In 2004, Missouri voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Here's an interesting question: Would voters make the same decision in 2012?
Acceptance of gay marriage has increased at a rapid pace in recent years. Polls show that a majority of Americans now favor the idea. Last week, state lawmakers in New York rewrote the marriage law to make it gender-neutral.
Now, as we learned on a recent episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, Missouri is not New York. But would voters today be as eager as they were in 2004, when the constitutional amendment passed by an overwhelming margin, to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry?
Election forecaster Nate Silver has revisited a model he built in 2009 in which he aimed to predict the percentage of the vote that gay marriage-related ballot initiatives would receive in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. He bases his predictions on variables such as a state's liberal-conservative orientation and the median age of adults. (Young people tend to be much more open to the idea of allowing gay couples to marry.)
Silver's model thinks Missouri would ban same-sex marriage again if given the chance. This is not a surprising result, given that the constitutional amendment of 2004 passed with 71 percent of the vote.
But there's a sliver of hope for people who think that gay couples deserve more rights. Silver's model projects that if support for gay marriage continues to grow at an accelerated rate, a ballot measure that also banned civil unions would fail in Missouri.
Change will come more slowly to Kansas, one of 15 states that Silver thinks would ban gay marriage and civil unions if given the chance in 2012.
Showing 1-12 of 12
anyone, regardless of their age, is spitting in God's face if they are for same sex marriage. as for separation of church and state, the pilgrims wanted this for the new country they arrived in so they could worship any place of their choosing. in england, they were forced to worship only in the church of england. they didn't want to be told where they could worship. that's what separation of church and state means. any fool that thinks you can keep God out anything, is a fool indeed. as for the show me state being too conservative, it's called being God fearing and proud of it. in missouri, it's one man, one woman, period. always has been, always will be. thank God.
Okay I may only be in 13, but I believe in the rights of everyone! LOVE IS LOVE! MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE NOT GENDER! If you believe that this is a free country ITS NOT! Gay's have less privileges, and its not right!
Wasn't old enough to vote on gay marriage in 2004 but am now. If it appears on the ballot, I will do my duty to make sure gay marriage stays banned in MO. If you want gay marriage there are other states you can move to that will welcome you there.
The only thing Missouri has ever gotten right has been its stance on gay marriage.
I don't get what the big deal is... All i ever hear from the opposition is religion, but what about separation from state and church. And I'm voting for gay marriage so you better invite me if it passes :P
Funny how this country is suppose to be a "free country", but it's not and never will be. Stupid how "your rights" have to be voted on. A man and woman can marry, but because i'm not marrying someone with a p***s then it's not "legal". This country is to full of religious, stuck in the old days people. Bible says not to judge one another, but not giving us a right to be married is the same thing as judging me!!
I would love to get married to my partner it would be a wonderful day for us. Please Missouri citizens vote on 2012 to legalize same sex marriage
I would love to get married to my partner it would be a wonderful day for us. Please Missouri citizens vote on 2012 to legalize same sex marriage
Rights should not be voted on. They're in the constitution -- equal protection under the law. I'm afraid the courts are the only way to solve this problem.
Very good points, and thanks for the info on MO law re: civil unions. Even if it's a modern "separate but equal", it's a start.
And to clarify - I think the increasing support for gay marriage will make it to the heartland sooner than some people think. I was mostly just referring to the fact that even if a vote today might pass with a simple majority, previous legislation has kept that from being a possibility.
"They" will get marriage after more of the old people continue to die off. And, until that happens, Missouri law is still open enough for civil unions to be pushed through. So, while gays may have to call second class citizenship sufficient for a few more years, possibly they may be able to retrieve a handful of the hundreds of rights they are currently denied. One day, people will figure out that gay people have the same right to sign contracts as anyone else. And, hopefully we'll eventually see movement on the federal level, as support for gay marriage continues to increase, as it has immensely in just the last few years.
The problem? Now it's a part of the constitution, which I believe requires a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for repeal. No WAY they get that, perhaps ever.
I may be way off there, because I can't find the exact figure online. But I believe that was part of the argument mods and libs were trying to make: it's already illegal, but if you put it in the Constitution it's nearly impossible to change in the future. No matter--conservative politicians know that symbolic votes for patriotism and Christian values are good for reelection.
missouri is still too conservative... even traditionally liberal minded minorities are socially conservative. the chance of it passing in mo is WAYYYYYYYY better than in ks, but realistically missouri is still too conservative. it would pass in columbia, and pockets of kc and st. louis, but not as a state.
too bad
like
dislike
