The law is still on the books, but five years ago it was ruled not to apply to consensual sex. Since then, of course, Lawrence vs. Texas has definitively invalidated it.
Except that I think opposition was bipartisan. After all, the vote coincided with hotly-contested Democratic primaries (most notably the race for governor, in which Holden became the first sitting Missouri governor in history to lose his party's primary) and registered Dems outnumbered Reps at the polls. Proponents of the amendment spent almost no money on the campaign, prompting the Post-Dispatch to say that "values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box". ('Cause, you know, we fags have no values, all we have are deep pockets, the better with which to finance our rampant hedonism and corruption of society.)
The one bright spot is that turnout was 41.3%. However, these voters were more than 2 to 1 in favour of defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". In order for a solid majority to be in favour of same-sex marriage, almost every single person who didn't show up would have to support it. How likely is that?
No, I think there's no way of spinning this which denies the fact that most Missourians are not pro-gay--or even gay-neutral. That's why I've come more and more to rely on the courts to protect my rights instead of throwing them to the tender mercies of the tyranny of the majority.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 10:05 am (UTC)Except that I think opposition was bipartisan. After all, the vote coincided with hotly-contested Democratic primaries (most notably the race for governor, in which Holden became the first sitting Missouri governor in history to lose his party's primary) and registered Dems outnumbered Reps at the polls. Proponents of the amendment spent almost no money on the campaign, prompting the Post-Dispatch to say that "values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box". ('Cause, you know, we fags have no values, all we have are deep pockets, the better with which to finance our rampant hedonism and corruption of society.)
The one bright spot is that turnout was 41.3%. However, these voters were more than 2 to 1 in favour of defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". In order for a solid majority to be in favour of same-sex marriage, almost every single person who didn't show up would have to support it. How likely is that?
No, I think there's no way of spinning this which denies the fact that most Missourians are not pro-gay--or even gay-neutral. That's why I've come more and more to rely on the courts to protect my rights instead of throwing them to the tender mercies of the tyranny of the majority.