Proposes a constitutional amendment providing that marriage exists only between individuals who are 18 years of age or older
Summary
House Joint Resolution 60 proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal and replace Section 33 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution, which currently defines marriage in terms of a man and a woman. The new language would instead provide that, to be valid and recognized in Missouri, a marriage may exist only between individuals who are 18 years of age or older. Because this is a joint resolution, it does not itself change the constitution; it places the proposed amendment before voters for approval or rejection at a general or special election.
The measure would remove the sex-based definition of marriage from the state constitution and replace it with an age-based restriction. If adopted, it would make Missouri’s constitutional marriage provision gender-neutral while affirming that only adults may marry. The resolution would affect the state constitution directly and would likely interact with existing marriage statutes and administrative practices governing marriage licenses, eligibility, and recognition of marriages in Missouri.
Impact
If approved by voters, HJR60 would amend the Missouri Constitution by repealing the current marriage definition in Article I, Section 33 and replacing it with a provision limiting marriage to individuals 18 years of age or older. This would alter the state’s foundational legal definition of marriage and could require conforming changes to related statutes, forms, and administrative procedures used by county recorders and other officials who issue or recognize marriage licenses. The proposal would also eliminate the constitution’s existing man-woman language, aligning the constitutional text with a gender-neutral definition while preserving an age requirement.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a straightforward constitutional update rather than a highly contested policy change. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate history to indicate strong support or opposition in the available materials. The caption and language suggest the bill is intended to modernize the constitutional marriage provision and clarify that marriage is limited to adults.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the replacement of the current man-and-woman marriage language with a gender-neutral adult-only definition. Supporters would likely view the change as a modernization and clarification of marriage eligibility, while opponents could object to removing the traditional constitutional definition or to the broader implications of changing marriage language in the constitution. Another possible issue is whether the age-18 limit should be set constitutionally rather than by statute, since constitutional language is harder to amend later. No specific objections or named stakeholders are included in the provided discussion materials.