Gay Marriage in Missouri

[Alpha Wolf]

Somebody help me here. My sister lives in Missouri and she just told me that the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on the date that a gay marriage ban would be on the ballot for a general vote.

The Repugs in the state were arguing for the item to be on the November ballot and the Democrats were arguing for it to be on some other available election date in August. Apparently, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrats (Yeah! I think... which brings me to my question)

Question:

Why were we (at least Dems in Missouri) arguing for this to be voted on in August? I would think we would want as many people as possible voting on this issue, and certainly more people will be voting in November during the general election.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. The full article stated...

... because the gay marriage amendment would bring out the ultraconservatives in droves which then would vote for Bush while there in November.

[Alpha Wolf]

3. what full article?

do you have a link?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

5. Sorry, I've been jumping to Yahoo News and here....

.. my bad.

It's on the Yahoo site.

[Alpha Wolf]

6. thanks.

n/t.

[nickinSTL]

2. why?

As I understand it, Democrats want it in the August election, because it's expected to bring out all the right-wingers to vote. If that happens in November, Blunt and Bush could benefit greatly from the marriage amendment being on the ballot.

[Beatrix]

10. Isn't Missouri a red state though?

nt

[SaintLouisBlues]

15. Swing state...purple, if you will.

MO has gone for the winner for 100 years running, except once in the fifties.

[blm]

4. Because the GOP intended to use it to mobilize the base for November.

They tried to get the gay marriage issue on ballots in swing states like Missouri because they know the base isn't completely with them on Iraq.

[Alpha Wolf]

7. I don't understand the connection...

It's not like a person has to vote for Bush* just because they might vote against gay marriage. If their base is pissed off at shrubbie, they may write in Falwell or someone even if they are voting to ban gay marriage in the state.

Likewise, wouldn't the November date bring out more progressive voters too? Who would also being voting AGAINST Bush*?

[blm]

8. Tell that to the GOPers. It's THEIR plan.

The Dems just called them on it and stuck to the appropriate date.

[Alpha Wolf]

9. That's my question, though...

why is August the appropriate date?

[blm]

11. that was the earlier election determined as per other Missouri issues?

Isn't that how it usually works?

[Alpha Wolf]

14. As I understand it...

and I may be wrong, there are no other issues scheduled for the August date.

[blm]

17. Well, that August date was determined for SOMETHING.

The Dems can't manipulate situations like this for just one issue. They haven't the same level of avarice or manipulation of power of the GOP.

[Terran]

16. Because the August date is the Missouri Primary

It's only "appropriate" because our Dem Governor set that as the election date for this item to be voted on, BECAUSE, fewer people overall come out and vote in primaries. The repugs were counting on it being voted on in the General Election in November because the controversial issue will bring out more repugs who would also then vote for the little twit they have running for Governor, as well as Bush. Make sense? It's a smart ploy, but the law was on the Governor's side, not the Sec State (who by the way IS that self-same little twit).

[Alpha Wolf]

19. Setting the election date

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the Secretary of State is the one who set the agenda for election dates-- at least in Missouri. It may be different in other states.

[Terran]

20. Correct, but

the Missouri Governor is specifically given the power to set election dates for votes on amendments to the Constitution. That's what set this apart from an ordinary election issue. Otherwise, the Sec State does control just about everyhting having to do with elections.

[damnraddem]

13. But they failed in KS.

And that COULD matter particularly in some Congressional races.

[damnraddem]

12. The RW puts 'social issues' like this on the ballot to bring out the ...

yahoos. They'd love to bring them out for the general election. By setting this ballot at the time of the primaries, the yahoos who are brought out to support it will likely vote in the Republican primary, but many may not turn out to vote for Republicans over Democrats in November.

[Gogi]

18. The issue is'nt bringing out the vote for Bush.

The issue is bringing out the Repug vote for Roy Blunt's pride and joy Secretary of State Matt Blunt who has a lackluster record. If it were'nt for name recognition he probably would'nt have become secretary of state in the first place. He only served two years in the MO House and all the other challengers, Reublican and Democrat, have deeper resumes.