Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation
Missouri

Mo. court rules against granting survivor benefits to deceased trooper’s partner

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Highway Patrol trooper’s same-sex partner who was seeking survivor benefits.

Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard was killed on Christmas Day in 2009 when he was struck by a vehicle while investigating a traffic accident on Interstate 44 in Eureka, outside of St. Louis. Missouri offers a payment to the surviving spouse of a Highway Patrol officer killed in the line of duty.

Kelly Glossip (left) and Dennis Engelhard

Kelly Glossip (left) and Dennis Engelhard

The statute governing survivor benefits defines marriage as between a man and woman. Missouri also has a prohibition on same-sex marriage in the state Constitution and in state law.

Engelhard’s partner, Kelly Glossip, did not receive the benefit. Glossip argued it violated the equal-protection clause of the state constitution.

The Supreme Court in a 5-2 ruling concluded Glossip is ineligible for survivor benefits because the two were not married – not because Glossip is gay.

“If Glossip and the patrolman had been of different sexes, Glossip would have still been denied benefits no matter how long or close their relationship had been,” the Supreme Court wrote. “The result cannot be any different here simply because Glossip and the patrolman were of the same sex. The statute discriminates solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation.”

The high court said Glossip could have challenged the prohibition on marrying in Missouri or that if the couple married in another state, Glossip could have challenged Missouri’s law preventing recognition of same-sex marriages for the purpose of benefits. The court said it was upholding the Legislature’s ability to award and deny survivor benefits based upon whether the claimant was married to the trooper when the official died.

Tony Rothert, an attorney who represented Glossip, said it is disrespectful for the state to treat the men as strangers and that Glossip is devastated by the court’s ruling. Glossip and Engelhard lived together since 1995.

“While we’re disappointed and disagree with the majority’s reasoning, we are hopeful that the people of Missouri will see how important it is to pass legislation to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gays,” said Rothert, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. “Limiting benefits to married couples while denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry is discrimination, plain and simple.”

Missouri Supreme Court Judges Richard B. Teitelman and George W. Draper III dissented from the high court’s majority ruling, which was not attributed to any particular judge. Teitelman wrote the statutes discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

“The plain meaning and intended application … is to specifically discriminate against gay men and lesbians by categorically denying them crucial state benefits when their partner dies in the line of duty,” Teitelman wrote. “This type of intentional, invidious and specifically targeted discrimination is fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.”

The state high court heard oral arguments in the case this past February and asked attorneys to submit additional written arguments following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down a federal law barring legally married same-sex couples from receiving benefits from the federal government.

The Missouri attorney general’s office defended the Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees’ Retirement System. A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment about Tuesday’s ruling.

The court’s ruling “will go down in history as a blemish,” said A.J. Bockelman, executive director of PROMO, a Missouri group that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.

© 2013, Associated Press, All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , ,

Filed under: Missouri

137 more reader comments:

  1. of course it would its missiouri they are still backwards in how they run things

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:56am
  2. disgraceful

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:56am
  3. Just plain wrong! Appeal to the US Supreme Court!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:57am
  4. The sad thing is, it wouldnt mater, because you have to be married in order to receive that benefit. and they were not LEGAL in that state..If they allowed it then anyone could get the benefit without being married..

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 4:24am
  5. It is wrong! There are a lot of Grinches in the world who don't care about anyobodies feelings. They should be alowd to marry like any other legal aged consenting adults...

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 10:50am
  6. APPEAL!!! DAMIT!!! APPEAL!!!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:57am
  7. Narrow minded bigots thinking the more children they have the closer to heaven they will be. #winning

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:57am
  8. We still have a long way to go. This is sad.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:57am
  9. so sad…

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:57am
  10. Steps backwards

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:58am
  11. Another state added to my list of never patronizing.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:58am
  12. ACLU WHERE ARE YOU? We always pronounced it Misery not Missouri.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:58am
  13. So sad.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:59am
  14. terrible

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:01am
  15. Sick n wrong

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:01am
  16. A$$holes!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:02am
  17. A disgrace…and yet another reason this nations LGBTQ community will never be totally equal until there is Federal legislation granting us the American citizen rights every American is entitled to.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:02am
  18. How about we vote to take benefits away from bigots and give them a taste of what discrimination feels like.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:03am
  19. It’s Missouri. So far in the dark.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:04am
  20. Did anyone read this all the way? They weren’t legally married. Not even in another state. THAT’S why there we no benefits awarded. Not because they were gay…

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:06am
  21. Of course they weren't married; Missouri won't let them marry and would not recognize it from anywhere else, either. DUH!

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:15am
  22. Yep. The sad truth is that it's another case of one statue that cannot be toppled without first fighting another. While some will view the idea that the same would apply to an unmarried straight couple is merely a ruse, the legality is they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in permitting the claim to that same couple. The fact they cannot be married or seen as married as-is because they're gay creates a mess but one that could be challenged and fought and very possibly won, especially with the momentum sweeping the country. As it stands...sadly, they were just another unmarried couple and probably not the first to be denied survivor's benefits because of it. I do prefer that marriage not be the defining factor, especially in an age in which many are choosing to not marry or alternative methods for being recognised as a legal couple, but that's the way the law stands. I don't think we can really be angry about bigotry here on the court's part, just saddened and infuriated for the surviving partner and these tragic circumstances.

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:26am
  23. disgusting

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:07am
  24. Wake up, Mo., the earth is not flat, or vanilla! IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:07am
  25. Hate.. hates everything, but SELF. Smh.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:08am
  26. And this is why I would never move back to my home state of MO

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:10am
  27. This is just wrong!

    Chica

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:10am
  28. SO SAD

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:12am
  29. Of course.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:12am
  30. As recently ss 2007, Ms. Mathes,even the socially ineot abd homophobic state of Florida granted benefits and survivor benefits to same sex couples,and same sex msrriage is forbidden in Florida by amendment to the state constitution,so lack of the benefit of marriage is s moot point.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:13am
  31. Booooo!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:13am
  32. Sorry for the typos,I’m on my phone and not paying enough attention,but it believe my point is clear.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:14am
  33. Very sad just sad

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:15am
  34. Courts can and do rule against

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:15am
  35. JERKS

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:18am
  36. So wrong!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:23am
  37. terrible feeling being a 2nd class citizen..feels aweful.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:23am
  38. Given Missouri’s anti-marriage amendment, the state Supreme Court didnt have much wiggle room here. The results should be different if the case is taken up to the federal level.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:23am
  39. in any state…a couple has to be married to receive survivor benefits. that is the law. To try to appeal to the courts to receive benefits in a state that has not recognized gay marriages and couples is kind running into a wall blindly on purpose. I am for equality and support the LGBT community but seriously need to educate yourself on your state laws.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:25am
  40. just wrong :-( so sad :-(

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:28am
  41. Assholes….

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:30am
  42. And we are surprised Missouri made this decision???

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:34am
  43. As if I wasn’t already embarrassed that I’m from here…

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:39am
  44. Educate the rednecks. I hope there is an appeal.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:47am
  45. Elizabeth Mathes…. if they were straight and could show they live together for ** number of years they would allow it… so it is bc they’re gay!!!… and it’s wrong!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:49am
  46. I hope he appeals the ruling.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:49am
  47. how sad and sooo wrong

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:49am
  48. Fuck Missouri!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:55am
  49. I know you shouldn’t wish ill on someone, but I hope it comes back to them 10 fold.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:56am
  50. Makes sense. They weren’t married. If they were, the court would have ruled differently.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:56am
  51. Except for the fact that state law prohibits them from getting married -- they didn't have that option. So it doesn't make sense -- it says, their relationship is not worthy.

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:01am
  52. how unfair!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:57am
  53. thats Misery for ya!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:04am
  54. Hate is hate. It’s not just in Missouri, it’s the leaders of of the GOP, and ignorant people. Ignorance is widespread in this country. I don’t mean education…I mean sole searching common sense and dignity of of your fellow human. People sit in their ivory towers and judge like they are better. It all makes me want to hurl.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:08am
  55. Fuck Missouri

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:11am
  56. @Thomas, you are a silly little queen, probably to busy fucking, to worry about a BF. Your type is not worthy. If is was legal in MO, they would have. You are one ugly gay man. I mean inside.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:12am
  57. this is wrong!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:14am
  58. My husband and I are married but in the Common Wealth of Virginia I would still be cheated out of his benefit if anything were to happen to him. They would steal it right out from under me even though I am his beneficiary! Times are changing, my heart goes out to this young man. Our God will judge them as they have judged us.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:19am
  59. @RonDan, that’s what I am talking about. Class.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:26am
  60. Bah.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:31am
  61. Shame!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:37am
  62. Sue the state. Sue the Human resources management as well! Drag everyone into court and make their life hell! This country is perfect only if your a straight white christian male!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:43am
  63. This is so sad!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:48am
  64. that’s fucked up!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:51am
  65. Appeal . Please appeal.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:57am
  66. this is disgusting

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:02am
  67. This Is Such A Big Disappointment :( Where Is Justice In This? Its Very Sickening That The Courts Would Say, The Couple Were Not Legally Married, When The State Of Missouri Has A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage & Wouldn’t Allow Them To Get Married In The “1st” Place. This Discrimination Should Have Been On The Forefront Of Their Decision & If It Was Justice Would Have Prevailed But Instead The Supreme Court Of Missouri Wants To Cling Onto Their Bigotry & Try To Keep Victory For Any Advancement For Marriage Equality In The Dark.. Smh.. Its Such Ashame :(

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:03am
  68. these attacks on the LGBT community has got to stop, equality for everyone

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:04am
  69. BOOOO! Missouri you suck elephant nuts.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:12am
  70. Missouri: The LGBT community will not stop the fight for equality. It will be achieved. It’s all a matter of waiting. States like yours didn’t want slavery to go away: it happened. They didn’t want women to have suffrage. It happened. And now, you don’t want LGBT people to have rights. It will happen. We can wait.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:15am
  71. The benefits we work for but can’t have because we are not allowed to have civil unions or marriage. This must change!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:32am
  72. Boo!!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:38am
  73. wrong, not fair

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:43am
  74. disgusting state of affairs. poor guy!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:49am
  75. Assholes!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:54am
  76. This looks like a classic example of violating 5th amendment rights. Given the long relationship, cohabitation, and other supporting documents, the partner is being deprived of property without due process of law, base on solely on the statute denying them the right to be legally married.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:57am
  77. … WTF!?! It’s-MO.!?!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:58am
  78. If you are going to do that, then give him all the tax money he has paid back. No rights=no taxes then. Missouri is another joke. Too bad the government there is uneducated.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 4:00am
  79. Missouri, go f..k yourself ..

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 4:56am
  80. NOT RIGHT!!!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 5:44am
  81. Terrible ruling. Appeal.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:03am
  82. So, he served the state of MO… They in turn wouldn’t let him marry his forever love and after getting killed in the line of duty they wouldn’t take care of his family like all the other family’s that lost a loved one in the line of duty. This last piece is the real kicker… They wouldn’t give this troopers family the benefits because he and his partner were not married…..all you can say is WOW!!! WTF???

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:17am
  83. They should have gotten married in a state that performs same sex marriages. Then the bigotry would have been more clearly defined.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:26am
  84. Shameful!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:31am
  85. That’s terrible

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 8:08am
  86. What logical or scientific argument can be made against a species who wishes to marry the same sex as them or the opposite sex? When looked on with Christianity completely removed from every aspects of our lives will we see that fear, bigotry and hatred will be almost completely washed away and humans will live their lives in peace and married to whom they wish.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 8:58am
  87. so wrong

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 9:45am
  88. What do you expect form a bunch of Republican Ultra Conservative,s ( Close Minded to the End.) That is why I am a Democrat to the very End.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 9:54am
  89. Because the Mo Court is an uncaring bigotted homophobic douche nozzle! :D

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 10:49am
  90. So till… the one day this legal tangle is untangled across America. No matter how unfortunate it’s just the way it is you see.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 11:37am
  91. That’s such bull. I can’t wait until we actually have equal rights. I feel like this country keeps regressing instead of progressing.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 11:51am
  92. Another place where the fight for equality needs to be stepped up a notch.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:06pm
  93. Dislike :(

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:36pm
  94. this is why we have been fighting for a long time; shame on you Missouri

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:41pm
  95. Christians with no heart, make me sick

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:41pm
  96. WELCOME TO AMERICA: this is very wrong…….Religion and State need to be much separated in America and in American Law…….These two men were a couple, as in, a married couple, whether or not they went into a formal wedding ceremony…….American Life has evolved and unfolded to a point in Freedom whereby it has become an everyday and natural event that two men live together because they love each other…….The Court, that is, the Supreme Court, needs to understand how America has evolved and grown (up) into a more accepting and a more comfortable society that nurtures all of its people. In my opinion, America needs to do what would be considered (fair) with these two men, that is, granting survivor benefits to the deceased trooper’s partner. WELCOME TO AMERICA…

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 12:43pm
  97. Hateful is as hateful does. No doubt those who made this unfeeling decision fancy themselves “Christian”. Whatever happened to “Love one Another”?

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:05pm
  98. We call this homophobic.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:38pm
  99. Sad

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:44pm
  100. Disgraceful.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 1:49pm
  101. No, I get it. It is wrong that they can’t get benefits. But they have no legs to stand on because they never married elsewhere or got a civil union. I think its tragic, because obviously they would have married in mo if there were op. Sex. But they never took steps towards legalizing their union anywhere so the court can’t give them benefits. When my friend loris long time relationship died she had to go through a big legal battle for benefits that she lost BC even though she was living with him four sixteen years they never married. She didn’t get crap.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:03pm
  102. i wonder when LGBT will stand for true equality by acknowledging the “T” in LGBT…

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:20pm
  103. United States of America, 2013.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:29pm
  104. Bad Form!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:30pm
  105. Disgusting.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:30pm
  106. So not fair smh

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:31pm
  107. Shameful. Again the haves are threatened by the perception that giving the have nots what is right will somehow take away what they have. Disgustingly typical.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:31pm
  108. Until the laws are changed, I am not surprised by this….

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:34pm
  109. I understand that they were not married and that even if he was the opposite gender, that he would still not get approved because they were NOT married…..I have to back that !

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:35pm
  110. My concern is: Would MO actually and in fact ruled in this same way had the couple been male and female? "Rules get bent" for some and not for others, which is corrupting our entire society.

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:47pm
  111. it's a catch-22. They were not married because the state does not allow them to marry. I can understand the ruling if the state allowed gay marriage and they chose not to marry. But to deny them marriage, and then say no survivor benefits because they're not married is not equal protection under the law!

    Replied on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:48pm
  112. nice…assholes

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:38pm
  113. Off to federal court? It’d help if they had been married in another state, as a prevented marriage is hard to prove.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:38pm
  114. They weren’t married. Im gay and completely understand that. The law is black and white. In the eyes of the court it would be the same as a live in gf or bf. This is not unfair. If they were actually married, that would be a different story.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:46pm
  115. not in MO for ss couples it isnt

    Replied on Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:16am
  116. I love the people who say…”I’m gay but I completely understand”….do you really….how about….”I’m retarded but I completely understand???”….CHANGE THE FCKING LAWS NOW…THAT IS THE POINT.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=663366593687527&set=a.656097001081153.1073741828.656090587748461&type=1&theater

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:55pm
  117. Just give it away where you want it to go before you are gone. Easiest and cheapest way to get it done.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:01pm
  118. That’s fucking bullshit

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:23pm
  119. Can’t wait for the Supreme Court Judges and their families to reap their previous rulings! I surely hope they all abide by them without complaint!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:33pm
  120. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/29/britney-spears-navy-scare-somali-pirates LETS USE BRITNEY TO RALLY EVERYONE WHO IS ASLEEP TO FIGHT AGAINST BIGOTRY SINCE MANY HAVE NOT FOUND THEIR WAY OUT OF CLUBS TO PROTEST????…NOW THERE IS RELEVANT A RELEVANT IDEA???

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:42pm
  121. Typical conservative logic.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:43pm
  122. OR how about being in a monogamous 20 yr relationship that breaks up and one ‘partner’ walks off with 95% of that couple’s assets… IF the homosexual couple had ‘the right to marry’ the assets would have been divided equally – just like heterosexual married couples do.
    And yeah, it happened to me.
    He had spent half his life with me and I had spent 1/3 my life with him. He was 23 just out of college and me 38 when we got together.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:48pm
  123. It should be unthinkable to think that a surviving life partner, who has been with their partner for nearly 20 years would be stripped of liberty, property, and possibly even life (health insurance benefits), without due process of law. If the survivor had been a woman and the trooper was a man, she would have been recognized as a Common Law wife, and would have been treated as a widow. Even with a domestic partnership, the surviving same sex common law spouse was stripped of their rights without equivalent due process.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:50pm
  124. damn

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:50pm
  125. In Missouri, my marriage would have been legally recognized until I transitioned. Then my wife would lose all of her legal rights as my spouse, without due process of law.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 3:52pm
  126. They need to join the 21st century!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 4:32pm
  127. Missouri is for IDIOTS!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 4:44pm
  128. Oh, it’s Missouri, now I get it. They don’t call it “Misery” for nothing.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 5:39pm
  129. he gave his life for the state and this is how he is repaid..F U Missouri you backwards ass bunch of rednecks..Thats why the RedSox are gonna beat you tonight..You deserve nothing

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:16pm
  130. to fuking right, why should straight people have the right to be married and gays not at the end of the day it is all just a big four letter word called LOVE!!!

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:21pm
  131. What an unfair thing. Mo is such a shitty state I hate it here.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:55pm
  132. Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:56pm
  133. What a shame for his partner. Missouri is such a racist and homophobic state.

    Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 10:55pm
  134. James Holloway you need help with your rage problem. Im marrying my long time gf in dc bc south Carolina doesn’t recognize it. They could have done the same thing and they would have had a legal leg to stand on. The law is the law and it moves slowly but you have to play by the rules.

    Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:46am
  135. It they could legally marry, there’d in no question. Stacked deck. Seek change!

    Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 1:01am
  136. i want a gay friend

    Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 8:38am
  137. The fact they couldn’t get married in MO is a moot point. They could have taken a short drive to Iowa to get married, but they choose not to. The fact they are gay is also irrelevant.

    On a side note, I wish they has been married in Iowa, as the case might have turned out in favor of same sex rights in MO.

    Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:43pm