Senator Ed Emery (R-District 31, NW Missouri) is a proponent of many interesting things for Missouri. His legislation this time around, SB-555 stands out for it's quick synopsis:
http://www.senate.mo.gov/...
SB 555 - This act provides that the state shall not enforce a marriage other than a marriage between a man and a woman. Additionally, no state or local taxpayer funds or state or local government employee salaries shall be dispersed for an activity that includes the licensing or support of a marriage other than a marriage between a man and a woman. Any employee of the state or any political subdivision or instrumentality of the state who willfully and knowingly violates the provisions of this act may be terminated and shall no longer receive any salary, employee benefits, or retirement benefits, except that the employee may request a refund of the employee's retirement contributions plus interest.
This act contains an emergency clause.
So, when you've come out in favor of firing state employees who process marriage licenses, you sometimes wonder where you can go next. In an interview with the KC Star, Sen. Emery answered that very question:
http://www.kansascity.com/...
There was a time, Emery said, when people choosing to segregate themselves with those who shared their beliefs wasn’t seen as improper. But now, he said, certain groups are demanding that anyone who doesn’t share their worldview be silenced.
“These groups, which are usually pretty small groups like the homosexual community, are saying you have to accommodate us,” Emery said. “We don’t care if you don’t agree with us. You have to accommodate us.”
Remember when segregation was all nice and proper? And now we have to accommodate people for their civil rights!
What is happening here? In January I noted that Missouri House Bill 104, a bill which provides for discrimination, was going to be a hot button issue in the Missouri legislature this year.
The bill in question focuses closely on the right of independent groups to public monetary support. In prior Supreme Court cases, the argument has been clear:
http://www.slate.com/...
There’s only one issue truly in play here: whether anti-gay student groups can force public universities to subsidize their discriminatory behavior. The answer today is the same one the Supreme Court gave in 2010: Absolutely not.
The case in question,
Christian Legal Society Vs. Martinez, put to rest this issue by covering ground that clubs on a university campus are not entitled to benefit with resources or money if they are against the university policy and that doesn't equal discrimination. After all, the university is not asking any group to disband - merely that they have to pay for their own promotion.
While no one interviewed has been able to cite and incident of a religious group being the victim of any negative actions, declaring that there is a war against them -- or at least their entitlements -- seems to be the ticket for the Republicans in Jefferson City.