LGBT rights in Missouri

Law regarding same-sex sexual activity

Until 2006, Missouri law defined "deviate sexual intercourse" as "any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person."

Missouri criminalized having "deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex" as "Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree." In 1986, the Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the constitutionality of this prohibition in State v. Walsh. When the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas rendered laws banning consensual sexual activity unenforceable, Missouri was one of only 4 states that criminalized only homosexual sodomy.

In 2006, Missouri removed consensual sodomy from its definition of "Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree."

Recognition of same-sex relationships

In August 2004, 71% of Missouri voters ratified Amendment 2, which restricted the validity and recognition of marriage in Missouri to the union of one man and one woman.

Same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions

Missouri has recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions since November 2013. On November 14, 2013, Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive order allowing same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions to file a combined Missouri income tax return if they file their federal return jointly. A lawsuit aiming to reverse his order, Messer v. Nixon, was filed in Cole County Circuit Court on January 8, 2014.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Barrier v. Vasterling, challenging the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions in state circuit court on February 1, 2014. On October 3, Judge J. Dale Youngs ruled that Missouri's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violated the plaintiffs' right to equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions. On October 6, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced the state would not appeal the decision.

Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation

Kelly Glossip sued the state for survivor benefits after the death of his husband, a highway patrol officer. After the trial court dismissed his suit, Glossip appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled 5-2 against Glossip in October 2013, saying his claim was denied on the basis of his marital status, not his sexual orientation.

State of Missouri v. Florida

In June, St. Louis officials licensed four same-sex marriages in order to provide the basis for a lawsuit when the state ordered them to stop the practice. St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison found for the plaintiffs on November 5, ruling that Missouri's refusal to license same-sex marriages violates the Missouri and federal constitutions. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not to seek a stay of the ruling's implementation. He and the Recorders' Association of Missouri said Judge Burlison's order only applied to the city of St. Louis, where the city's marriage license department began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. St. Louis County, where an official said "We believe it's a county-by-county decision", began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the next day.

Lawson v. Kelly

On June 24, 2014, the ACLU filed Lawson v. Kelly in Jackson County circuit court on behalf of two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in Jackson County. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster had the case moved to federal district court, where U.S. District Court Judge Ortrie D. Smith ruled for the plaintiffs on November 7. He ordered Jackson County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but stayed his order pending appeal. Despite the stay, Jackson County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately following the decision. On November 21, the plaintiffs asked Judge Smith to lift his stay in light of State of Missouri v. Florida, noting that the state has no position on the request. Attorney General Koster filed notice of appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 5.

U.S. Supreme Court ruling

On June 26, 2015, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges invalidated the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, making Missouri's restrictions on the licensing and recognition of same-sex marriages unenforceable. On July 7, Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive order directing all state agencies to comply with that ruling, while also rescinding his earlier, narrower executive order with respect to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, which his new ordered superseded.

Domestic partnership registries

A number of jurisdictions within Missouri provide domestic partnership registries which only allow for certain benefits and are only valid and applicable within city or county borders:

Adoption and parenting

Missouri has no laws limiting the rights of individuals to adopt children. With respect to couples and second-parent adoption, there are no explicit prohibitions and have been no court cases.

Discrimination protection

Missouri law does not address discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. After being proposed for nine years, a bill to add "sexual orientation" to Missouri's non-discrimination statute had its first committee hearing in March 2010. On May 17, 2013, the Senate passed legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations by a 19–11. The House of Representatives adjourned without considering the legislation.

Hate crime

Missouri's hate crimes statutes explicitly address both sexual orientation, defined as "male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression," and gender identity, defined as "having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's gender."

Public opinion

A September 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 32% of Missouri voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 59% were opposed and 9% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 62% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 28% supporting same-sex marriage, 34% supporting civil unions, 37% opposing all legal recognition and 1% not sure.

A May 2012 Public Policy Polling survey found that 36% of Missouri voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 52% were opposed and 12% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 64% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 33% supporting same-sex marriage, 31% supporting civil unions, 32% opposing all legal recognition and 4% not sure.

Trans Advocacy and Birth Certificate Changes

On April 22, 2013 case 13AR-CV00157 was heard before the Missouri courts on the matter of a transgender name change with amendments - the accompanying amendments dealt with an explicit granting of the petitioner the right to change gender with the Missouri Department of Revenue and other venues pertaining to the use of state identification. On May 20, 2013 case 13AR-CV00240 was heard before the Missouri courts, with a partial delay, on the matter of gender affirmation and recognition for Jamie Miranda Glistenburg. Although Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9) was not completely invalidated via court orders 13AR-CV00157 and 13AR-CV00240, the orders effectively silenced the discriminatory law until repealed by order of a federal court or by legislative action. The ruling in 13AR-CV00240 that silences Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9) reads, in brief, as follows, "...it is found that said request of relief is proper and that such change will not be detrimental to the interest of any persons, nor be against the interest of the state or of any given establishment ... Wherefore, the court understands that select circumstances, such as this case, require judicial intervention in order to prevent discrimination. Moreover, the explicit requirement of surgical procedures or medications that may be deemed unsuitable, dangerous, or unnecessary to the Petitioner by medical assertion shall be given relief notwithstanding Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9)..." Because of the judicial precedent established in the case of 13AR-CV00240 there are many transgender individuals and lawyers seeking similar relief in other restrictive states.