St. Louis Challenges Missouri's Gay Marriage Ban. (California, Liberal: credit, lawyers)

[Pknitty86]

Battle over same-sex marriages in St. Louis headed to court : News

St. Louis is the first municipality mounting a direct challenge of the state ban. The city, which operates as an independent municipality, also performs county functions.


The four marriage licenses were signed by an emotional and misty-eyed Recorder of Deeds Sharon Quigley Carpenter, and four wedding ceremonies were held in Slay’s office as the smiling mayor snapped cellphone pictures of the couples. Two men who were married Wednesday have been in a committed relationship for 39 years.

“It makes me proud as a citizen and as a mayor,” Slay said.

But the echo of champagne corks popping in the mayor’s office will likely be silenced today with the thud of legal documents as officials get down to less-celebratory business. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who is charged to enforce the state’s constitution, sued the city on Thursday morning.

[T. Damon]

Great news for an awesome city!

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

Great news for an awesome city!

A completely lawless act. This is political pandering of the worst kind - a mayor and other city officials engaging in a lawless act and proud of it - even bragging about it. I suppose they are following the lead of the President on this score - and pandering to a small but core constituency.

I also assume this is an effort to create a court case with the hopes of winding up in federal court and getting a federal judge to rule that the overwhelmingly voter approved Amendment to the Missouri Constitution is unlawful.

Liberals are for democracy except when they are against it. If the voting public won't approve it, well go for a federal judge.

[Pknitty86]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

A completely lawless act. This is political pandering of the worst kind - a mayor and other city officials engaging in a lawless act and proud of it - even bragging about it. I suppose they are following the lead of the President on this score - and pandering to a small but core constituency.

I also assume this is an effort to create a court case with the hopes of winding up in federal court and getting a federal judge to rule that the overwhelmingly voter approved Amendment to the Missouri Constitution is unlawful.

Liberals are for democracy except when they are against it. If the voting public won't approve it, well go for a federal judge.

Maybe he should've just pushed for a state gay marriage ban nullification ordinance?...

[chessgeek]

I hope Missouri legalizes same sex marriage soon, whether through votes or a legitimate court decision. Credit goes to St. Louis for having the courage to challenge the current ban!

Same sex marriages do NO harm whatsoever to opposite sex marriages and their families.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

I hope Missouri legalizes same sex marriage soon, whether through votes or a legitimate court decision. Credit goes to St. Louis for having the courage to challenge the current ban!

Same sex marriages do NO harm whatsoever to opposite sex marriages and their families.

This article speaks a bit to the politics of it:

St. Louis same-sex marriage challenge is politically tricky for Koster : News

I don't like city officials openly violating Missouri law. The amendment was passed in 2004 with something like 71% of the vote.

I'm sure feelings have changed over the last 10 years - get enough support to put it on the ballot again.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

This article speaks a bit to the politics of it:

St. Louis same-sex marriage challenge is politically tricky for Koster : News

I don't like city officials openly violating Missouri law. The amendment was passed in 2004 with something like 71% of the vote.

I'm sure feelings have changed over the last 10 years - get enough support to put it on the ballot again.

The article says the city will not be approving any more marriage licenses until the matter is settled in the court. It is understandable that the the Attorney General has to have lawyers oppose it despite personally supporting it. That has happened in other states, too.

I guess you and some other people will have to put up with a process that you don't approve of in making the decision for Missouri. Meanwhile, you must believe gay people in Missouri should be a little more patient as they have only been denied the right to marry for a mere 193 years (statehood was 1821). The courts are a legitimate part of life in our democracy. Voting may be preferable, but the courts have been used in other states to determine constitutionality, too.

I can't really sympathize. We will agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the article, though.

[9162]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

Liberals are for democracy except when they are against it. If the voting public won't approve it, well go for a federal judge.

Originally Posted by MUTGR

This article speaks a bit to the politics of it:

St. Louis same-sex marriage challenge is politically tricky for Koster : News

I don't like city officials openly violating Missouri law. The amendment was passed in 2004 with something like 71% of the vote.

I'm sure feelings have changed over the last 10 years - get enough support to put it on the ballot again.

What part of the supreme court striking down prop 8 in California, as well as DOMA didn't you understand? People cannot pass laws simply because they don't like something. The tyranny of the majority cannot vote on something that oppresses a minority, in this case an entire class of people. The opposition had a responsibility to prove how SSM marriage was causing any kind of harm, and it could not. Sensationalized propaganda insinuating that somehow SSM was going to hurt traditional marriage was a ridiculous farce. If anything, SSM marriage strengthens traditional marriage by furthering support of committed relationships.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

Great news for an awesome city!

+1

Originally Posted by MUTGR

A completely lawless act. This is political pandering of the worst kind - a mayor and other city officials engaging in a lawless act and proud of it - even bragging about it. I suppose they are following the lead of the President on this score - and pandering to a small but core constituency.

I also assume this is an effort to create a court case with the hopes of winding up in federal court and getting a federal judge to rule that the overwhelmingly voter approved Amendment to the Missouri Constitution is unlawful.

Liberals are for democracy except when they are against it. If the voting public won't approve it, well go for a federal judge.

Voting on the rights (withholding them) of people is flat-out disgusting...

Originally Posted by 9162

What part of the supreme court striking down prop 8 in California, as well as DOMA didn't you understand? People cannot pass laws simply because they don't like something. The tyranny of the majority cannot vote on something that oppresses a minority, in this case an entire class of people. The opposition had a responsibility to prove how SSM marriage was causing any kind of harm, and it could not. Sensationalized propaganda insinuating that somehow SSM was going to hurt traditional marriage was a ridiculous farce. If anything, SSM marriage strengthens traditional marriage by furthering support of committed relationships.

+1

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

I hope Missouri legalizes same sex marriage soon, whether through votes or a legitimate court decision. Credit goes to St. Louis for having the courage to challenge the current ban!

Same sex marriages do NO harm whatsoever to opposite sex marriages and their families.

If Missouri legalizes it well and good. But St. Louis didn't have the courage to challenge it. It had the temerity to break state law and those responsible, misty-eyed or not, should be so charged. Most elected officials I know of take an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of their jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

Voting on the rights (withholding them) of people is flat-out disgusting...

Sure you're right. Why, under those circumstances there should be no laws and anarchy should ensue so everyone can do whatever they want or their "rights" are clearly being violated.

Here's a hint for you. Constitutions and laws spell out what are rights. Change 'em if you don't like 'em but until you do you are responsible to obey/enforce them.

None of us have the right to pick-and-choose what laws we like and will follow and what laws we don't and won't.