This, from the dreadful Springfield News-Leader.

House OKs version of gay-marriage ban
The legislation also would ban civil unions if given final approval and an OK by voters.
By James Goodwin
News-Leader Staff

Jefferson City — Missouri voters are one step closer to deciding whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman.
The House gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a resolution that would place the proposed amendment on the November ballot, unless the governor called a special election sooner.

"The institution of marriage was not created by government," said Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis, "and it should not be redefined by government."

The resolution, and a companion resolution in the senate, are Missouri legislators' response to a recent Massachusetts high court decision that said banning gay marriages violates that state's constitution.

Some Missouri legislators are seeking to head off similar court rulings here with the proposed amendment.

Representatives voted 128-20 to approve the format of the resolution. They gave it preliminary approval on a voice vote. The resolution needs another affirmative vote in the House to move to the Senate.

Aside from defining marriage, the proposed amendment would also prevent recognition of civil unions, wherever they were established.

A similar resolution passed the Senate earlier this month, but that version made no mention of unions other than marriage.

Rep. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, the lead sponsor of the House version, said Wednesday that he didn't intend to deal with the issue of civil unions.

But Rep. Vicky Riback Wilson, D-Columbia, said an amendment that was eventually approved would have the effect of prohibiting recognition of civil unions. Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, offered the amendment.

"It says, 'a relationship of any union other than a union of one man and one woman,'" said Wilson.

The Senate version, which a House committee will hear next month, would ask voters whether to add the following language to the constitution: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Engler's version, in part, reads: "Civil marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. In this state no effect shall be given to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state ... respecting a relationship of any union other than a union of one man and one woman ..."

Any difference between the resolutions would have to be worked out before a final version was forwarded to voters. Unlike General Assembly bills, resolutions skip the governor's desk.

People on both sides of the issue believe some version will make it to the state ballot.

"A constitution should be there to validate rights, not to discriminate against certain people. And that's what I feel the amendment would do," said Springfield resident Randy Doennig, a member of PROMO, a gay-rights group.

But, he said during a telephone interview, "The gay community in Springfield is organized, and we're ready to take up the fight."

Rep. Mark Wright, R-Springfield, is among the amendment supporters. He said during floor debate Wednesday that he doesn't understand how the proposed amendment can take away something that gay couples never had.

"If our Founding Fathers had at any time thought that it was possible that marriages (might) take place between same-sex couples, you don't think for one minute they would have clarified it in the U.S. Constitution or our state constitution?" he said. "You better believe they would have."

Missouri law already recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman. Supporters of the constitutional amendment say it's necessary to prevent courts from recognizing gay marriage in the state.

They cite the recent Massachusetts decisions that opened the door for same-sex marriage ceremonies to begin there in May.

The Massachusetts legislature gave preliminary approval Monday to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but establish civil unions. Voters will have the final say.

Thirty-eight states currently have so-called Defense of Marriage Acts on their law books. Four have added similar language to their constitutions.


http://www.news-leader.com/today/0401-HouseOKsve-52782.html

I'll have more to say on this tomorrow.