Press "Enter" to skip to content

Filibuster of religious freedom bill surpasses 24-hour mark

By Travis Zimpfer on March 8, 2016

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – For the third time in as many weeks, Senate Democrats staged a filibuster Monday night that stretched into Tuesday morning and showed no indication of stopping after more than 17 hours of debate.

The Democrats opposed a resolution, SJR 39, from Sen. Bob Onder, R-St. Charles, that would amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization that refuses business or services for any same-sex marriage. Similar resolutions have become increasingly popular with conservatives across the country after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which affirmed the right for same-sex couples to marry.

Onder RTW
Onder speaking at a rally during veto session.

Onder sees the legislation as a way of protecting religious liberty as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

“While there is this fundamental right issued in Obergefell, where do people of faith who disagree on this issue, what are their rights and can the government penalize them based on that belief,” he said. “This particular religious belief seems to be under siege.”

Sen. David Sater, R-Cassville, was more blunt. He said early in the evening that he found same-sex marriage an “abomination” and that forcing those with religious beliefs to recognize it as anything less was a violation of conscience.

“I would die fighting for the protection of religious beliefs,” Sater said. “To me this is about freedom, freedom to protect your own beliefs and the freedom to act accordingly.”

However, Democrats in the Senate, who took turns holding the floor for long stretches at a time, see it as an act which enables and even legalizes an act of discrimination.

“On the surface, it looks to be about divisions,” Sen. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, said during the 18th hour of debate, expanding that this filibuster was not just an act of obstruction. “We don’t obstruct on 90 percent of the issues. When we have legislation that deals with highway maintenance that we can agree on, we’re happy to support the leadership.”

Sen. Scott Sifton, D-St. Louis, spoke personally about the subject, mentioning that both his father and one of his uncles are gay.

“I would oppose this amendment just as vigorously even if I didn’t have immediate family members who are potentially implicated by it,” Sifton said later off the floor. “I honor who my father is, I honor who my uncle is and I stand and fight not just for them, but also for the thousands of constituents I have that are very much targeted by this amendment.”

At an early point in the debate, Sifton went line by line through the resolution with Onder and analyzed it word for word for hours trying to poke holes in the language and eventually offering a resolution that would broaden the language to take same-sex marriage language out of the bill, effectively neutering its intentions.

“Why limit those protections to just this one thing?” Sifton asked. “An equally availing critique may as well be why do we only want to protect religious liberty for same-sex marriage. Why limit it?”

Sifton and Sen. Jill Schupp, D-St. Louis, spoke at length about the effects of a similar bill, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was passed in Indiana in 2015. It allegedly cost the state $60 million, though Onder and other supporters of the legislation explained at length the differences between the resolution and Indiana’s bill.

Schupp also made it a point to list individuals and businesses around the state that opposed the legislation. She also listed off churches and other religious congregations and clergy that opposed it.

“You can call this a religious freedom bill, but these religious organizations do not support it,” she said.

Chappelle-Nadal debating on the floor.
Chappelle-Nadal debating on the floor.

However, it was Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-St. Louis, a woman notorious for her long-windedness even in regular debate, who stood for the longest extended period of time from 3-4 a.m. to the time this article was published.

“I can do this all day,” she said to Schupp at some point early Tuesday morning, saying she wanted to hit the 24-hour mark. “This is my prime time.”

Chappelle-Nadal commented that she had the third longest filibuster speech in Missouri Senate history, speaking for nearly 11 hours during one filibuster in a prior session.

The bill also attracted a lot of attention on Twitter, becoming a top trending topic in both Kansas City and St. Louis. Politicians and political figures and organizations from around the state and abroad also chimed in.

Many credited the Missouri Democrats for their concerted effort to stay standing after hours of debate.

The Senate Dems were also recognized by the national branch of the ACLU.

The executive director of the Missouri affiliate organization, Jeffrey Mittman, also gave his endorsement to the senators.

“ACLU of Missouri is truly inspired by the senators who have stayed awake all night long and are still courageously standing against discrimination by filibustering the extremist SJR 39, which would amend our state’s Constitution to legalize discrimination against LGBT Missourians and their children,” he said in a statement Tuesday morning. “We’re all Missourians and discrimination against any Missourian is wrong. We stand with these fair-minded senators and invite all Missourians to join us in advancing equality in our state.”

However, not everyone sided with the Democrats. Secretary of State candidate Jay Ashcroft, offered his support to Onder and his legislation.

“Religious liberty was the core principle upon which our nation was founded,” Ashcroft said. “I commend Sen. Onder for his leadership in fighting to protect deeply held religious beliefs. We are in an era of unprecedented attacks on our religious freedoms, and this measure will encourage greater tolerance in Missouri for people of faith.

“It’s clear that liberals want to use this issue to divide us for political purposes.”

Despite nearly 20 hours of debate, a short interview with Sifton revealed that the Democrats had no sign of stopping their filibuster.

“Compromise hasn’t been an option at this point because there’s been no negotiation by either side,” Sifton said at noon Tuesday. “Nobody’s willing to even talk at this point. In the absence of any discussion of what this amendment could look like, our only options are to pass it or not, and we’re not going to let it pass.”

When asked if the filibuster would last until the end of the week, Sifton suggested he and his fellow Democrats would be willing to stand for much longer.

“I don’t see where we have to adjourn at 5:00 on Thursday. I’d have to double check the Senate rules on that, but I think the only hard deadline on this is 5 o’clock on Friday, May 13”

This story will continue to be updated as the story develops.

UPDATED 12:19 p.m., March 8, 2016: Added comments from Sen. Scott Sifton.

UPDATED 3:58 p.m., March 8, 2016: Added comment from Jay Ashcroft. Updated headline.

More from FeaturedMore posts in Featured »
More from motimesblog.comMore posts in motimesblog.com »
More from SenateMore posts in Senate »