JEFFERSON CITY— On Monday, Senate leaders called on Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster to abide by the will of the people as expressed in the state constitution and defend their decision to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. 

Last week, a circuit court judge from Kansas City ruled that Missouri must recognize same-sex marriages from other states and countries, a ruling which clearly conflicts with a constitutional amendment adopted by Missouri voters.

In 2004, by more than a 70 percent margin, voters approved a change to the Missouri Constitution, stating that “to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

“This ruling by one local judge stands in direct contradiction to our constitution which was approved by a statewide vote,” said Senate Leader Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles. “The Attorney General is a clever lawyer and knows full-well that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ he cites as a justification not to perform the clear duty of his office does not apply when the law of one state flatly contradicts the public policy of a sister state. He is simply hiding behind thin legal justifications as he seeks to undermine the will of Missouri voters.”  

Also, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that there are several rational bases for defining marriage in traditional terms. In a 2006 case, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the 8th Circuit ruled unequivocally that states do not violate the Equal Protection Clause when they define marriage as being between a man and women.

“Each state has the authority to establish laws governing the institution of marriage,” said Majority Floor Leader Ron Richard, R-Joplin. “Missouri voters spoke loud and clear in 2004 by passing the constitutional amendment. This issue should now be brought to the Missouri Supreme Court for their review of the lower court’s decision. To do that, we will need the support of our Attorney General, Chris Koster.”

“I urge the Attorney General Chris Koster to do his duty as the state’s lawyer and defend the law the voters enshrined in our constitution. If he wants to substitute his own opinions in place of the clear will of the people, perhaps he should make his views a plank in his campaign for governor. However, at present he is still the Attorney General of our great state and as such has a duty to defend the law as actually written, not as he wishes it were written,” said Dempsey.