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)

A statement released today by Representative Ann Wagner (r) in reference to today’s two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8:

Wagner Statement on Supreme Court’s Ruling on DOMA and Prop 8

Jun 26, 2013

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO) released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8:

“I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage and believe that it should be up to states’ to determine the definition of marriage.  The people of Missouri have spoken and over 70% of Missourians’ decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman.  I will always support states’ rights and the people of Missouri have made their decision.”

I wonder if she’ll join Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in sponsoring those constitutional amendments banning divorce and enforcing shotgun weddings. Nah. States’ rights.  

Today the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, punted on California’s Proposition 8 which repealed gay marriage in that state:

HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL. [pdf]

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-144. Argued March 26, 2013-Decided June 26, 2013

….We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

This ruling effectively restores gay marriage in California, the Supreme Court ruling that the people who brought the case to overturn the overturning (think about that for a second) do not have standing to bring the case to the court.

In 2004:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri Primary Election

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Friday, September 03, 2004

Constitutional Amendment 2  

Marriage Definition

Yes 1,055,771 70.6%

No 439,529 29.4%

Total Votes   1,495,300

Remember, it was a primary and turnout was nowhere near that of a general election. It did result in this:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 33

Marriage, validity and recognition.

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

(Adopted August 3, 2004)

Public Policy Polling (PPP) released additional results [pdf] of a survey of 602 Missouri voters interviewed from May 24th to May 27th. The margin of error for the poll is 4.0%.

Q2 Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?

Legal 36%

Illegal 52%

Not sure 12%

Q3 Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry 31%

Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry 32%

There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship 33%

Not sure 4%

Civil unions or same sex marriage are at 63% in the poll.

The next question should have been: “Should the state should dictate any religious denomination’s recognition of marriage between consenting adults?” I bet the results would have been really interesting.

Civil union or marriage, what would be the difference, a choice of words?

Eight years. Think of the possibility of continuing change over the next few years.

From the bustee:

….[Rush] Limbaugh said that not very long ago, marriage meant one man and one woman, “like two plus two equals four.” And then “some people came along” who weren’t happy with that, and now those like Limbaugh have to defend traditional institutions…..

From the campaign of a republican candidate for Attorney General:

“Ed Martin believes marriage should be between one man and one woman….”

Via Twitter, from a republican candidate for U.S. Senate:

Sarah Steelman ‏ @sarah_steelman

Obama supports same sex marriage.I don’t support.Sponsored bill for marriage define as 1 man and 1 woman. #mosen #tcot [….] 3:42 PM – 9 May 12

We must defend our sacred traditions at all costs. Oh, wait…

A headline from almost two years ago: Elton John Sings at Rush Limbaugh’s 4th Wedding

…and it’s looking that way for more people.

Via Eli Yokley at PoliticMo:

…Speaking to PoliticMo Monday, Hartzler clarified, saying she said – or meant to say – 13 year old, not three year old.

“I was saying that if you change the standard in the country to having marriage be, which is what they want, that just anybody that has a loving and committed relationship, then you set yourself on a slippery slope legally in courts to having other people come forward with similar arguments that would be objectionable to almost everyone,” she said. “So, that’s another reason why it makes sense to just keep the traditional definition of a man and a woman and that it’s my main point there is that it’s wise public policy.

“So, obviously those comments are just being misconstrued by those,” she said….

Representative Hartzler (r) addresses the “three year old driving a car” portion of her remarks but conveniently forgets the parts citing incest and pedophilia.

Uh, this is not “misconstrued”:

“…Why not allow a fifty year old man to marry a twelve year old, uh, girl if they love each other and they’re committed?…”

And, as we pointed out on Sunday:

….Uh, because, unlike two gay adults, a twelve year old girl is not an adult and is not capable legally or developmentally of making that decision.

Apparently you don’t need to make sense to be elected a republican member of Congress. But, we knew that already….

The republican cult of the victim rears its head again. Right wingnuts open their mouths, tell others in a public forum what they really believe, this prompts derision from others, the republican complains “that’s not what I meant”, attempts damage control and ignores the really outrageous statement, then blames it on “those”, whoever they are.

Previously:

Are teh gay really so icky, Vicky? (March 24, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) on DADT: it’s all about the plumbing (April 1, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): teh gay are so icky (June 5, 2011)

People for the American Way – Right Wing Watch:  Hartzler: Gay Marriage Is Like Incest, Letting Three-Year Old Children Drive

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): …Some people say, why does it matter to you as a government official, if I care about somebody else, I’m committed, I should be able to marry. Well, think about it. That starts you down the road to open that licensure to basically meaning that the license would mean nothing. If you let everybody in, with that standard. Uh, for instance, you know, is, if, if you just care about somebody, have a committed relationship, uh, why not allow one man and two women or three women to marry? There are a lot of people in this country that, uh, support polygamy. What, why not, if they’re committed to each other why should you care? Uh, there are, why not allow group marriage. There are people out there who want that. I think it’s called polyamory. It’s got some big name, but, anyway, marriage, I understand [inaudible]. Well, is that the best policy? Why not allow an uncle to marry his niece? Why not allow a fifty year old man to marry a twelve year old, uh, girl if they love each other and they’re committed? So, pretty soon, if you don’t set parameters you don’t have any parameters at all. The license means nothing and marriage means nothing…

…It, it’s their right to marry whoever they want, but we’re saying marriage is between man and a woman. So, there’s, there’s a difference there. It’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes, either. It’s not a right of anybody of, of a three year old to be able to drive a car. You know, the government has set some parameters that they think is, is correct…

“…Why not allow a fifty year old man to marry a twelve year old, uh, girl if they love each other and they’re committed?…”

Uh, because, unlike two gay adults, a twelve year old girl is not an adult and is not capable legally or developmentally of making that decision.

Apparently you don’t need to make sense to be elected a republican member of Congress. But, we knew that already.

Previously:

Are teh gay really so icky, Vicky? (March 24, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) on DADT: it’s all about the plumbing (April 1, 2011)