Homosexual 'Marriage' -- From Missouri to Australia, It's on the Front Burner

by Rusty Pugh, Jody Brown, and Fred Jackson
May 27, 2004

(AgapePress) - A Missouri pro-family leader says the state's Democratic governor opposes a ban on same-sex "marriage" and would prefer an election on a constitutional amendment to that effect be held in August -- when it will have less chance of passage.

The Missouri State Court of Appeals has ruled that Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt does not have to set an August date for an election to decide if the state will have a ban on homosexual marriage. The ruling was a response to Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon's request to have the election held in August.

If the referendum on a constitutional amendment limiting marriage in Missouri to a man and a woman were held in November, it could be a boost to the Republican Party because it would likely attract a large number of conservative voters.

R. L. Beasley, state director of the American Family Association of Missouri, explains why Governor Bob Holden and his attorney general do not want same-sex marriage prohibited in the Show Me State.

"The governor and the attorney general -- they're both Democrats -- don't tell you much [about it] publicly, but they get a lot of money from the homosexuals," Beasely asserts. "They want [voters to address the constitutional amendment] in August because of the turnout issue. They think that they might blow it away that way."

The traditional-values advocate says it is absolutely essential that the ban on homosexual marriage passes. The deadline has already passed for a special election on the amendment in August and, according to Beasley, constitutional amendments automatically are placed on the November ballot unless the governor calls a special election.

Nixon has appealed the appeals court ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court, which is expected to render a decision after hearings next week. In the meantime, the high court has instructed Blunt to be prepared to place the resolution on the August ballot, should the court so order.

San Jose Lawsuit
Meanwhile, the mayor and city council of a major West Coast city have been sued for their decision to recognize homosexual marriages certified in other jurisdictions. The Pacific Justice Institute has joined with the Alliance Defense Fund and others in their petition for a court order directing the City of San Jose to immediately rescind the policy.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute says the citizens of San Jose have a right to hold their government officials accountable when they violate state law.

"Time and time again the people of California have overwhelmingly voiced their support for traditional marriage ... and the mayor [Ron Gonzalez] and city council [of San Jose] have no right to ignore the law in this manner," Dacus says. "It is a clear breach of public trust."

'G'day, Mate!' -- Aussies Have It Right
While both state and federal lawmakers in the U.S. debate the constitutionality, if not the morality, of same-sex marriages, the government of Australia is taking steps to ban them. The move by the Australian government may come as a bit of a surprise, given the fact the country has a reputation of having very liberal moral standards.

But that aside, the government of Prime Minister John Howard has introduced legislation that would ban homosexual marriage -- and he is also moving to bring in immigration rules to stop homosexual men and women from adopting foreign children.

Press reports say the amendments are all but certain to be enacted, given the fact that the opposition Labour Party is also supporting the measures. Prime Minister Howard has stated publicly that he believes marriage is for procreation.