Same-sex marriage licenses to be issued in Barry County
July 1, 2015
Charlea Mills
After a historic decision by the United States Supreme Court to lift state bans on same-sex marriage in a 5-4 decision on Friday morning, it may be three weeks before the Barry County recorder’s office will offer the licenses locally.
According to Barry County Recorder of Deeds Craig Williams, licenses will be offered beginning July 21. Williams said, “It is 25 days after the decision. This should allow for our computer software to be updated.”
Barry County is one of around 30 rural counties in the state that have software that has spaces for “husband” and “wife” in their system. Those software issues will be resolved across the state so that the two parties on the licenses are not sex-dependent. Other rural counties anticipate having the issue resolved faster than Barry County.
While the effects of a ruling must be implemented 25 days following a ruling, recorders can issue licenses before that if they choose. According to Jan Jones, the president of the Recorders Association of Missouri, “The sum and substance of the ruling makes clear the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution requires a State to license marriage between two people of the same sex.”
She added, “It is also important to point out there is no restriction with regarding to implementing the ruling before 25 days.”
Missouri was one of 13 remaining states that still had a same-sex marriage ban in place. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, all 50 states are constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses and recognize same-sex marriages under the new Fourteenth Amendment.
Locally, State Senator David Sater (R-Cassville), said, “I am very disappointed in the decision. The Supreme Court has once again gone outside of their function, which is to apply rulings based on the constitution and not to legislate. Marriage has only been between a man and woman for thousands of years. For a few lawyers to even consider making this decision is ridiculous.”
State Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said, “In 2004, 71 percent of Missouri voters overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Every single county except the city of St. Louis voted for traditional marriage. By redefining the institution of marriage nationwide, the unelected Supreme Court has decided that Americans, and Missourians, are no longer allowed to government themselves. Not once does the U.S. Constitution reference marriage; its recognition and definition is a right reserved to the states under the 10th amendment.
“Today’s ruling is an alarming demonstration by the Supreme Court of their willingness to ignore the confines of the constitution when making their rulings, and further emphasizes the importance of electing presidents who will fill seats on the Supreme Court with individuals who are committed to ruling based on the words in the Constitution rather than their personal preferences.”
Sater and Fitzpatrick both raised concerns about how this would impact local churches and merchants. Sater said, “This could open up an array of problems with retail shops, government office holders, religious institutions, the clergy and religious consciousness. I believe these problems apply both locally and statewide. This ruling could have the potential of placing churches and clergy in a difficult position and I am planning on addressing this particular issue with legislation protecting our clergy and churches if they refuse to hold marriage ceremonies.”
Fitzpatrick said, “My goal at this point is to ensure that our pastors and churches remain protected from being forced to accommodate wedding ceremonies that violate their faith. I intend to file a bill to that end for the next legislative session.”
Regardless of local concerns over religious exemptions, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that same-sex marriage be recognized and allowed by government entities. Other issues facing the LGBTQ community regarding protection against discrimination will be dealt with locally, or federally, in other rulings.
In the official ruling of the Supreme Court, it states, “The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect – and need – for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.”
In the Opinion of the Court of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
In closing, Justice Kennedy stated, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.”
Charlea Mills
After a historic decision by the United States Supreme Court to lift state bans on same-sex marriage in a 5-4 decision on Friday morning, it may be three weeks before the Barry County recorder’s office will offer the licenses locally.
According to Barry County Recorder of Deeds Craig Williams, licenses will be offered beginning July 21. Williams said, “It is 25 days after the decision. This should allow for our computer software to be updated.”
Barry County is one of around 30 rural counties in the state that have software that has spaces for “husband” and “wife” in their system. Those software issues will be resolved across the state so that the two parties on the licenses are not sex-dependent. Other rural counties anticipate having the issue resolved faster than Barry County.
While the effects of a ruling must be implemented 25 days following a ruling, recorders can issue licenses before that if they choose. According to Jan Jones, the president of the Recorders Association of Missouri, “The sum and substance of the ruling makes clear the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution requires a State to license marriage between two people of the same sex.”
She added, “It is also important to point out there is no restriction with regarding to implementing the ruling before 25 days.”
Missouri was one of 13 remaining states that still had a same-sex marriage ban in place. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, all 50 states are constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses and recognize same-sex marriages under the new Fourteenth Amendment.
Locally, State Senator David Sater (R-Cassville), said, “I am very disappointed in the decision. The Supreme Court has once again gone outside of their function, which is to apply rulings based on the constitution and not to legislate. Marriage has only been between a man and woman for thousands of years. For a few lawyers to even consider making this decision is ridiculous.”
State Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said, “In 2004, 71 percent of Missouri voters overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Every single county except the city of St. Louis voted for traditional marriage. By redefining the institution of marriage nationwide, the unelected Supreme Court has decided that Americans, and Missourians, are no longer allowed to government themselves. Not once does the U.S. Constitution reference marriage; its recognition and definition is a right reserved to the states under the 10th amendment.
“Today’s ruling is an alarming demonstration by the Supreme Court of their willingness to ignore the confines of the constitution when making their rulings, and further emphasizes the importance of electing presidents who will fill seats on the Supreme Court with individuals who are committed to ruling based on the words in the Constitution rather than their personal preferences.”
Sater and Fitzpatrick both raised concerns about how this would impact local churches and merchants. Sater said, “This could open up an array of problems with retail shops, government office holders, religious institutions, the clergy and religious consciousness. I believe these problems apply both locally and statewide. This ruling could have the potential of placing churches and clergy in a difficult position and I am planning on addressing this particular issue with legislation protecting our clergy and churches if they refuse to hold marriage ceremonies.”
Fitzpatrick said, “My goal at this point is to ensure that our pastors and churches remain protected from being forced to accommodate wedding ceremonies that violate their faith. I intend to file a bill to that end for the next legislative session.”
Regardless of local concerns over religious exemptions, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that same-sex marriage be recognized and allowed by government entities. Other issues facing the LGBTQ community regarding protection against discrimination will be dealt with locally, or federally, in other rulings.
In the official ruling of the Supreme Court, it states, “The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect – and need – for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.”
In the Opinion of the Court of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
In closing, Justice Kennedy stated, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.”