Update, 4/27: Senate Joint Resolution 39 failed to pass out of a House committee, ending its journey through the legislature. The vote was a 6-6 tie, with Republican Representatives Anne Zerr, Caleb Rowden, and Jim Hansen joining the committee’s three Democrats to vote no. Below is our original story.
Run for cover, fair-minded people. It’s about that time again for Missouri politics to descend into the Red Meat Zone. It’s an election year, and with it comes an imperative to “energize the base” of right-wing voters (mostly, but not exclusively, Republican).
This year’s carnivore menu features an uncommon treat: the opportunity to document by constitutional amendment Missouri’s collective rage at the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the land.
See also: Despite Record-Breaking Filibuster, Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill
If this rage sounds familiar, then you know your Red Meat Zone history, because just 12 years ago, in 2004, a measure to ban then-nonexistent same-sex marriages was successfully offered up to energize that year’s base. Amendment 2, stating simply, “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman,” passed with 71 percent of the vote.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has blown that up, Missouri gets a chance to be apoplectic for the second time about the notion that members of the LGBT community might enjoy the same right to make a lifetime marital commitment that straight people do. Or, as politicians like to call it, the End Times.
So meet Senate Joint Resolution 39, certain to morph into a constitutional amendment for voters to consider later this year. SJR 39 is a prototypical example of finding a bold solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. Specifically, it would head off by constitutional amendment an almost inconceivable doomsday scenario: that Christians will be forced against their will and faith to professionally participate in unholy same-sex marriages.
Before taking the bait to address this idiocy, let’s remember that this is just another in a long line of meaningless (albeit costly) ballot measures through which Missouri’s political far right is galvanized to thwart imaginary threats. These people are in a perpetual state of tilting at windmills.
In 2008, no fewer than 86 percent of Missourians established English as the state’s official language for governmental meetings where policy is discussed or decided. Gracias a Dios! If we hadn’t done that, no one could possibly understand what government was doing to us.
In 2010, 71 percent of voters approved a state statute essentially banning the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) from taking hold in Missouri. The measure was placed on the ballot by the state legislature with the same overwhelming majority that it could have used to do the job itself, but it made for nice symbolism to become the first state to vote against healthcare for its own citizens.
In 2012, 83 percent of voters amended the state constitution to guarantee the right of Missouri children to voluntarily pray and acknowledge God in schools. Although that voluntary right has never been at issue—as opposed to the imposition of mandatory state-sanctioned prayer in public schools—I’m sure that He appreciated the gesture.
In 2014, 75 percent of voters amended the constitution to add electronic communications and data to the prohibition on unreasonable searches. Again, it was a feel-good move that was as unassailable as it was irrelevant: Any such intrusion would come at the federal level and would be entirely unimpeded by Missouri law.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Every two years, whether it needs to or not, Missouri’s Republican Party leadership cuts and pastes the work of some far-right think tank and puts it on the statewide ballot to activate its electoral robots. In their defense, the state politicians cannot be accused of original thought in regard to this perpetual nonsense.
So here we are in 2016, and now it’s time to stand for the religious freedom of citizens so appalled by LGBT marriages, they could never lower themselves to provide wedding planning or flowers or cakes or tents or officiating or any of the other services that these ceremonies might entail. This is such a critical issue that mere legislation won’t suffice: Voters must amend the constitution to prevent such atrocities for all time.
It’s hard to know how to react to this strangeness. It does seem like one should address how cold-hearted it is to want to deny people’s happiness because of their sexuality. That ought to be said, although I’m sure some will take that sentiment as an attack on their faith.
As a practical matter, a law protecting the right of people to discriminate against LGBT weddings is quite unnecessary. Clergymen and churches are completely protected by the First Amendment. Also, any businessperson is at liberty to decline participation in such a wedding. The public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act do not protect LGBT citizens specifically. (They pertain to “race, color, religion, or national origin.”) No Missouri state law protects LGBT citizens in any way, other than hate crimes protections.
But I think the most compelling counterpoint to the proposed homophobia–by–constitutional amendment is this: Bigots need to stop flattering themselves. Guess what? Your straw man is a fake. No self-respecting member of the LGBT community would want you to participate in his or her wedding.
Think about it. For just about everyone who gets married, the wedding day represents one of the most important times in that person’s life. The ceremony and reception are of great importance and are the subject of much care and effort. In this context, gay and straight people are pretty much the same.
If you’re someone who hates gay people—or at least despises the notion that they should be allowed to marry—what makes you think they would want anything to do with you? Why would gay brides or grooms want the glorious day loused up by homophobic bigots? Guess what? If that’s how you look at the world, they don’t want you taking their picture. They don’t want your cake. And they certainly don’t want you marrying them.
So the entire premise of SJR 39 isn’t merely mean-spirited, and it isn’t merely unnecessary—it’s actually worse than that: It’s quite insulting and presumptuous. Just like homophobic men who are convinced that every gay man must by definition find them attractive (and want to prey on them and their children), so it is with professionals. They don’t need you, and they don’t want you.
I think this is important to remember, because too many politicians and right-wing media types are allowed to contort this nonstarter of an issue into a debate about religious liberty. They raise the specter of some poor wedding-related professionals being forced by jackbooted government thugs to participate in a sacrilege. But it is a hypothetical circumstance that’s almost certain not to exist. Ever.
There are, however, some real consequences if SJR 39 passes. Depending on its final form, it has the potential to expand the religious-conscience right to discriminate against LGBT citizens to areas such as adoption, education, and family services.
It could usurp local authority by overriding the handful of Missouri cities and counties that actually have LGBT anti-discrimination measures in place. (In our area, that would include St. Louis city and county, Clayton, Creve Coeur, Ferguson, Kirkwood, Maplewood, Olivette, Richmond Heights, and University City.)
But the consequence that might open the most eyes is economic. In March 2015, Indiana passed a religious freedom act similar to the one being advanced in Missouri. Even though it was amended a week later to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of factors that could not be cited as cause for denial of service, Indianapolis convention officials told Forbes the city lost more than $60 million in convention bookings as a result of the instant outrage on the part of major companies, sports leagues, performers, and the like.
Today, Missouri could become a national economic target for proclaiming homophobia as a right, especially because it could become the first state to glorify bigotry by writing it into its constitution. For St. Louis, that is especially dire: Compounding the devastating effect of Ferguson on the local economy is just a brilliant tourism and economic development strategy.
Don’t expect that to deter state legislators from participating in the biennial pastime of arousing the red meat base with ballot measures setting straw men (and women) on fire. It’s great sport and good politics for them. But it will be interesting to see whether Missourians can be convinced that homophobia isn’t worth hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to the state.
Then again, if Missouri lowers itself to use its constitution to make this hideous statement, it deserves what it gets. This might be the most expensive cut of red meat ever served.
