A while back:

Is Vicky Hartzler the Most Anti-Gay Candidate in America?

She’s hitting her Dem opponent-an architect of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell-for caving to the “extreme agenda” of the “gay movement.”

-By Nick Baumann

| Wed Oct. 20, 2010 4:30 PM EDT

….In 2004, Hartzler drew national and international attention for her work in the campaign for a constitutional amendment in Missouri to ban gay marriage. The amendment was the first of its kind and passed-by a huge margin-in August of that year. The Human Rights Campaign and other national gay rights groups had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the state to campaign against the amendment. Hartzler was quoted in national and international media celebrating her victory for “traditional marriage….”

[….]

“….Since the Missouri amendment’s passage, Hartzler’s been a go-to quote machine whenever there is national news about gay marriage rights….”

[….]

Representative Vicky Hartzler’s comment on the issue via Twitter:

Nope, nothing there.

Representative Hartzler’s (r) comment on the issue via Facebook:

Nope, nothing there, either.

“….Since the Missouri amendment’s passage, Hartzler’s been a go-to quote machine whenever there is national news about gay marriage rights….”

Strange silence. Times have changed.

Update:

Well, there was a release from Representative Hartzler’s (r) congressional office the day before:

Congresswoman Hartzler comments on judge’s ruling regarding Missouri’s natural marriage Constitutional amendment

Nov 6, 2014

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has issued the following statement regarding a St. Louis Circuit Judge’s ruling that Missouri’s natural marriage amendment is unconstitutional:

“I am disappointed that a judge has overturned the will of the Missouri people by striking down the state’s natural marriage Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Missouri citizens overwhelmingly approved this amendment with 71 percent of our citizens supporting it. Now it is up to the Missouri Supreme Court to uphold the will of the people. I am hopeful the Court will respect the people’s Constitutional right to determine their public policy.”

[….]

Is it possible that public opinion has changed in the ensuing ten years? Just asking. But go ahead, and cling to whatever you wish.

It would be interesting to read comments in response. Oh, wait…

Meanwhile, there’s the dissent this week in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (14a0275p.06 14-1341 2014/11/06 April DeBoer v. Richard Snyder [pdf] Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit):

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

“The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course to pass the judges by.”

Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921)

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise-that the question before us is “who should decide?”-and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.

[….]

Today, my colleagues seem to have fallen prey to the misguided notion that the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution can be effectuated only by cleaving to the legislative will and ignoring and demonizing an independent judiciary. Of course, the framers presciently recognized that two of the three co-equal branches of government were representative in nature and necessarily would be guided by self-interest and the pull of popular opinion. To restrain those natural, human impulses, the framers crafted Article III to ensure that rights, liberties, and duties need not be held hostage by popular whims.

More than 20 years ago, when I took my oath of office to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I solemnly swore to “administer justice without respect to persons,” to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” and to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 453. If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.

“…I am hopeful the Court will respect the people’s Constitutional right to determine their public policy…”

“…If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.”

The vox populi in a low turnout August primary election ten years ago is not supposed to trump the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At least not at this moment.

Attorney General Chris Koster (D) issued the following press release today:

November 5, 2014

AG Koster’s statement regarding today’s ruling in St. Louis same-sex marriage case

Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster released the following statement regarding today’s ruling in State of Missouri v. Florida, Case No. 1422-CC09027, in the circuit court of the City of St.  Louis:

“The circuit court of the City of St. Louis today ruled that Missouri’s ban against same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

We have appealed the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. The constitutional challenge to Missouri’s historically recognized right to define marriage must be presented to and resolved by the state’s highest court.

Following decisions in Idaho and Alaska, the United States Supreme Court has refused to grant stays on identical facts. We will not seek a stay of this court’s order when the United States Supreme Court has ruled none should be granted.”

Rough translation: I’m not going to waste time and money fighting a fight that’s already been lost. Oh, and by the way, let’s get to the only resolution now possible as quickly as possible.

An interesting outcome in the 117th Legislative District race. The unopposed republican candidate won:

Office/Candidate Name Party Votes % of Votes

State Representative – District 117 17 of 17 Precincts Reported

Linda Black Democratic 5,081 100.000%

Total Votes: 5,081

[emphasis added]

Apparently Linda Black (r) switched parties immediately after the election because Attorney General Chris Koster doesn’t find gay marriage icky enough (via Facebook):

Linda Black [….] you can be angry and consider this deceptive. I am loyal to my convictions and you do not know what lead to this decision because you have chosen to post rather than call.

This decision became more clear with the recent decision by our atty general to not defend our Missouri Constitution.

And some comments:

[….] Linda you are of course free to be what ever you want, my complaint is that you were not open about your political affiliation. When individuals vote they should have the correct information. That is one of my convictions.

[….] I beg to differ. It was the Democrats that put her in office so it is everyone’s business that voted for her as a Democrat. This was a blatant deception to the party who put her in office. She should have been honest earlier so a Democrat would have had a chance to run against her. This was clearly a political move on her part to save her job by keeping the ballot unopposed!

Talk about bad timing:

Judge rules that gay marriage ban in Missouri is unconstitutional

By Doug Moore

Denying Missouri’s gay couples the opportunity to marry is unconstitutional, a judge ruled this afternoon.

As a result, St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison said in his decision, marriage licenses can be issued beginning today.

“The Court finds and declares that any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes, is legally entitled to a marriage license,” Burlison wrote.

He said that the Missouri Constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution….

Bad timing indeed. Heh. Still, Linda Black (r) is now free to cosponsor any legislation on Agenda 21, Sharia law, or nullification that she’d like.

The office of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D) issued the following press release today:

October 6, 2014

Attorney General Koster’s statement on his decision not to appeal in Barrier v. Vasterling

Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster today released the following statement:

“The circuit court’s judgment in Barrier v. Vasterling held that Missouri must recognize marriages lawfully entered into in other states. We will not appeal that judgment. Our national government is founded upon principles of federalism – a system that empowers Missouri to set policy for itself, but also obligates us to honor contracts entered into in other states.

A consequence of this morning’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court is that gay marriage will soon be legal in as many as 30 states. At a time when Missouri is competing to attract the nation’s premier businesses and most talented employees, we should not demand that certain individuals surrender their marriage licenses in order to live and work among us.

Missouri’s future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion.”

“…Our national government is founded upon principles of federalism – a system that empowers Missouri to set policy for itself, but also obligates us to honor contracts entered into in other states…”

Someone needs to inform the republican controlled General Assembly about that little technicality.

“…Missouri’s future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion.”

But, but, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) already had a sad over this.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

It is wise public policy for marriage to be between a man and a woman. #VVS14 [….] 12:53 PM – 26 Sep 2014

There were a lot of responses:

Robbie Medwed ‏@rjmedwed

@RepHartzler @NOMupdate it’s not wise policy, it’s bigotry and discrimination. 12:55 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Josh V ‏@JustJoshBlue

@RepHartzler @NOMupdate Because [*]mumble mumble nonsense[*] 12:55 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Matthew Scott ‏@Rev0lution9

@RepHartzler Why? Can you explain your statement without the use of biblical quotation? 1:00 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler If terrible for unelected judges to define marriage is as opposed to “the people,” aren’t you outraged at Loving v. VA, too? 1:25 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Sad day 4u ‏@Lib3ral_Jedi04

@RepHartzler @NOMupdate You misspelled “bigoted”. #HateFest2014 1:27 PM – 26 Sep 2014

LogCabinGOP – WI ‏@LCRWI

@RepHartzler @NOMupdate: How so, other than to exclude same-sex families for no reason? There’s nothing sound about discrimination. #wrong 2:29 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Abe Tessio ‏@ATessio

@RepHartzler Why? 2:32 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Elephant We Ignore® ‏@ElephantWeIgnor

@RepHartzler @NOMupdate: Showing what a #Dixiecrat Republican looks like with this rights denials. Equality is best policy. #ReclaimOurParty 2:36 PM – 26 Sep 2014

Just think what people will think and say about all of this fifty years from now.

From Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D):

June 26, 2014

AG Koster issues statement on St. Louis same-sex marriages

Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster today issued the following statement related to the St. Louis Recorder of Deeds issuing marriage licenses to several same-sex couples:

“While I personally support the goal of marriage equality, my duty as Attorney General is to defend the laws of the state of Missouri. While many people in Missouri have changed their minds regarding marriage equality, Missourians have yet to change their constitution.

“Cases currently pending in Jefferson City and Kansas City regarding the constitutionality of Missouri’s ban against same-sex marriage will be decided in the coming months. Regardless of my personal support for marriage equality, such vital questions cannot be decided by local county officials acting in contravention of state law.

“Therefore, I have asked the St. Louis Circuit Court to prevent the St. Louis City Recorder of Deeds from issuing such marriage licenses until this matter can be resolved by our state’s judiciary. This question will likely be fully answered by our Missouri courts within the next 12-18 months.”

[emphasis added]

Some people didn’t read the whole thing.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) is besides herself with joy, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

I applaud MO AG Chris Koster for standing up for the people of MO & our Constitution re: marriage. Politicians can’t circumvent laws. 8:38 AM – 27 Jun 2014

Uh, those individuals will probably have standing to take this to court and hasten the demise of your artifact of bigotry infesting the Missouri Constitution.

Pennsylvania’s law banning same sex marriage and recognition of same sex marriages from other states was declared unconstitutional today.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEB WHITEWOOD, et al.,Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL WOLF, in his official

capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania

Department of Health, et al., Defendants.

1:13-cv-1861

Hon. John E. Jones III

….we hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.

The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection….

….Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.

We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history….

[emphasis in original]

Missouri’s ban is not long for this world.

PBS NewsHour had Missouri’s Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) on this evening to talk about the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. Her opposite number, the counterpoint to her rather dull point, was New York’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, who has distinguished himself by going after bad actors in the world of big finance. Given the brevity of the interview and its formal nature, both of which militate against real argument, it’s not fair to say that Schneiderman routed Hartzler – there’s an audience that sucks up the standard rightwing lines that she seems to have memorized. But Schneiderman did an excellent job pointing out that there’s no room to dither on questions of essential human rights. There’s  a transcript and video here if you’re interested. I include a few highlights (Schneiderman) and lowlights (Hartzler) below:

Hartzler seems to think we must act like bigots for the sake of the children: “it makes sense for children that we have and uphold marriage as between one man and one woman. It’s for the best for them, and we should be able to uphold that ideal for them.” While Hartzler smiled obliviously and blinked compulsively, Schneiderman neatly parried:

The only children that are being hurt by states that discriminate against marriage equality are the kids being raised by gay couples. There’s no harm to our families, straight families who have kids or want to be married or get divorced from authorizing and empowering same-sex couples.

Hartzler repeated a common accusation over the past two days: the Supreme Court’s ruling is anti-democratic because it voided California’s Prop 8. Here Schneiderman implicitly let the full weight of his contempt fall on poor Hartzler when he pointed out the obvious:

… there is a reason we have a Constitution in this country. There is a reason that there are some laws you just can’t pass. You can’t pass a law saying black people aren’t equal to white people or women aren’t equal to men.  […] . You can’t pass a law that discriminates against gay couples and gay people from — and that’s just in keeping with our American tradition. And I think, in 20 or 30 years, people will look back on this as we now look back on Loving v. Virginia and the days of prohibition of interracial marriages and say, what were they thinking?

The funniest thing that Hartzler said, however, was that the reason for DOMA was to avoid administering federal laws while navigating a patchwork of differing laws across the states:

Well, I think it speaks to why they passed that initially, that marriage at the federal level is between one man and one woman, because there’s over 1,000 different federal laws that have to do with marriage.

And so it was for a very practical reason. It wasn’t for — against — animus against anyone, as if [sic] Justice Kennedy portrayed. It was because of a very practical reason.

She’s essentially saying here that the federal government decided to enshrine bigotry in law because folks dedicated to a similar sort of bigotry have commandeered lots of statehouses and passed some nasty laws and to do differently would make life complicated for federal officials. Didn’t somebody once say that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Vicky Hartzler.  

From the executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention:

Response to the Landmark Supreme Court decisions

Decisions June 26 by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding California’s Proposition 8 and a key provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) do not sound the death knell for the marriage debate, according to John Yeats, executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention….

“The Court’s decisions do not surprise us, but they disappoint us for at least two reasons,” said Yeats. “First, the branches of our federal government continue to chisel away states’ rights to carry out the will of their people. Second, and more disturbing, they reflect the fact that a growing number of Americans increasingly embrace behaviors that violate natural law and biblical truth. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to uphold marriage and return authority for marriage policy to citizens and their elected officials but chose instead to legislate from the bench.”

Even so, the marriage debate continues, said Yeats. Instead of casting rocks at the Court or bemoaning the advances of the gay agenda, Christians should stand on Scripture and search their own souls. One reason Christians seem to be losing the debate is because our lives don’t show evidence that morality truly makes a difference.

“Our divorce rates, sexual immorality, and other worldly pursuits mirror those of society in general,” he said. “Our words about God’s power to transform lives ring hollow because too often our actions show we don’t really believe it. Our example should always be Jesus. He showed the deepest compassion for the greatest sinners, yet He never compromised on the truth of human sinfulness and the need for God’s forgiveness….”

Previously:

Ding, dong, DOMA’s dead (June 26, 2013)

Last plaintiff without standing (June 26, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): but, but, the Supreme Court ignored all the children (June 26, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): forget the children, it’s all about states’ rights (June 26, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): “Now that Michele Bachmann is leaving it’s my turn…” (June 26, 2013)

Previously:

Ding, dong, DOMA’s dead (June 26, 2013)

Last plaintiff without standing (June 26, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): but, but, the Supreme Court ignored all the children (June 26, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): forget the children, it’s all about states’ rights (June 26, 2013)

Via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

VIDEO: Led press conference on #SCOTUS #DOMA decision today. [….] 11:40 AM – 26 Jun 13

And there was one reply:

RJ Equality Ingram ‏@RJEquality

@RepHartzler Your opposition to equality & love will forever be recorded as a mistake in the congressional record, Congresswoman. 11:43 AM – 26 Jun 13

The video:

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Good morning, everyone. We’re here today to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. We believe the court got it wrong on these rulings. The court’s activist ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act ignored the votes of a bipartisan majority of Congress. This is a dangerous precedent which strips power away from Congress with respect to defining national marriage policy. We must work to defend the rights of Americans to make marriage policy. Additionally, the Proposition 8 ruling is a loss for the millions of Americans who have gone to the ballot box to voice their support for marriage between one man and one woman. California’s governor and attorney general who refused to defend the people’s wishes abandoned the people of California is a loss for democratic self government [sic]. With the Supreme Court denying them standing they have left the people voiceless. While California silenced the voices of their citizens the Supreme Court has not created a constitutional right to same sex marriage. Thirty-eight states have affirmed the belief of their citizens that marriage exists between a man and a woman and is a necessary building block of stable society. The debate over marriage will continue with the states leading the way. We must work to defend the rights of Americans to make [garbled] policy. We should work to promote the truth of marriage between a man and a woman. It is wise policy to uphold the reality that every child deserves a mom and a dad and society as a whole benefits when they do….

“…Thirty-eight states have affirmed the belief of their citizens that marriage exists between a man and a woman and is a necessary building block of stable society…”

That horse left the barn a long time ago:

Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married – A Record Low

….In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years. Other adult living arrangements-including cohabitation, single-person households and single parenthood-have all grown more prevalent in recent decades….

….The United States is by no means the only nation where marriage has been losing “market share” for the past half century. The same trend has taken hold in most other advanced post-industrial societies, and these long-term declines appear to be largely unrelated to the business cycle. The declines have persisted through good economic times and bad….

Damn. We’re all going to hell in a handbasket.

“…We should work to promote the truth of marriage between a man and a woman. It is wise policy to uphold the reality that every child deserves a mom and a dad and society as a whole benefits when they do…”

Again:

….We’re looking forward to Representative Hartzler (r) starting the process for constitutional amendments banning divorce and enforcing shotgun weddings….

We’ll be waiting with bated breath.