Talk:LGBTQ rights in Missouri

St. Louis marriages

St. Louis issued 4 marriage licenses to same sex couples yesterday as a way to force the issue legally with the state. If we added that to this article, how would we do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.136.153 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing case

There is a third case in the Missouri court system: Messer v. Nixon 192.91.235.243 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Added it. It could use some more info. TedErnst (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map

I recently added a same-sex marriage map broken up into counties because same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis (city) but removed it because @Dralwik: kept adding rogue county St. Louis County. Please discuss here. Prcc27 (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a St. Louis Public Radio article on the County's decision. Given the judge ruling on Missouri's ban and the state not seeking a stay of the ruling but rather a state-wide answer from the state Supreme Court, I feel like coloring the county dark blue is not out of line. After all, it's a similar situation to West Virginia issuing licenses based on the ruling in another state. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Wrong, the ruling that affects West Virginia was made by the Fourth Circuit and is binding in the entire circuit; it wasn't West Virginia issuing licenses that made it legal, it was the state issuing an executive order that made it legal. In Missouri, the AG said "the decision is binding on the parties before the court" meaning it's not legal in St. Louis County. The article you provided is interesting though, it notes that it's uncertain whether or not the ruling applies to St. Louis only or the entire state. If it applies to the entire state, then I would color Missouri dark blue on all the other maps. Maybe Missouri could be colored yellow on the main map for having its ban struck down but have a footnote saying that the ruling only ordered St. Louis (city) to issue licenses to same-sex couples. The state's same-sex marriage ban was struck down right? On the other hand, the ruling wasn't stayed so it wouldn't qualify as the yellow color. Maybe Missouri should be solid medium blue since now that the ban was struck down, there is no law for or against same-sex marriage (besides recognition) except for the part where the judge says St. Louis has to perform same-sex marriages. The footnote could say "A ruling struck down Missouri's same-sex marriage ban but only ordered St. Louis to issue licenses to same-sex couples." Basically, this ruling effectively struck down the entire ban statewide but only issued an injunction for one city right..? I will wait to hear what you think before bringing this up on the U.S. map talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe Missouri could be striped medium blue-dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For the main US map, I'd rather wait for the Missouri state Supreme Court to rule before changing the state-wide color; for now I'd leave the US/world maps alone, but given the uncertainly and lack of state opposition to recognition, color in the issuing counties on the U.S./state by county maps as they develop. I.e.: State-wide no change yet, county-by-county do update. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the map should distinguish between St. Louis issuing under court order and counties issuing under their on initiative (like the New Mexican map). Also, I think I might bring it up at the main U.S. map talk anyways. If St. Louis County was following a precedent like you said, Missouri should at least be down colored to light red. Furthermore, I've seen other sources that say that Missouri's ban was struck down. For example: [1]. Prcc27 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 We could certainly do two shades of blue; in the morning I'll finagle with the test SVG. Also, feel free to bring it up at the main US map; it's always a good idea to get more minds on this especially since Missouri is a confusing situation. I am off to sleep. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rename/Move Page

OK now that Missouri not only recognizes same-sex marriage but also is issuing them, I would say at this point it would be appropriate to make the page be titled "Same-Sex Marriage in Missouri", or make a separate page for that. Any input?

Makes sense to create that new page, but definitely not to move this one. This article is part of a series of many named LGBT rights in [jurisdiction]. I'll do this shortly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Same-sex marriage in Missouri Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mandated Deletion of section: Trans Advocacy and Birth Certificate Changes

The CASES listed have been overturned by a sealed case in the state of TEXAS by the original petitioner, Jamie Glistenburg. No further reference or documents available. All material associated with the referenced material will be deleted from ALL major trans* advocacy sites by April 30, 2017. An immediate removal of the redacted material (by sealed court order) from WIKIPEDIA is requested. The law on the books is back in full force and MISSOURI now requires sexual reassignment surgery to change gender.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT rights in Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106041834/http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2014/AG_Koster_ruling_StLouis_same-sex_marriage/ to http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2014/AG_Koster_ruling_StLouis_same-sex_marriage/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515062344/http://www.claytonmo.gov/Government/News/City_of_Clayton_Approves_Domestic_Partnership_Registry_to_Improve_Access__Enhance_Quality_of_Life_s2_p1734.htm to http://www.claytonmo.gov/Government/News/City_of_Clayton_Approves_Domestic_Partnership_Registry_to_Improve_Access__Enhance_Quality_of_Life_s2_p1734.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224124756/http://www.olivettemo.com/files/documents/ORD2457_08-23-2011_051623.pdf to http://www.olivettemo.com/files/documents/ORD2457_08-23-2011_051623.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207120227/http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/missouri-adoption-law to http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/missouri-adoption-law

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Masquerading Laws

Hello! I noticed there is no mention of the Masquerading laws that existed in St. Louis. I would assume similar laws existed across Missouri and should be mentioned? Would anyone know about that? Thank you! -Ren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.150.155 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Atherton

@Historyday01 If the point of your anecdote about Robert Atherton is supposed to illustrate that sodomy laws are still on the books, I would recommend instead looking at the publicly available law https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/missouri/mo-laws/missouri_laws_566-060. As already stated in the article, though, the clause regarding consensual sodomy has been removed. The only sodomy laws still applicable are those regarding individuals incapable of consent. 149.76.215.38 (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)