  urlLink Missouri has passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. With nearly all precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 71 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results for Tuesday's vote.
That's a fairly sizeable number, yes? But here's what struck me--in listening to the debate on this particular amendment--one opponent was quoted as saying that such an amendment was unnecessary, and besides, it was bigoted. The argument, I suppose, was that MO law offered sufficient protection for traditional marriage such that an amendment was "unnecessary. " Proponents obviously argue that lest judges be allowed to circumvent the law, such an amendment is required. Now, that's a fair argument on both sides where reasonable folks can disagree. The problem was in the second part--that not only was the amendment unnecessary, it was also bigoted.
Hold up now. Assuming the current MO law is sufficient to prevent same-sex marriage from being recognized such that the amendment is redundant, doesn't saying the amendment is bigoted ALSO impute the same bigotry onto the CURRENT law? It would seem so. And if the current law IS so bigoted--how could it survive a court challenge? 
