Florida bans same-sex marriage

Supporters of Florida's amendment to ban same-sex marriage hailed its passage as a victory for conservative values while those who opposed the narrowly approved measure vowed to continue their fight.

[RV from Ocoee]

Fortunately in the US, the minority rights are not dictated by majority vote. Here's what will end up happening - it may take awhile but it will be inevitable...

There will be a FEDERAL court ruling that the government cannot recognize ANY "marriage" whatsoever. Government will only recognize "domestic partners". That will nullify all of the state interpretations, just like the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court rulings did for segregation in the 1960's.

Think about it. In reality, you don't even need to have a church or clergyman of any kind actually perform a ceremony in order to have a recognized union. You get a "marriage license", file it with the state, you're done. Any group opposing such a ruling would be viewed as bigoted since their interpretations of marriage would still be valid within their own venue. Trying to prevent it would be like George Wallace defying desegregation in Alabama..it just wouldn't be viable.

The only question is "How long will it take?"

[Sad in Winter Garden]

I do not understand how anyone could vote to take away rights from others. Proponets of this measure said this only defines marriage as between one man and one woman but this same language has passed in other states and has been used to take away basic rights. Wills between gay couples have been "broken" by distant relatives and people that a recipent never intended to have anything from them have benefited from thier deaths. My partner and I have been together for 26 years and have built a solid life together. We both don't really care about "marrying" each other for any other reason then to protect each other from such abuse. I find it sad that for the first time in our lives we have to consider moving to another state just so we won't have to worry what could happen to the other should something happen to one. I believe in rights for all..no matter your race, sex, religion, etc. but after Tuesday's vote I wonder just what else could happen to a minority. You think it won't happen to you but if you belong to any minority I would begin to worry. It's time we finally have separation of church and state to rectify this. You can live your life and believe what ever you want but when you start to impose your beliefs on others is where I draw the line. Tis a sad, sad day here in Florida.

[Reality_check]

Go to church on Sunday. Be a good Christian, then condemn what God created? Be sure to continue to laugh at your neighbor's choice of clothing and curse the person in front of you for not moving out of the parking lot quickly enough.

Four laws on Florida's books prohibiting Gay marriage. Can we think of a more insane and paranoid way to waste money?

[jimbo]

After this type of amendment in some othe states passed, those states strarted to deny insurance and other benefits to couples living together- STRAIGHT and gay. So get ready because if you are currently living with your significant other and sharing some benefits they will now be taken away from you. All because of a bunch of ignorant homophobes who think that 2 people loving each other is going to bring harm to them. We have many more important issues to worry about other than partners- wake up you idiots !!

[Matt]

This is a good thing. Being gay is a choice, and a wrong one. Im glad this passed.

[DriveBy Poster]

Sad in Winter Garden wrote:

It's time we finally have separation of church and state to rectify this. You can live your life and believe what ever you want but when you start to impose your beliefs on others is where I draw the line. Tis a sad, sad day here in Florida.

In order for you to have your legislative wish granted, you would have to impose your beliefs on the majority of Floridians who disagree with you. Sorry, but voting, no matter how you vote and regardless of whether you win, is the agreed upon way of attempting to impose your beliefs on the rest of society.
Your mention of the separation of church and state is a red herring. This is not a church-based amendment, and this amendment forces no recognition of any church or spiritual belief. If it happens to coincide with the beliefs of recognized churchs, that's probably because the overwhelmingly vast majority of Floridians, Americans, and Westerners have a common Judeo-Christian heritage and thus share many of the same core values and mores. Thus the overwhelmingly vast majority of laws we/they consider reasonable and necessary are likely to coincide with that common Judeo-Christian heritage.
In order to NOT have laws that coincide in that way, you would have to have laws that deliberately go against what the vast majority of Floridians, Americans, and Westeners would find offensive, disruptive, unnecessary, and wrong. And in that case, it would definitely be a case of legislature enacting laws for the wrong reason - not because they're healthy for society, but because they're deliberating trying to avoid any similarity to any Judeo-Christian belief. I think (I hop?) we can reasonably agree that this would not be the best motivation and rationale for any law.
I believe your insistence or assumption that laws should not reflect any Judeo-Christian belief is unreasonable, impractical, and absurd, and does NOT reflect what is meant by "separation of church and state." That is a frequently-used phrase that you apparently misunderstand.

[Lee in Tx]

How do you spell HATE in FLORIDA?

Florida4Marriage.

Its time to take the battle of Religion vs. Federal and State civil rights back to their own place of worship.
Since the churches and their members, seem to think that in order for them to save their marriage, they must stop all MARRIAGE & CIVIL RIGHTS for gays and other people and this will protect their children from the homosexual agenda.

First off marriage can be an act of a religious institution or a civil court, or both.
Since most of all churches have still and will always turn a deaf ear to gay members in there churches, then marriage should be at the civil level, for gays.
It’s at this point that the religious right folks and the churches need to stay out of the civil rights of gays wishing to have a civil union or civil marriage or any rights to have a relationship, for the safe and well being of their lives and relationship.

Where do they get the right to say it’s legal to amend the constitution of any state or the U.S. constitution in the name of religion to stop and strip the rights away of one minority of people?
Where do the states get the rights to establish a (state religion) and now go forward and ban the civil rights of gay people? Just because one group of religious people feel it’s their rights to now use the Bible to rewrite the laws of the Bill of Rights, of the U.S. and state constitutions

This same principle also applies to the rights of a woman to have an abortion. The same people seeking to ban the civil rights of one group of people,(gays) are now and have been seeking to ban the rights of a woman’s right to an abortion. Based upon their views and interpretation of the Bible.

Now is the time to stop the churches, and the members of those churches who do not agree with the rights of other people, from making and rewriting the laws of government, in order to promote discrimination against another minority of people.

The US Constitution was designed to protect the people and ALL people. It was not designed to allow one group of people to take away the rights of another group of people.

Religious people need to learn to start to separate the bible from the governmental laws of the land, be it federal or state laws.

[view from a new window]

I am not gay and I choose not to judge people for being gay. I don't think we have a right to judge others or their way of living. I also feel if a couple lives together and chooses to be together they should also be able to choose who they share their benefits with. I also read the way it was written on the ballot several times. I talked to several people who voted yes on that thought they voted yes for gay rights.

[Raining men]

You can bet the farm that we will use every excuse in the book to legalize gay marriage again. My RIGHT to marry was never taken away, I can still marry but it has to be someone the opposite sex and at legal age. See? We are sore loosers. We can't stand loosing in fair matches. Fellow gays will be out there yelling and whinning like sore loosers because the greater people of california can't accept us. that's all it is really. We really don't need to get marry. It's just a complexity of labelling ourselves like a racial minority who can't get what we want. have pity on us!

[Minx]

Lee in Tx wrote:

How do you spell HATE in FLORIDA?
Florida4Marriage.
Its time to take the battle of Religion vs. Federal and State civil rights back to their own place of worship.
Since the churches and their members, seem to think that in order for them to save their marriage, they must stop all MARRIAGE & CIVIL RIGHTS for gays and other people and this will protect their children from the homosexual agenda.
First off marriage can be an act of a religious institution or a civil court, or both.
Since most of all churches have still and will always turn a deaf ear to gay members in there churches, then marriage should be at the civil level, for gays.
It’s at this point that the religious right folks and the churches need to stay out of the civil rights of gays wishing to have a civil union or civil marriage or any rights to have a relationship, for the safe and well being of their lives and relationship.
Where do they get the right to say it’s legal to amend the constitution of any state or the U.S. constitution in the name of religion to stop and strip the rights away of one minority of people?
Where do the states get the rights to establish a (state religion) and now go forward and ban the civil rights of gay people? Just because one group of religious people feel it’s their rights to now use the Bible to rewrite the laws of the Bill of Rights, of the U.S. and state constitutions
This same principle also applies to the rights of a woman to have an abortion. The same people seeking to ban the civil rights of one group of people,(gays) are now and have been seeking to ban the rights of a woman’s right to an abortion. Based upon their views and interpretation of the Bible.
Now is the time to stop the churches, and the members of those churches who do not agree with the rights of other people, from making and rewriting the laws of government, in order to promote discrimination against another minority of people.
The US Constitution was designed to protect the people and ALL people. It was not designed to allow one group of people to take away the rights of another group of people.
Religious people need to learn to start to separate the bible from the governmental laws of the land, be it federal or state laws.

You stated it correctly, Hatred equals Florida4Marriage.
As was done up north in Massachusetts a group of Unitarian ministers boycotted performing weddings, think this needs to be done. As read in another commentary regarding laws, religions could not change laws, it violated separate of church and state but guess Flori-duh Religious Right nuts don't understand history and the constitution! Let's just ban marriage altogether!

[Raining men]

You can bet the farm that we will use every excuse in the book to legalize gay marriage again. My RIGHT to marry was never taken away, I can still marry but it has to be someone the opposite sex and at legal age. See? We are sore loosers. We can't stand loosing in fair matches. Fellow gays will be out there yelling and whinning like sore loosers because the greater people of california can't accept us. that's all it is really. We really don't need to get marry. It's just a complexity of labelling ourselves like a racial minority who can't get what we want. have pity on us! We are good rationalizers.

[Mary]

Sad in Winter Garden wrote:

I do not understand how anyone could vote to take away rights from others. Proponets of this measure said this only defines marriage as between one man and one woman but this same language has passed in other states and has been used to take away basic rights. Wills between gay couples have been "broken" by distant relatives and people that a recipent never intended to have anything from them have benefited from thier deaths. My partner and I have been together for 26 years and have built a solid life together. We both don't really care about "marrying" each other for any other reason then to protect each other from such abuse. I find it sad that for the first time in our lives we have to consider moving to another state just so we won't have to worry what could happen to the other should something happen to one. I believe in rights for all..no matter your race, sex, religion, etc. but after Tuesday's vote I wonder just what else could happen to a minority. You think it won't happen to you but if you belong to any minority I would begin to worry. It's time we finally have separation of church and state to rectify this. You can live your life and believe what ever you want but when you start to impose your beliefs on others is where I draw the line. Tis a sad, sad day here in Florida.

Looks like 62% of the people in Florida feel like it's a good, good day in Florida. This issue isn't about taking away right from others. It's defining marriage. If gays want a civil union they can go for it. But don't call it a marriage and stop trying to push it on the rest of us.
Glad I don't have to hear or see that mentally ill couple (man and woman) on the commercials any more talking about how she would have to wait 4 hours on a gurney alone before her operation if Prop 2 passed. Get married and the problem will be solved. And who the heck dressed those two. Looked like losers to me.
And the gay community put these two up to make it look it look like this was something than it really was. Which is marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Nobody is stopping two gay people from getting together. Just stop trying to push your lifestyle on the rest of society so you can feel better about yourself and your lifestyle. And, of course, to get benefits form a company. And we wonder why health insurance is so high.

[Larry]

Hey does this mean marriage between a man and a goat is out?? What the heck is wrong with this closed mind society?

[Raining men]

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like 62% of the people in Florida feel like it's a good, good day in Florida. This issue isn't about taking away right from others. It's defining marriage. If gays want a civil union they can go for it. But don't call it a marriage and stop trying to push it on the rest of us.
Glad I don't have to hear or see that mentally ill couple (man and woman) on the commercials any more talking about how she would have to wait 4 hours on a gurney alone before her operation if Prop 2 passed. Get married and the problem will be solved. And who the heck dressed those two. Looked like losers to me.
And the gay community put these two up to make it look it look like this was something than it really was. Which is marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Nobody is stopping two gay people from getting together. Just stop trying to push your lifestyle on the rest of society so you can feel better about yourself and your lifestyle. And, of course, to get benefits form a company. And we wonder why health insurance is so high.

yah but,You can bet the farm that we will use every excuse in the book to legalize gay marriage again. My RIGHT to marry was never taken away, I can still marry but it has to be someone the opposite sex and at legal age. See? We are sore loosers. We can't stand loosing in fair matches. Fellow gays will be out there yelling and whinning like sore loosers because the greater people of california can't accept us. that's all it is really. We really don't need to get marry. It's just a complexity of labelling ourselves like a racial minority who can't get what we want. have pity on us! We are good rationalizers.

[JTW]

I still cannot understand how proponents can say they "only want the same rights" when they already HAVE the same rights. They can marry any person of the opposite sex they desire. Just as I can.

This says they cannot marry a person of the same sex. Just as I cannot.

Same rights. Same. What they want is a different right.

I want to marry any "person" that I desire. I don't currently have that right, why should they infer it exists?

This is absolutely something that should be defined by the majority, just as marrying minors is mandated.

Whether you are for or against it, at least be honest and stop saying "We just want the same thing".

Everyone already has that.

[JTW]

And for the record. I am an atheist and I don't care who marries who because it doesn't impact my life or diminish my choices in any way.

But I do require people to be honest, and the gay community was dishonest in this.

Bottom line, marriage is already defined by the majority. As it should be. And it was always inferred to be one man and one woman both of a certain age.

Nothing was "taken away" it was just clearly defined because a large portion pretend to not understand that.

[Franklin Ratliff]

RV from Ocoee wrote:

Fortunately in the US, the minority rights are not dictated by majority vote. Here's what will end up happening - it may take awhile but it will be inevitable...
There will be a FEDERAL court ruling that the government cannot recognize ANY "marriage" whatsoever. Government will only recognize "domestic partners". That will nullify all of the state interpretations, just like the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court rulings did for segregation in the 1960's.
Think about it. In reality, you don't even need to have a church or clergyman of any kind actually perform a ceremony in order to have a recognized union. You get a "marriage license", file it with the state, you're done. Any group opposing such a ruling would be viewed as bigoted since their interpretations of marriage would still be valid within their own venue. Trying to prevent it would be like George Wallace defying desegregation in Alabama..it just wouldn't be viable.
The only question is "How long will it take?"

I'm sure this one will come back to bite FloriDUH in the butt.

[Franklin Ratliff]

JTW wrote:

And for the record. I am an atheist and I don't care who marries who because it doesn't impact my life or diminish my choices in any way.
But I do require people to be honest, and the gay community was dishonest in this.
Bottom line, marriage is already defined by the majority. As it should be. And it was always inferred to be one man and one woman both of a certain age.
Nothing was "taken away" it was just clearly defined because a large portion pretend to not understand that.

Segregation used to be defined by the majority too.

[DriveBy Poster]

view from a new window wrote:

I am not gay and I choose not to judge people for being gay. I don't think we have a right to judge others or their way of living.

Yes, you do, and not only do you have the right, you have the responsibility to judge whatever you think is poor behavior. That's how society maintains stability and peace - by people collectively judging, identifying, and critizing poor behavior. When you make a friend, you judge them worthy of your friendship. When you avoid people, you judge them unworthy of your acquaintance. You are taking the "thou shalt not judge" far too literally.

[DriveBy Poster]

DriveBy Poster wrote:

In order to NOT have laws that coincide in that way, you would have to have laws that deliberately go against what the vast majority of Floridians, Americans, and Westeners would find offensive, disruptive, unnecessary, and wrong....I think (I hop?) we can reasonably agree that this would not be the best motivation and rationale for any law.

...what I get for typing so early in the morning.
The first passage should read something like "...you would have to have laws that deliberately go against the vast majority of Floridians, Americans, and Westerners, and laws that they would find offensive, disruptive, unnecessary, and wrong..."
The second sentence should say "I HOPE". Don't worry about whether or not I hop.