August 5, 2004

Last Tuesday, August 3^rd, the state of Missouri voted, by a wide margin, in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Deemed "Amendment 2" on the ballot, it effectively bans homosexual marriage in the state of Missouri, which already had a 2001 law banning gay marriage.

Before the election, there was a huge movement from various groups (including the ACLU and Moveon.org) against this amendment, and even some TV spots. It did not, however, get the kind of media coverage that the another major amendment (Amendment 1, to allow riverboat casino gambling on Missouri’s White River) received. There was a lot of heart, but unfortunately not the millions in corporate funds to back it the way Amendment 1 was. Perhaps it would not have made much difference anyway. After all, Amendment 1 was defeated despite the fierce ad campaign.

Several people that I talked to in the days before the election did not even know that issue was on the ballot, while others thought that voting "Yes" was voting FOR gay marriage! This was certainly an issue that should've been discussed and debated much more intensely, but it instead went to a mostly blind vote, at least as I saw. Such an important issue as a constitutional amendment on marriage should not have been treated so lightly by the local news media.

I believe that the question that now needs to be asked is, what now? We've decided that we won't let same-sex couples get married, so what can they get that'll allow them to get a health care plan for their kids, that'll allow them to pass on their property and estates to their partners when they pass on, and that'll even allow them to visit their partners in the hospital? What will they have, if not marriage, that'll give them those basic rights enjoyed by married couples? This is the question that now needs to be asked, if not marriage, then what?