Missouri Court Rules Against Trooper'...

Missouri Court Rules Against Trooper's Same-Sex Partner

There are 78 comments on the EDGE story from Oct 30, 2013, titled Missouri Court Rules Against Trooper's Same-Sex Partner. In it, EDGE reports that:

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Highway Patrol trooper's same-sex partner who was seeking survivor benefits.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Oct 30, 2013
This is why we fight.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#2 Oct 30, 2013
This is disgraceful. But thank God things are changing for the better for LGBT people.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Oct 30, 2013
They weren't married. It's not like the court had any choice but to rule against him.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4 Oct 30, 2013
What a shame. The trooper served the people and this is how he is rewarded.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#5 Oct 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
They weren't married. It's not like the court had any choice but to rule against him.
Oh, c'mon. That's like saying that it's okay to discriminate against black people because they're not white.

It's not like this couple could have got married had they wanted to--marriage equality was banned at both the state and federal levels.

I suspect we haven't seen the last of this case. At least I hope not.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#6 Oct 30, 2013
This may be in the news, but it is certainly not News. It is the same old thing with a different hat. These antigay legislators and judges, each playing their part in this nasty drama, have created a sort of circular logic that would have made Plato run to the deepest part of his Cave, bang his head against the stone wall until it bled and refuse to come out for the next decade.

Gay people need to understand these idiocies in the local state rules before accepting jobs such as this. It would likely behoove them, if they want to serve in law enforcement, or indeed ANY state position, to change states, moving to one that is more enlightened; there are several.

I feel particularly bad for this survivor and what he's been put through. I truly love the law, but as with all things we love, sometimes the Law is an ass (quoting, I think, Chas Dickens). Missouri adds itself to the list of states in which I will not live, nor visit. There are too many places I am welcome to stop by a place where I am not. When Missouri develops a heart and a functioning brain, then, and only then, will I say "Show Me."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Oct 30, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, c'mon. That's like saying that it's okay to discriminate against black people because they're not white.
It's not like this couple could have got married had they wanted to--marriage equality was banned at both the state and federal levels.
I suspect we haven't seen the last of this case. At least I hope not.
Actually they COULD have gotten married in another state.

Even though that marriage wouldn't be recognized in Missouri, it WOULD indicate the level of commitment the couple had to each other, and give then a credible equal protection argument.

That's how the couple in Ohio won the right to have their marriage recognized even though the state officially bans it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Oct 30, 2013
Sir Andrew wrote:
This may be in the news, but it is certainly not News. It is the same old thing with a different hat. These antigay legislators and judges, each playing their part in this nasty drama, have created a sort of circular logic that would have made Plato run to the deepest part of his Cave, bang his head against the stone wall until it bled and refuse to come out for the next decade.
Gay people need to understand these idiocies in the local state rules before accepting jobs such as this. It would likely behoove them, if they want to serve in law enforcement, or indeed ANY state position, to change states, moving to one that is more enlightened; there are several.
I feel particularly bad for this survivor and what he's been put through. I truly love the law, but as with all things we love, sometimes the Law is an ass (quoting, I think, Chas Dickens). Missouri adds itself to the list of states in which I will not live, nor visit. There are too many places I am welcome to stop by a place where I am not. When Missouri develops a heart and a functioning brain, then, and only then, will I say "Show Me."
Actually when handled properly cases like this can lead to winning marriage equality.

See the Ohio case where the couple won recognition of their legal marriage performed out of state.
Buford

United States

#9 Oct 30, 2013
Way to go Missouri!

Score one for the good guys!
Buford

United States

#10 Oct 30, 2013
I love it when decency and justice prevail!
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#11 Oct 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually when handled properly cases like this can lead to winning marriage equality.
See the Ohio case where the couple won recognition of their legal marriage performed out of state.
I agree. But someone has to suffer, and it's not the activists nor the lawyers.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Oct 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they COULD have gotten married in another state.
Even though that marriage wouldn't be recognized in Missouri, it WOULD indicate the level of commitment the couple had to each other, and give then a credible equal protection argument.
That's how the couple in Ohio won the right to have their marriage recognized even though the state officially bans it.
I agree. They should've married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Oct 30, 2013
On a positive note, the Hawaii Senate just passed their marriage equality bill by a vote of 20-4.

It moves to the House tomorrow where the same gnashing of teeth & claims of doom will flow from the anti-gays before finally being passed anyway.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Oct 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
On a positive note, the Hawaii Senate just passed their marriage equality bill by a vote of 20-4.
It moves to the House tomorrow where the same gnashing of teeth & claims of doom will flow from the anti-gays before finally being passed anyway.
I looked earlier and couldn't find any info on the senate vote. source ?
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#15 Oct 30, 2013
He's correct on the vote. On this, I'm the source.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#17 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they COULD have gotten married in another state.
Even though that marriage wouldn't be recognized in Missouri, it WOULD indicate the level of commitment the couple had to each other, and give then a credible equal protection argument.
That's how the couple in Ohio won the right to have their marriage recognized even though the state officially bans it.
It's illogical to say that a couple not going to another state to get married when their marriage wouldn't be recognized by any governing authority where they live demonstrates a lack of commitment on the part of that couple.

And this person died in 2009. Things were WAY different in 2009 than they are now. My guess is those two couples in Ohio would NOT have had their marriage honored on one partner's death certificate if had they died in 2009. The national gay panic was still in full swing back then. I can't imagine any judge back then ruling for those couples.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#18 Oct 31, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It's illogical to say that a couple not going to another state to get married when their marriage wouldn't be recognized by any governing authority where they live demonstrates a lack of commitment on the part of that couple.
And this person died in 2009. Things were WAY different in 2009 than they are now. My guess is those two couples in Ohio would NOT have had their marriage honored on one partner's death certificate if had they died in 2009. The national gay panic was still in full swing back then. I can't imagine any judge back then ruling for those couples.
But who is to say, if they had married in another state, that yesterday's ruling might have been quite different, and that they may have addressed Marriage Equality in their suit, had they been married in another Equality state? After all, this ruling is about 4 years after the death, and the final ruling may have been different, considering how things have changed. The world is full of "ifs", "ands", and "buts". We will never know how things MIGHT have come out. The only thing for us to do now is to pick up and move on with more vigor in this fight. The unfortunate thing is that the remaining spouse and the children must suffer, as usual, at the hand of the bigots.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Oct 31, 2013
One other point to add to my previous post. This incident should serve notice to all couples to marry as soon as possible in a Marriage Equality state. It may have no validity in Missouri, or other non-equality state, but it certainly does add another factor with which to sue when caught in the same web.
Claude

Richmond Hill, Canada

#20 Oct 31, 2013
Buford wrote:
Way to go Missouri!
Score one for the good guys!
Go Missouri go!!!

WOO HOO!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Oct 31, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It's illogical to say that a couple not going to another state to get married when their marriage wouldn't be recognized by any governing authority where they live demonstrates a lack of commitment on the part of that couple.
And this person died in 2009. Things were WAY different in 2009 than they are now. My guess is those two couples in Ohio would NOT have had their marriage honored on one partner's death certificate if had they died in 2009. The national gay panic was still in full swing back then. I can't imagine any judge back then ruling for those couples.
As another poster stated, being legally married in another state would have given them at least one leg to stand on, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 21 min Ted Haggard s Mas... 51
News Lynch to visit mosque amid spike in anti-Muslim... 1 hr Ted Haggard s Mas... 1
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,317
News The real gay agenda: not to change society but ... 1 hr Ted Haggard s Mas... 15
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr crucifiedguy 4,742
News 'Homosexuals aren't gay - they are just possess... 2 hr Dawson 32
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Brian_G 43,055
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 22 hr Truthsayer1 22,547
More from around the web