A shock for me RE: Dad and the MO anti-gay constitutional amendment

[greekspeak]

My 69 year old father, die hard conservative and Limpball-phile, hater of Clinton, Kerry, etc. was one of the 3 in 10 voters in Missouri who voted AGAINST the constutional amendment that OVERWHELMINGLY passed and gave gay people enshrined second class citizenship! A bit stunned by this, I asked why. "Its none of my business if two people want to do this." Imagine...my wingnut father voting against such a classical wingnut ploy. Go dad!

On a related note, he said the ballot language was very convoluted, and after three times of reading the language of the measure, he was still not sure if he cast his vote right or not. Something like, if you support the amendment, mark no, if not, mark yes. Makes me mad. But his INTENTION was still to vote against the ammendment.

[skypilot]

1. If "yes" mark "no", If "no" mark "yes"?????

This does sound as though it is meant to confuse voters. It might have worked too.

[greekspeak]

3. That is what he said

My father is not stupid either. He has a college degree and above average intellegence. For the ballot to have been that confusing says a lot.

[terrya]

2. There's hope yet...if there are people like your father who has...

a common sense approach to our getting married.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. I wonder if the misleading language would be

grounds for a class-action suit, and at least a temporary hold on passing the amendment?

[whistle]

5. Uhmmm, so now if a person is gay and lives in Missouri....

...what will happen to them? Can they be fired from jobs they have held? Will they not be able to live with another person of their same gender? Will they be guilty of a crime for being gay? The state consitution now will clearly ban gay marriage. What liberties can anti-gay forces now take that will go unchallenged by this state constitutional change? I can not find the specific wording of the Missouri amendment as voted on, but I did find this:

MO: Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Strengthens State Law

By KELLY WIESE
Associated Press Writer

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Missouri voters will determine Aug. 3 whether to add a ban on gay marriage to the state constitution, a move that would change to opponents' options for fighting the policy in court.

Missouri already has a law defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. But supporters of the amendment believe they would be on firmer legal ground should a challenge arise if the ban is also spelled out in the state constitution.

"A state statute simply does not command the same level of respect by state or federal courts as does the respect granted a constitutional provision," said Thor Hearne, a St. Louis attorney who supports the amendment.

Because of the existing state law, a gay couple already faces an uphill legal battle trying to get a marriage performed elsewhere -- such as in Massachusetts -- legally recognized in Missouri.

Within the U.S. Constitution is what's known as the "full faith and credit" clause, which basically says that states shall honor public records and judicial proceedings carried out in other states.

That means a gay couple married in Massachusetts, where the state's high court ruled that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, could ask a court to declare their marriage valid in Missouri.

But University of Missouri-Columbia law professor Carl Esbeck said the full faith and credit clause has been interpreted by federal courts "as requiring states to give full faith and credit to the records of a sister state unless there is a strong public policy ... to the contrary."

The existing Missouri law specifically does not recognize same-sex marriages, even if they are performed in a state where they are legal. That law could be seen as such a policy.

A couple could challenge the state law as conflicting with the state constitution, which like the federal Constitution provides people with due-process and equal-protection rights.

Those provisions essentially mean that government must justify taking people's freedom or property, and that people cannot be denied any rights that others in the same situation have under the law.

Missouri's proposed constitutional amendment reads: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

If the amendment passes, a gay couple could not challenge the policy as disagreeing with the state constitution, but could contend the restriction conflicts with the U.S. Constitution on due-process and equal-protection grounds.

St. Louis attorney Arlene Zarembka, who has worked on gay rights issues and opposes the amendment, also contends the language "to be valid" is too broad and vague, potentially infringing even on private religious ceremonies, not just legal contracts.

"The state really should not be dictating to churches what marriages are valid or what marriages are not valid," she said.

Further complicating matters is the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996, it allows states to refuse to honor same-sex unions performed elsewhere, and denies federal recognition to such unions. A gay couple could challenge both the federal law and the Missouri amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Currently, there are no challenges to either the state law pending in Missouri's courts. So why the rush to amend a gay marriage ban into the Missouri Constitution? Amendment advocates say they're working to prevent a state challenge before it starts.

"We can't afford to sit here like a sitting duck and wait for a lawsuit to be filed here in Missouri," said Vicky Hartzler, a former Republican lawmaker who is spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents of the amendment say they have not challenged the Missouri law because they doubt the current makeup of Missouri's Supreme Court or federal appeals court would side with them.

Jeff Wunrow, a spokesman for the Constitution Defense League, which is opposing the ballot measure, said the group is focused on the election. He doesn't expect his group to challenge the amendment in court if it passes.

AP-ES-07-26-04 1745EDT