!!

[dolstein]

12. Yeah, as "backward" as Massachusetts

The only reason gay marriages are legal in Massachusetts is because the voters haven't been given a chance to weigh in yet.

Sorry, but your use of the term "backward" implies that Missouri is somehow out of step with the rest of the country. I see no evidence of that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. You are correct. Organized religion is hurling us back into the dark ages

[w13rd0]

26. My use of the term "backward" implies...

...that I friggin live here, and I've more familiarity with my neighbors than you do, and my use of the term has to do with more than just the "gay marriage" issue. :|::

[Terran]

50. And besides, almost half a million Missourians

voted AGAINST the amendment. For a "conservative" state, that pretty damn good, I think. And make no mistake, Missouri is not conservative the way Texas or Idaho is. We consistently elect Democrats to statewide office. But religion plays a big factor here, even in otherwise liberal contexts. The Catholic Church is very influential, as are the African-American Baptist churches. Even though most St. Louis and Kansas City African-Americans vote Dem, they still have a conservative outlook on this issue.

Give it time folks. Even this action cannot stand a direct chellenge once the SCOTUS rules that same-sex marriage must be legal. And that WILL happen, because the court has basically already said so in the Texas sodomy law case.

[eardoc]

40. A scared population does their government's bidding

It's sad to be living in Missouri today.
The media have the population here frightened of them there t'rrists and members of any other minority group that don't attend the same church.

When most residents here see the world through network and local news, this is the sort of result you get.

We going backwards, destined to repeat history's major mistakes.

Sad, sad, sad

[Red State Rebel]

44. I love living in Missouri but I'm so disappointed in this

St. Louis has a thriving gay community - that is well accepted. I'm sure Kansas City is the same, it's all those small towns in between that just haven't been educated to reality yet.

I have quite a few gay friends and they are perfectly comfortable here in the St. Louis area.

[beyurslf]

5. I am so thankful our state legistlature kept this off our ballot

at least for now... (in KS)

I just wait for a Kerry Admin... a couple new Justices... and let the USSC fix this for us.

[BattyDem]

6. Well ... congratulations Missouri

You have officially opened the door to legally banning any group of people from having the same rights as everyone else. All it will take is a "majority rule" and the rights of a minority will be swept away. To those who voted for this amendment: Keep this in mind ... you may not always be on the "majority" side of these issues. One day, they may be aiming to take your rights away.

What is it with these states who feel it necessary to put these issues on a ballot? What the ballot question is really asking is, "Do you want hate, prejudice and discrimination to be a part of your State Constitution?" :mad: :eyes:


On edit: Just to be clear ... I'm not criticizing DUers from Missouri. I know you all had nothing to do with this and I'm sorry you're stuck with this decision. I'm bitching at the "leaders" of your state who proposed this amendment and the small minded bigots who voted for it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Hell California was one of the first to do it

[BattyDem]

19. I know ... but the more it happens,

the angrier I get! :mad:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. I think most people vote for it because they fear their spouse will

dump them for a same sex marriage.

[nolabels]

53. Yea, and we were first to elect a "B" movie actor as governor

And now we have another one (who, in ways, is probably even more ignorant). I do see a pattern here. A pattern to install stupid ideas and people for stupid results.

Transformational Politics

by Tom Atlee
(snip)
In a very real sense, we are all in the same boat. As Betsy Rose sings: "We all came here on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." This understanding underlies the higher bands of politics. We are challenged to apply that understanding to Band 3 politics, to transcend adversarialness and attempt to transform ourselves even as we transform the struggle for power.



BEING GOVERNMENT


We shouldn't wait to be elected to act like a government. In Czechoslovakia the dissidents became the government almost overnight, and found it much harder to be wise leaders than wise critics ("Havel's Choice," Vanity Fair, Aug. 1991). If we are serious about transforming this culture, we need to assume the mantle of leadership before it is given to us.

This could mean creating shadow governments that go beyond think-tank policy recommendations. They would have no institutional power, but would try to model how institutional power could be better used than it currently is. They would actually do scenario studies to see what resistances and resources would be involved in putting positive policies into practice, and what they would do to deal with such contingencies if they were in charge.

When the USSR came apart or Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait or massacres occurred in American high schools or small countries, these shadow politicians could have been there with proposals and comments about how their past policy recommendations would have changed things. This would simultaneously benefit those working in the shadow governments (as preparation and learning) and introduce the public to alternatives. Perhaps they'd be impressed enough to vote some of those involved into office.

At the very least, it would show we were serious.
(snip)
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_TransformPol2.html

A group like act-up are really Hero's and just like things such as co-Intel run by the FBI, a societies lever pullers will find underhanded ways to get back at other groups that might threaten their authority. Reactionary societal movements often loose out in the end. The problem is sometimes it takes longer than a lifetime for the change to take place. The embrace of diversity is the only way life really occurs. The way you would want to shame others could be the key on how you feel yourself. Let it go, and they will not be able to hold on to it either

[aquart]

7. Wait till they find out about God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. What is weird

is one MO woman who said she was voting against gay marriage because gay marriage would encourage promiscuity! Wonder if she knew what the word meant....

[BattyDem]

20. I would LOVE to know ...

how she came to that conclusion! :crazy:

[truthisfreedom]

9. ermm... knock knock, you MO people? uhh, hate to tell you, but gay

marriage simply does not mean lots of little gay newborns. nothing whatsoever would change, you numbnuts.

[BOHICA06]

10. Pure democracy ....

is often very scary. Imagine if they had but civil rights legislation on the ballot,

[dolstein]

14. As opposed to government by judiciary????

Sorry, but we got a good look at that with the 2000 election. It wasn't a pretty sight.

And at least the civil rights laws of the 1960s were approved by elected legislators. Those laws had more of an impact than many of the Warren Court decisions which, though they looked impressive on paper, simply weren't enforced very well.

[BOHICA06]

18. ahhh but if they were then put to a vote

of the public ..... would they have survived?

Tyranny of the majority ... Pure Democracy.

[BattyDem]

21. That's why a Constitution should NEVER be amended ...

for the purpose of discrimination against a particular group of people. Anyone who truly does respect Democracy should believe in that basic premise because once a Constitution is used to discriminate, it becomes pointless. Constitutions are created in order to guarantee rights, not take them away. JMHO

[Gore1FL]

11. We Don't follow the Constitution in MO....

Concealed weapons are unconstitutional in Missouri, but they are legal anyways....

I guess I am not shocked by the vote, but DAMN -- that is a huge margin of defeat.

[demgrrrll]

17. I voted against the amendment but I see I was in the minority.

Sad day for Missouri.

[Gore1FL]

23. me too

n/t

[sandnsea]

16. voter turnout high

"Fueling the turnout statewide is the constitutional ban on homosexual marriage, which has taken on greater significance since Congress defeated a proposed federal constitutional amendment."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/5CCFFB3F03FC4C2086256EE5004FDD31?OpenDocument&Headline=Voter+turnout+very+high

I wouldn't count on Oregon or Michigan if this is true. And if Ohio gets gay marriage on the ballot, that could be it.

[bling bling]

22. I was the only one at my work who voted no on this issue

I tried to persuade my co-workers to change their minds but they energized each other and by the time we left the office they seemed almost giddy to stop at the polls on their way home and vote to amend our constitution.

I'm so frustrated. I think I would go crazy without the DU.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Welcome...I feel for ya

[TaleWgnDg]

32. welcome to DU . . .

:bounce:

[Gore1FL]

27. I wonder how this is going to jive with Article 4 of the US Constitution

n/t

[Terran]

51. "Full faith and credit"?--exactly

That, plus the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This amendment in Missouri can NOT stand against that.

[customerserviceguy]

28. It was a disappointing margin

I figured the amendment would pass, but I was hoping for less than 60%. Be prepared for other defeats like this, nearly all of the amendment elections planned for this year are in "red" states. Oregon might just be the only one that gives our side a victory.

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between two people of the same race would have passed in the "red" states in 1966, but the SCOTUS would have found them unConstitutional in 1967, nonetheless. That's ultimately what's going to be the outcome of this.

However, if EVERY gay person in America came out to their families, neighbors, employers, etc. (they can't fire, snub, jail, etc. them ALL!) it might send a message to people in just one "red" state. It was only when people of color stood up for what was theirs that they won victories in judicial courts, and the court of public opinion.

[TaleWgnDg]

31. . . . welcome to DU, montechamber,

although I, myself, am fairly new here at DU too!

And your analysis is quite on point. I agree about "ultimately" the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn all this nonsense about discrimination against homosexuals; however, that's down the road.

For the present, it's going to be a hard and long battle for those (including children of gays) caught in the web of hate and discontent and discrimination. Sad days in America.


======================================
"(Justice O'Connor's reasoning) leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples . . . (because) 'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples." -- Justice Scalia in a scathing dissent re Lawrence v. Texas (where Texas anti-sodomy statute was overturned).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
======================================

[customerserviceguy]

67. Thanks

Tale, I appreciate the warm welcome I've received here. I just hope that gay and lesbian people use this decision on their rights to find the courage to come out to EVERYONE. Deb Price of the Detroit News has observed that if straight people KNOW a gay person, they're far less likely to vote for this crap.

My guess is that 90% of straight people really do know a gay person, it's just that many of them don't know that they know a gay person. Only gay people can really fix that.

[TaleWgnDg]

68. well, that's more easily said than done . . .

after representing gays (and their kids too) for many years, I've come to the sad conclusion that society's back-lash far outweighs any advantage of outing or coming out on one's own volition . . . of course, this is an enigma because the more gays that are known, as you stated, the more easy it should become . . . however, it's the interim timeframe that's negatively impactful.

============================================
"He that would make his own liberty secure
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself."
- Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
“Dissertation on First Principles of Government,”
The Writings of Thomas Paine, ed. Moncure D.
Conway, vol. 3, p. 277 (1895). Originally published
in 1795.
============================================

[customerserviceguy]

75. It is easy for me to say that,

and difficult for gay people to do, but I remember 40 years ago, when black people stopped being content to just "get by" in society, things changed for their benefit. I can envision it happening this way: A notable person who has not been the victim of "outing" by the tabloid press stands up, comes out to the whole country, and challenges gay Americans to do the same on a particular day, say a few weeks or a month before the November elections. The debate over whether or not to come out goes on, and buoyed by the support of the straight-but-not-narrow, we have this national coming out day.

Right wingers who today swear, "I don't know any homosexuals" will be flabbergasted, not only that people who they've known and trusted felt that they couldn't be in turn trusted with a person's most initmate part of their self, but they will be amazed at how many are willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those coming out.

"You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."

[Tom Kitten]

29. sorry to hear and say

It will be banned here in Oregon as well in November...the Multnomah County (Portland) allowance of gay marriages set off a rabid response from a ton of people from here, the least-churched state of the union...The Oregonian (useless rightwing editorial staff regardless how "liberally biased" it is perceived to be) called for recall of all the commissioners who let it happen...(4 out of 5!) Petitions gathered twice the amount of signatures needed...My bet is on the probability most will vote against it here as well...

[sandnsea]

33. What to do?

I just don't know. How do I go out and talk about Democratic candidates when I know I'm going to lose the percentage we need to win over gay marriage? Part of me is tempted to tell them it's a separate issue of conscience. We could lose Wyden, DeFazio, Wu, and the Presidency. Too much to even think about. I hate these people.

[tpdecm20]

30. cant say im surprised mo is in the bible belt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. 72%!!!?? Oh shit! What does this mean for Kerry/Edwards?

:scared:

[fujiyama]

35. Nothing

It just means that Missourians, like those throughout the country oppose marriage rights for gays.

I find it unfortunate and see no good reason to oppose gay marriage, but I'm in the minority.

Even among democrats, this issue is very touchy...

[CTLawGuy]

42. Don't worry about it

they both oppose gay marriage, so it won't matter.

[TaleWgnDg]

71. John Kerry and John Edwards are opposed to . . .

a federal constitutional amendment restricting homosexual privacy rights, period. However, both are opposed to gay marriage.

What does all that mean? Nothing, other than great politics that will not place discrimination against homosexuals into our federal constitution.

What does it mean at the state level? Everything. It means that they are silent as to the states working it out, or if a homosexual is injured by a state law then that person may challenge an infringement of homosexual privacy rights in the federal courts, thereby . . . allowing it to wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, eventually.

However, I am not too sure what will happen there . . . although, it's very promising with the recent Lawrence v. Texas case where state anti-sodomy statutes where tossed . . . there's a hell of a lot of deference left to the states in family law matters . . . then there's the possibility that GWBush may be re-elected thereby packing the Court when 2 maybe 3 justices retire . . .

Eventually, however, same-sex marriage will be the law across America but don't count on it with any immediacy

[TaleWgnDg]

72. and, oh, yeah . . . that stuff about . . .

"full faith and credit" ??? or any other legal challenge anyone wants to dump upon a State's lap ??? . . . no state can be forced to do what it doesn't want to do . . .

UNLESS a court-of-law orders it to do otherwise. There's the rub. Court actions take years and more years. The costs sky-rocket; the expenditure of emotion and energy would be enormous as well. Again, don't be so brusque when dropping U.S. Supreme Court legal challenges upon the States! or upon disgruntled parties.

P.S. Loving v. Virginia (or vice versa) was the mixed-marriage U.S. Supreme Court case that tossed all state anti-mixed marriage laws . . . If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was an Equal Protection case u/ EP Clause of the 14th amendment, i.e., no state may legislate laws against person(s) re race (which the VA statute was directly "on its face" regarding race) . . . same-sex marriage may be analogized to that case as well to many other cases.

[TaleWgnDg]

73. oh, sheesh, lemme try that again . . .

Loving v. Virginia was the U.S. Supreme Court case about a Virginia state law that restricted marriage to ONLY same race couples . . . no mixed-race marriages allowed . . . the U.S. Supreme Court chucked that Virginia state law and it therefore applied to all the States in a similar way . . . it's late and I am tired . . .

[THUNDER HANDS]

36. I'm almost scared to leave New York now

Outside of New York, America is a pretty damn scary place. I don't know how you non-NYers live out there. I'd go insane.

[greymattermom]

37. gay marriage

Now Missouri should require a chromosome test for all couples to get married. How else can you prove your marriage would be legal? It would add a few $$ to the cost of a marriage lisence. Add to the Biotech economy too.

[TaleWgnDg]

69. why? because ANY marriage in order to be valid . . .

in law (and that's what it's all about, after all), must comply with the law, period. Unless, of course, the matter is successfully challenged in a court-of-law.

All this means is that if your state law (or constitution) states that "one man and one woman only" shall be married, and if you are not in compliance with that . . . then your marriage is null and void (poof, gone, finito, zip, nada, never existed). Unless you successfully win your case in a court-of-law.

=======================================
"The promise of America is that government does not
seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom, but to
guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen. The
issue of government is not to determine who may sleep
together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not
be eating in the kitchen." -- The Reverend Al Sharpton,
Democratic National Convention, Boston, Massachusetts, July
29, 2004, on "answer your questions, Mr. President."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/28/dems.sharpton.transcript/
=======================================

[arwalden]

38. Enshrining Hate And Bigotry In State Constitutions Is WRONG WRONG WRONG

These people are truly pathetic individuals!

-- Allen

[farmbo]

39. In November 2000 3.8 million voted in MS...last night 1.5 million voted.

Granted...a huge percentage of this lesser turnout voted in favor of the gay marriage ban... but this was only a primary and cannot be used to predict voter preferences in November.

Rove is trying to get Gay marriage bans on the November ballot in as many battleground states as possible, including Ohio and Michigan, with the hope of drawing out every evangelical vote in those states.

This is a serious issue and, alas, we have to approach it with the understanding that many Dems and independents will be supporting the bans in those states. Judging from California and now Missouri, its safe to say that the gay marriage bans will also pass in those battleground states, if they're on the ballot.

Kerry cannot paint himself into a corner on this issue.

[catmandu57]

41. What can I say?

except the only good thing about this was the timing, they emptied out the churches on this one. Yesterday when I went to vote there was a long line of people waiting to vote, the devil has the people by the throat here, if it wasn't for my wife I'd be long gone.
Someone has to stay and at least be a road bumb though.

[Geo55]

43. Hell Yeah !

You go Missouri !
Ya know , ya let them people marry an' THEY'LL REPRODUCE !
repeat after me FEAR IS GOOD.

[phasev]

45. Missouri eh?

What else is new? Why are people surprised that this would happen in a Bible Belt state?

[Freddie Stubbs]

Is anyone surprised one bit by this?

Missouri is a socially conservaitve state. This is about as shocking as San Fransicsans supporting gay marriage.

[nolabels]

59. And a corporate media needing to homogenize us all

They want that one brand fits all B.S. Who or what kind of groups would really want Missouri to be like San Fransisco (hint). If people in Missouri wanted be like San Francisco wouldn't they just move there?

Cookie cutter societies are fundamentally unsustainable

[soleft]

46. Two questions - state or federal - and does this ban civil unions

I'll look this up later but does anyone know now off the top of their heads

[Walt Starr]

47. There's still a possibility here

If there is one gay Missouri couple who was legally married in Massachusetts, then Missouri is REQUIRED to recognize gay marriages and this law is unconstitutional under the Full faith and credit clause.

Because of the full faith and credit clause, one state with legal gay marriages means gay marriages are legal in ALL states. The genie is already out of the bottle.

The full faith and credit clause makes DOMA and every last state level DOMA illegal because Massachusetts has had legal gay marriages.

[Shrek]

48. Has that become settled law?

This article from Slate seems to dispute your point, but it's from February so it might be out of date:

The legal truth is that conservatives never needed DOMA in the first place—hysterical posturing notwithstanding, it's by no means a given that other states would be forced to recognize Massachusetts marriages. For one thing, there is an established trapdoor to the full faith and credit clause: The courts have long held that no state should be forced to recognize a marriage sanctioned by another state if that marriage offends a deeply held public policy of the second state. States have been permitted to refuse to recognize marriages from states with different policies toward polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity for decades. At this point, 39 states have passed mini-state-sized DOMAs that proscribe marriage for gay couples, often elaborately saying that it violates their public policy. This strongly suggests that the public policy exemption would be triggered, and states would be free to choose for themselves whether to sanction gay marriages. At the very least it would make sense for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA and full faith and credit before amending the Constitution for only the 28th time in history.

[yelladawg]

49. Oklahoma is next

Look for Oklahoma to pass the same type ban this November

[Terran]

52. I don't believe that "trap door" can stand

If it did, interracial marriages would still be illegal in most southern states, because that was a "deeply held" public policy in those states too.

It's not just "full faith and credit," folks. It's the 14th Amendment--equal protection under the law. The SCOTUS has *already* ruled, in the Texas sodomy law case, that homosexuals may not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. It's a very short step from there to getting a specific ruling from them on same-sex marriage.

[Walt Starr]

55. That trap door was what was used during segregation

It no longer applies as it was thrown out along with segregation.

Anybody that argues that point would have old laws in the South which stand to this day enforced. Those laws banned inter-racial marriage.

[Shrek]

62. I think that was an equal protection issue

I think the bans on inter-racial marriage were struck down because of the 14th amendment, not the full faith and credit clause.

As noted by another poster on this thread, that might be a better way to go. Note the language in the relevant SCOTUS opinion:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Replace "racial classifications" with "gender classifications" and you can make a pretty good case against the Missouri vote.

[jimbot]

54. I look at this as a first step.

Before I get flamed, let me state that I am in full support of gay marriage.
That said, I think most in this country are not ready...however, I think that the gay marriage debate has increased acceptance of domestic benefits and recognition of some of the discriminatory issues. I am optimistic that we will eventually see gay marriage accepted across the U.S. but I am not that optimistic that it will occur with my generation.

Indeed in Maine, we recently started a domestic partner register link to article
Here is a brief summary of the dp registry:
"Under the new law, a surviving domestic partner not only enjoys inheritance rights but also is considered the next of kin when making funeral and burial arrangements, gaining precedence over other family members on those decisions.

The domestic partner also can serve as the guardian of a sick or injured partner, and as a conservator of a partner's property when that partner is incapacitated."

In short, while the debate in this country seems to be centered around banning gay marriages, I think the debate will ultimately improve civil rights rather than impede them.

--JT

[kevinhnc]

56. A first step...backwards...nt

[CO Liberal]

57. These People Elected John Ashcroft As Their Senator...

...threw Jean Carnahan out of office, and spawned Rush Limbaugh.

I'm sure another native son of Missouri (Harry Truman) is spinning in his grave today....

[TaleWgnDg]

70. you forgot to add that . . .

Cardinal Bernard Law was spewed out of Missouri after he and John Ashcroft -- no, not strange bedfellows at all, both are ultra-conservative religious types -- attempted to pad the deck pushing religion into law . . . we, here, in Massachusetts didn't exactly appreciate Law being dumped here.

In all seriousness, Law couldn't run away fast enough and far enough. He's now u/ the wing of The Holy See, itself, (the Pope) serving as a prelate of some Vatican church facility. Sad that the laws of Massachusetts did not have (at the time) criminal statutes that could be wrapped around Law tossing him into prison for all the heinousness he allegedly perp'd in Massachusetts.

[TaleWgnDg]

74. as an added follow-up to my post #70 . . .

here's an url

http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20040805/popelawdc.html

which is directly on point about Cardinal Bernard Law and where he is today . . .

[Catfight]

58. This is proof there is no God and no compassion in this world.

[theHandpuppet]

60. Meanwhile, back at that little ole Repuke Log Cabin...

Y'know, these folks are so frigging deluded its pathetic. They still think they are going to be welcomed at the big table at the RNC.

Pertinent to the RNC, I noticed the LCR schedule of events for this month includes their regional meetings where they decide to make their Presidential endorsements. New York's is tomorrow (Thursday).

Follow the link: http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/calendar.php?calendar=812&jsenabled=1

[stanwyck]

61. OK. The fundies have energized their base, now

we have to do the same. We have to be just as successful as getting every progressive/liberal to the polls. All of us have work to do. Give the fundies this, they do what is necessary to win. We can no longer sit back and hope for the best. We all have to work. We will prevail. But it won't be handed to us.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. I agree, which is why this vote concerns me.

On the plus side, it is off the ballot for the general election.

[muchacho]

65. woo hoo!

Lookey.....we're bigots!

[nookiemonster]

66. OMFG!!

I live in Fenton (St. Louis) and voted against this shit yesterday. I cannot believe that there are so many backward ass sheep that don't realize that once you begin banning things and screwing with our constitution.......

...pause....

Well, let's say it's not a pretty picture.

Disgusted.. :wtf: