Home » Featured »Missouri »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Poll: Oppose or Support St. Louis Marrying 4 Same-Sex Couples on June 25th

June 29, 2014 Featured, Missouri, Sunday Poll 3 Comments
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

Thursday morning I decided the poll I had planned to run this week will have to wait until next week. Late Wednesday St. Louis officials married four same-sex couples despite Missouri’s 2004 constitutional ban.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster sued the city of St. Louis on Thursday morning, seeking and getting an injunction to stop the city from issuing more same-sex marriage licenses. (stltoday)

The four marriages occurred on the same day a U.S. appeals court struct down Utah’s ban and a federal district judge tossed Indiana’s ban.

Before you scroll down to the comments to complain this has nothing to do with urban planning let me say it has everything to do with public policy, and St. Louis.

In a reader poll last year more than half indicated Missouri should wait on same-sex marriage until forced otherwise by the courts. In February the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging Missouri’s ban.

Ok, so the poll is in the right sidebar (desktop layout) and the comments are open.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "3 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    This is a very good test case, and exactly the right way to push forward on getting the issue heard in the Missouri court system. There are only two ways for a constitutional amendment to be changed / overturned – another vote of the people or a court ruling the amendment to be unconstitutional. And this being Missouri, another vote of the people would likely not change things, so the courts are the only real option . . . .

    • The challenge filed by the ACLU four months ago mirrors the successful challenge filed in other states. Is this new test a good backup plan or a redundant tax payer funded strategy?

      • JZ71 says:

        I’m no lawyer, so I don’t know, for sure. But I’m guessing that they’re pursuing parallel paths, with the ACLU case arguing the finer, legal, constitutional points and this case creating actual individuals who are actually being discriminated against.


Comment on this Article: