It will never be widely accepted. The people of these states have voted it down time after time, but, the judges do not have to listen to the will of the people. They do whatever they want anyway. I personally could care less. But, the will of the few again trumps the will of the majority.

During the 1840’s, prior to Emancipation, free blacks were not allowed to marry in Missouri. Many former slaves, and some indentured warriors, were forced to ride the underground railroads to legally marry north of the Missouri border. They were often killed or captured by those bent on God’s will…

We’ve come a long way. Today, loving couples can take a joyful train ride and they don’t have to fend themselves against Nat Turner’s bloody, Bible-bolstered raiders who spread terror across the south. Loving couples can simply go north of the border, marry… and hope they’re not pelted with tomatoes from Nat Turner’s bible thumping descendants before they reach their journey to freedom.

Moderator’s note: Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

It is sad that some people claim that judges overturning laws that are the “will of the people” is wrong when those laws violate the constitution.

Remember that 50 years ago, a black man and a white woman could not get married in many states due to laws that were “the will of the people”.

I’m sure many people, like SCA, felt that those marriages wouldn’t be accepted… or that our nation would elected the child of one of those to be our President.

The religious zealots seem to always forget that the First Amendment calls for Separation of Church and State and is the law in this country. They forget that marriage can be a civil union and not a religious one.

> The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless
> of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will
> of the majority.

I’ve supported gay marriage for years, but it ought to be obvious that people who drafted a constitution in an era when homosexuality was “The love that dare not speak its name” certainly didn’t afford that love any constitutional protection.

So will Justus just consider this to be symbolic, or will she test the law and try to claim that her marriage is valid in Missouri?

If Gay & Lesbian Americans did not have to protect themselves and their families from Heterosexuals on every front, than none of this would be necessary.

But since, at evey turn, Gay & Lesbian Americans are treated unequally not only by our very creators but by our Government, they MUST turn to the courts for protection. Sad. How are Heterosexuals even CAPABLE of treating thier own offspring in such a manner?

We are used to being mistreated by our creators (i.e. Heterosexuals) and have come to expect that from most of you. That’s on you. You will have to answer to God for that. However, our Government, legally, is not allowed to treat law-abiding, tax-paying citizens unequally under the law. No matter HOW much the VERY PEOPLE THAT CREATED THE GAYS & LESBIANS wants it to.

Actually SCA new polling suggest that a majority of Americans under 40 support either civil unions or gay marriage. It also shows that most people really just do not care about the issue. So I disagree that it will never be widely accepted, it will just take time. I am encouraged by the debate going on within the Republican Party on this very issue. They would be wise to let it go.

Nick…ever hear of the “Elasticity Clause”?
Also know as the “Proper and Necessary Clause”? Art. 1 Sec. 8.
Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know the values and principles of a nation can change. The Constitution is a living, breathing document.

By the way…Who are you to assume the Founding Fathers didn’t want to give gay marriage any constitutional protection.
More of that Republican BS superior attitude.

It’s slightly misleading to say it has come to mid-America. Iowans didn’t bring it, their court did.

I bet if it were on the ballot for a Constitutional amendment like it was in Missouri, Sen Justus would really see no difference between Missouri and Iowa. 70+% would say no in Iowa too!

If California voted to ban gay marriage, there’s not a state in the Midwest that would not either if given the chance.

Our government is based on majority rule, minority rights. That formed the basis of the civil rights movement, and forms the basis for the recent moves to make gay marriage legal.

Thanks to the earlier commenters who thoughtfully noted this. Congratulations, also, to the 17 couples who married. Some day, Missouri.

I’m straight, and will not be married until gay people can be legally married the same as myself.

I’m glad that the debate going on here is much more intelligent than the one that took place after the article about Bill Donius regarding the “new Face of gay advocacy” last week.

Reading the comments to that story made me think that the intelligent people of STL are being overtaken by a bunch of hillbillies.

I know that the religious desperately want to save our souls and instill us with their vision of morality, but we don’t want it. And our laws don’t want it. We fled to this country to escape religious persecution. It seems that for the last eight years we have again been subject to it. Well in November ‘08 the country said we have had enough.

Congratulations to Senator Justus and her wife, Shonda Garrison. God bless your union. I’m just sorry that you had to leave Missouri to be married.

I hope Missouri will not recognize these marriages. Most states have laws that do not recognize marriages that could not legally take place in the home state if they went to another state for the purpose of dodging the marriage laws of the home state, and if the marriage could not legally take place in the home state. A trip across state lines to get around state laws does not validate the marriage, unless they are MOVING to Iowa.

It’s great to see this is happening in the Midwest. It’s a shame there are still groups of people that are still discriminated against. We should strive for equality of all people no matter what their skin color, religious views, sexual orientation, etc. But until open-mindedness becomes commonplace, some groups will still have unequal rights. I’d hate to admit but it is rightwing religious groups that are holding us back. Wouldn’t Jesus want all people to be treated equally? I’d think so.

“and her wife. . . .” Uh, those words don’t go together. And anyway, from the photo, it looks like Jolie is the one playing the role of the “wife.”

It ain’t marriage. Calling it that doesn’t make it so.

Don’t kid yourself SCA, in another 50 years or so this will be treated just like the civil rights laws are now. With wonder that people ever thought differently. No doubt there will be hold outs, just as there are trash racists now that have nothing else to feel good about but an accident of birth. As if an excess or lack of melanin makes you a better person.

And Charles? It takes a real winner to reduce a simple show of affection to a dominance issue. I hope for the sake of all women that you are a confirmed bachelor.

I find it interesting that the story referenced here on the “Mother Ship” never uses the terms “wife” or “husband” in referring to the partners who participated in the Iowa same-sex ceremonies. But the reporter introducing the story DOES refer to the state senator and her partner as follows: “One of those couples was state Sen. Jolie Justus, a Democrat from Kansas City, and HER WIFE Shonda Garrison.”

Missouri does not recognize them legally as husband and wife. And the Post-Dispatch print story doesn’t go there, either. But the reporter writing the blog introduction takes it further than even her own paper’s print edition in referring to Shonda Garrison as a “wife.” Does this mean the reporter considers Ms. Justus is a “husband?”

The slant in approvingly inserting the term, “wife,” in the introduction above shows a willingness to inject de facto endorsement of same-sex marriage and pass it off as journalism. Label it an opinion column if you want to inject your opinion, please.

Comparing blacks to gays is like comparing apples to oranges. Being African-American is not a choice, it is a physical characteristic. Being Gay is a choice, just like wanting to be with children or animals, or wanting more than one spouse. This country was founded on christian-judeo beliefs and 84 percent in this country are christians. This country is also based on a democracy which means majority rules. But too many judges choose to legislate not interpret. They say they interpret, but it is a lie.
If you choose a gay lifestyle that is your business. But for the past 7,000 years, the definition of marriage begins with the union of a man and woman. Judges do not have the right to enact laws to change that definition. If you want to call it a union, so be it. And I don’t care what anyone says, it is abnormal behavior. The best thing to do is to let the people decide by voting. But gays won’t want that, because they know what the outcome will be. Over 80 percent will vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discrimin8ascanbe….when did you decide to be “strait”?
I’m guessing when you were 7 years old and cute little Billy next door moved to Cleveland.

PS…Child molestation is much more prevelant in the hetro world.
PSS..More women are raped by perverted bestality driven males than any other demographic. Try to keep your intolence to yourself. It’s ugly.

Congrats Jolie and Shonda! Bigots, verschwinde!