JEFFERSON CITY - Same-sex marriage took center state in the General Assembly Tuesday, as the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between "a man and a woman."
The Senate initial approved the measure in a vote late Tuesday. The proposed amendment must gain final approval by the Senate before moving to the House for consideration. That vote could come as early as today.
The move came as President George Bush announced his support for a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage nationwide as between "one man and one woman," while the Missouri House of Representatives is also only days away from debating its own version of the Senate proposal.
As both sides gear up for a fight over what constitutes a family and who should have the right to marry, the Missouri legislature will face the choice of whether to amend the state's constitution to reflect the traditional definition of marriage. Missouri law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but supporters of a constitutional amendment say they want assurance the courts could not throw out the current statute -- as a Massachusettes court recently did with that state's law.
Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, said he in favor of amending both the state and federal constitutions.
"Marriage ought to be a union between a man and woman all over the United States," Nodler said.
Joplin area state representatives also said they did not think same-sex couples should be able to legally marry.
"While marriage has evolved over the years, it has never been other than for one man, one woman," said Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City. "Its current status has served humanity well."
But gay rights advocates say the measure amounts to discrimination against a minority already facing hardships, and that marriage needs to evolve to reflect the changing culture in Missouri and elsewhere.
Sen. Sarah Steelman, R-Rolla, who is proposing the amendment, found herself defending the measure during a contentious debate on the Senate floor.
"This is not discrimination based on gender," Steelman said during an exchange with Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis County.
"I think you need to ask the people who are going to feel it," Bray responded. "All this is doing is getting people to the polls to express their discrimination."
Senators also squared off over whether allowing same-sex marriages would open the door to other "alternatives," a concern raised by some senators and dismissed by others.
"If we allow same-sex marriages, how in the world can we say to the polygamists that what they're doing is wrong?" said Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Jackson County.
Bray told her colleagues she did not think plural marriages were likely to happen in Missouri.
"Most people who are in marriage know they can only deal with one person anyway," Bray said.
Steelman argued that "if we start redefining marriage, why would we stop?"
The debate, though intense, was not without its lighter moments. At one point, while Senators Bartle and Bray were strenuously arguing over the polygamy issue, veteran Sen. Harold Caskey, D-Butler, interrupted them.
"Would the Senator be interested in knowing that you don't have to be a polygamist to have one too many wives?" Caskey asked.
The chamber erupted in laughter.
But as the debate continued late into the night, it became clear that both sides had no intention of backing down -- each seeing its mission as "protecting families." Supporters of the amendment argued that with marriages already failing at record rates, the traditional American family was becoming an endangered species. Extending marriages to gay couples would further break down traditional values, and needed to be outlawed.
Opponents argued that promoting loving, stable relationships -- whether of two people of the opposite sex or the same sex -- should not pose a threat to traditional values, and in fact promoted them.
Several Democratic senators attempted to derail the bill by offering changes to Steelman's proposal. Both changes ultimately failed.
Caskey tried to add language to the proposed amendment that would have required "only adultery" to be the valid cause to file to divorce.
"You have two marriages today, and one is going to end in a dissolution of marriage," Caskey said. "It shouldn't be that way."
Sen. Ken Jacob, D-Columbia, attempted to include a ban on civil unions along with marriage.
"I don't know how you would address one without addressing the other," Jacob said, saying Missouri's silence on civil unions would "open the door for civil unions in Missouri."
Observers said both proposed changes were likely an attempt to drag out the debate to kill the legislation or include provisions that would make it unpassable.
But neither change gained approval, and the Senate held a vote late Tuesday to initially approve the ban on same-sex marriages.
If the proposed amendment receives final approval in the Senate, it will head to the House for consideration. If approved there, it will be placed on the ballot before Missouri voters in the upcoming election.