Father_Brain
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/national/04CND-GAYS.html
Depressing, but hardly surprising. The right has no chance of winning this issue nationally in the long term, thank God.
August 4, 2004
Missourians Back Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By MONICA DAVEY
T. LOUIS, Aug. 4 — Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the State Constitution barring gay marriage, becoming the first state to answer what has become a growing question since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts.
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 70.7 percent — or 1,054,235 votes — in unofficial totals.
Voters in at least 9 other states — and perhaps as many as 12 — are expected to consider similar amendments this fall, so advocates on both sides of the debate were intensely watching Missouri's results, anxious about what they might say about voters elsewhere in the weeks ahead.
"What happens in Missouri will be looked at by people across the country," said Seth Kilbourn, the national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington group that worked against the proposed amendment in Missouri with more than $100,000 for television advertisements, telephone banks and polling.
Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, which pressed for the amendment with church functions, yard signs and a "marriage chain" of rallies across the state, said she hoped the outcome would send a loud message to the rest of the country: "Here in the heartland we have a heart for families, and this is how deeply we feel about marriage."
The gay marriage question drew a heavy turnout on Tuesday to an election that also produced a surprising result in the race for governor. Late Tuesday night, Gov. Bob Holden conceded defeat to Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, in the Democratic primary. It was the first time a sitting governor lost a primary in the last decade. Ms. McCaskill will face Matt Blunt, the secretary of state, who won the Republican primary.
In Missouri, as in more than 30 other states, a state statute already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But Ms. Hartzler and others said they feared that a state provision might not be enough for a court somewhere, given the decision last November by Massachusetts' highest court that gay marriage was not prohibited under that state's Constitution.
"This wasn't a battle we sought out," Ms. Hartzler said. "It was brought on us in Missouri by what happened there."
If the fight began elsewhere, it has also sometimes been waged with the help of groups from other parts of the country. Opponents of the Missouri measure spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, while supporters said they spent far less.
Many voters on both sides said Tuesday that they expected the ban to be approved. Missouri has often been described as a reflection of the entire country because of its blend of Southern and Northern, of tiny farming towns and large cities like Kansas City and St. Louis. Much of the state is socially traditional and old-fashioned, said Matthew Byer, 37, as he left his polling place in Ladue, a wealthy western suburb of St. Louis.
"Myself, I don't think it's right," Mr. Byer said of the amendment. "It is embarrassing to me that I think this is going to pass because of fears and because of concerns about what same-sex marriage would mean to married people. It doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form."
In some polling places, there was confusion. In Woodson Terrace, a northwest suburb of St. Louis, Norma Gladman, 76, said she opposed same-sex marriage but was not sure quite what to think of changing the state's Constitution.
"Isn't there already a ban?" Ms. Gladman asked her friends as they walked into the polling place.
A few people said they felt rattled by the wording of the amendment: "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?" Some paused and worried aloud as they left the polling place whether their "yes" or "no" vote had accurately reflected their intent.
Others, on each side, were certain.
In Ladue, Lindsay Goldford, a 20-year-old college student, said her Christian background and beliefs were the basis of her support for an amendment. "When you look at marriage, it's between a man and a woman," Ms. Goldford said. "Biblically, homosexuality isn't in the plan."
And outside a polling place also in Ladue, two longtime friends learned on Tuesday that they did not agree.
Mary Klostermeier, 77, said she saw the need to bar gay marriage. "I guess I'm in the old school," Ms. Klostermeier said. "I'm just a very religious person."
But her friend Gene Gabianelli, 72, said he had voted against a ban. "People should do what they want to do," Mr. Gabianelli said. "This whole thing is all about politics as far as I can tell — all about mobilizing people for George Bush."
In fact, local political leaders here had fought over the timing of amendment. Some Republicans had pressed to hold the vote in November, during the general election. Democrats, who had more competitive primary races on Tuesday, pushed to hold it now.
"The political calculus that has been made by the Bush people is that more people will turn out from the far right conservative base with this issue on the ballot," Mr. Kilbourn said. "This is all about the politics of distraction. It distracts from the economy, the job losses, the issues people care about."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the wave of amendments around the country had come because "the American people want to protect the institution of marriage. That's what's driving this whole thing."
Indeed, Mr. Perkins said, he believed the amendments would pass in every state where they are weighed this fall.
Louisiana plans a vote on a marriage amendment on Sept. 18. In November, people in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are expected to consider similar measures. Ballot initiatives are awaiting approval in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio. Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage before the Massachusetts ruling.
Depressing, but hardly surprising. The right has no chance of winning this issue nationally in the long term, thank God.
.
