No same-sex marriage licenses issued in BarCo

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

One month after updated computer software, no inquiries made

One month after updating its computer software to handle the change, no same-sex marriage licenses have been issued in Barry County.

According to the Barry County Recorder's Office, no one has asked about obtaining a same-sex license.

Via a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in late June, same-sex marriages are officially legal. Craig Williams, recorder of deeds and circuit clerk in Barry County, originally said licenses would be issued immediately, but had to push back their issuance 25 days until July 21, which allowed the office time to update its computer software to say "Party 1" and "Party 2" instead of "Groom" and "Bride."

Williams said the office of the recorder has always attempted to comply to the best of its ability with the laws governing marriage license applications in the state of Missouri.

"While we recognize that same-sex marriage has been a divisive issue, we respect the judicial process," he said.

Before the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, 37 states allowed same-sex marriages, and the ruling now defines same-sex marriage as a legal right in all 50 states.

State Sen. David Sater, R-Cassville, said he is against same-sex marriage but would be in favor of a civil union designation to allow gay couples the monetary rights afforded to straight couples.

"I am adamant on this and will not change my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said. "If two men or two women want a civil union and the legal rights, I'm OK with that. But, marriage was founded on Christian principles and I will not change my stance on that.

"I do understand from a financial consequences of something like this, and I have no problem with a legal type of union, but not marriage."

Sater said he believes the ruling is an overreach by the federal government, and the states should be allowed to decide individually if same-sex marriage should be legal.

"I think it takes the power out of the hands of the states," he said. "I'm a big states' rights person, and I am doubtful the feds know what southwest Missouri needs, and we should be making those decisions here."

State Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob, said the decision to override state bans prevents citizens from governing themselves.

"In 2004, 71 percent of Missouri voters overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman," he said. "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 govern 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."

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 103-page majority opinion, which may be found at

"Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right," he wrote. "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 that 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."

View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Just wanted to commend the writer for this GREAT commentary which included election results, about how we as citizens vote one way and the Supreme Court votes another way. There is not a check and Balance in our system anymore as the Supreme court can do whatever it wants. ( Other than put in new judges - but that takes years, and the damage is already done.) thank you. I wish your article could be sent in to the national news to start them to think about how the voters vote.

    -- Posted by RAUCABYE on Tue, Sep 8, 2015, at 8:11 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: