New poll: Floridians poised to pass constitutional gay-marriage...

[macumazahn]

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, it's not over, but it is progress. Advancements in civil rights almost always happen through the courts. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take on the issue, and it's not looking good for your side. Even Scalia admitted in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that laws outlawing same-sex marriage are on shaky ground. So you see, it's not just "liberal judges" that understand the constitution provides equality for all regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm with you. LEGALIZE RISHATHRA NOW!
(Humor. Sorry.)

[Dave]

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, it's not over, but it is progress. Advancements in civil rights almost always happen through the courts. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take on the issue, and it's not looking good for your side. Even Scalia admitted in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that laws outlawing same-sex marriage are on shaky ground. So you see, it's not just "liberal judges" that understand the constitution provides equality for all regardless of sexual orientation.

So the whole arguement that Fla already has laws against same sex marriage is a ruse. But then we already knew that!
Vote yes on Amendment 2

[Paul C]

Marraige is a one-man/one-woman union, and can be represented as such for all purposes legal, financial, and academic so long as we're talking about some well-defined men and women? I like that.

[LindaS]

"We, the undersigned Florida attorneys, sign this letter to publicly share our concerns about the vague language and potentially damaging consequences of the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 and urge our fellow Floridians to join us in opposing its inclusion in the Florida Constitution. Amendment 2 is called the “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment” and is often referred to by the media as a “gay marriage ban.” The proposed amendment is:

"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Florida Law Already Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage

References to ‘marriage protection’ or ‘gay marriage bans’ are misleading as four existing Florida statues [FS 741.212 (1), 741.212 (2), 741.212 (3) and 741.04] already define marriage as the union of a man and a woman or otherwise prohibit the creation or recognition of ‘same-sex marriages.’ The legality or recognition of ‘same-sex’ unions in Florida will be no more or less illegal in Florida regardless of the outcome of the proposed amendment. "

Continued at:
http://www.sayno2.com/index.php...

[Dave]

Florida Law Already Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage

Didn't we just blow that argument away with the fact that the court in Conn. just declared that states laws prohibiting same sex marriage as unconstitutional? That is the whole purpose of amending the Fla. constitution. So can we end that argument now and forever?

[Headlines Exposed]

Dave wrote:

Florida Law Already Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage
Didn't we just blow that argument away with the fact that the court in Conn. just declared that states laws prohibiting same sex marriage as unconstitutional? That is the whole purpose of amending the Fla. constitution. So can we end that argument now and forever?

Yes in CT and CA.

Judges are evermore creating their own laws based on THEIR view on how the US should be governed and are ignoring the clear voice and vote of the people.

Vote YES on 2

[1noteasilyfooled]

The problem for MOST if not all of these polls is that the most liberal and young NEVER get polled.. they are on cell phones only.. and those voters are who will defeat this measure. The polsters never get thier repsonses! they dont use antiquated land lines!

[UnbelievableFL]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
So the whole arguement that Fla already has laws against same sex marriage is a ruse. But then we already knew that!
Vote yes on Amendment 2

Why should it be acceptable to write discrimination into the constitution? It's a fact that Florida law already restricts marriage to a man and a woman and prevents same-sex couples from marrying. If that law cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, why should it be allowed to be written into the constitution?

Also, voters need to be aware that this amendment is not just about preventing same-sex couples from marrying. It's also about preventing the state from recognizing domestic partnerships and civil unions. Senior citizens who currently are in domestic partnerships within this state are most likely going to lose their benefits, just as people in Michigan did when a similar amendment was passed.

[UnbelievableFL]

Headlines Exposed wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes in CT and CA.
Judges are evermore creating their own laws based on THEIR view on how the US should be governed and are ignoring the clear voice and vote of the people.
Vote YES on 2

What laws have been created by the courts?

Answer: none. Quit making shit up!

[Rick in Kansas]

What amazes me is that supporters of this and other such amendments have deluded themselves into believing that by enshrining their personal bigotries into their state constitutions that they are having the last word in this debate. The reality is far different, state constitutional amendments can be and have been declared unconstitutional, not only on the basis of being in violation of the constitution that they amend, but on the basis of our federal constitution as well. All that presently prevents these laws and amendments from being challenged and from actually having to be defended on a factual basis rather than paranoia, religious hysteria and hyperbole is the continued exsistence of the federal DOMA statute. Once that onerous act of bigotry is repealed, the playing field changes dramatically. You may just get the 60% of the vote to pass Amendment 2, but can that tyrannical act of bigotry a "majority" actually be defended based on our constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law?

[Liberal Media Agenda]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

What amazes me is that supporters of this and other such amendments have deluded themselves into believing that by enshrining their personal bigotries into their state constitutions that they are having the last word in this debate. The reality is far different, state constitutional amendments can be and have been declared unconstitutional, not only on the basis of being in violation of the constitution that they amend, but on the basis of our federal constitution as well. All that presently prevents these laws and amendments from being challenged and from actually having to be defended on a factual basis rather than paranoia, religious hysteria and hyperbole is the continued exsistence of the federal DOMA statute. Once that onerous act of bigotry is repealed, the playing field changes dramatically. You may just get the 60% of the vote to pass Amendment 2, but can that tyrannical act of bigotry a "majority" actually be defended based on our constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law?

Since when did protecting universal law passed down from the begining of time become bigotry. You need to get it right man you are a strange abnormal and sick. Keep you garbage in the dark because it makes a solid majority of people want to barf.That majority will speak on Nov. 4th with a 75% yes vote on 2.

[UnbelievableFL]

Liberal Media Agenda wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when did protecting universal law passed down from the begining of time become bigotry. You need to get it right man you are a strange abnormal and sick. Keep you garbage in the dark because it makes a solid majority of people want to barf.That majority will speak on Nov. 4th with a 75% yes vote on 2.

And back in 1967 an even greater majority would have voted to keep marriage between two people of the same race.

Fact is, the majority does not trump the constitution. That's why in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court finds the same about the opposite-sex restriction. This amendment may pass in Florida, but it will only be a short-lived victory for bigots. The Constitution will prevail.

[Rick in Kansas]

Liberal Media Agenda wrote:

(nothing worth repeating)

Ah, there is nothing like the warmth one feels from the expression of "Christian" love such as yours. While you do have the right to believe in what you mistakenly refer to as "universal law passed down from the begining of time" you do not enjoy the same right to impose that "law" on those who do not hold to it. Your right to the freedom of your religion and belief is our right to be free from it, deal with it.

I was simply stating a reality that you are going to have to live with and that is that it really doesn't matter what percentage that you get to vote in favor of your tyrannical attempt to deny constitutional rights to others simply because you've chosen to be irrational and judging by your comments to me, rather hateful, because in the end this "amendment" will have to stand up to the challenge of what the constitution has always granted us and that is the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as equal protection under the law. Sorry, but calling us "strange, abnormal and sick" isn't really going to work out for you in the end and will only serve to enshrine your rather ugly place in our history...

[bigeverette]

Homosexuality is nothing but a perversion of what we were created to be. You are not born homosexual, you may be a more feminine or masculine male or female but it is a perversion to believe that you should be with the same sex. The parts don't match.

[LindaS]

bigeverette wrote:

Homosexuality is nothing but a perversion of what we were created to be. You are not born homosexual, you may be a more feminine or masculine male or female but it is a perversion to believe that you should be with the same sex. The parts don't match.

Your opinion has nothing to do with law, sorry. Laws are not made based on your "ick" factor. Whether you dislike gays or not, they exist and have a right to the same freedoms you do in this country.

[bigeverette]

This country was built on freedom but it has always been the opinion of the majority that rules. Majority makes the laws and sorry but the majority of the American public may tolerant gays but they are not gay. Gays have the freedom to do as they please, look around......however there small numbers should not dictate laws.

[bigeverette]

LindaS wrote:

<quoted text>
Your opinion has nothing to do with law, sorry. Laws are not made based on your "ick" factor. Whether you dislike gays or not, they exist and have a right to the same freedoms you do in this country.

This country was built on freedom but it has always been the opinion of the majority that rules. Majority makes the laws and sorry but the majority of the American public may tolerant gays but they are not gay. Gays have the freedom to do as they please, look around......however there small numbers should not dictate laws.

[UnbelievableFL]

bigeverette wrote:

This country was built on freedom but it has always been the opinion of the majority that rules. Majority makes the laws and sorry but the majority of the American public may tolerant gays but they are not gay. Gays have the freedom to do as they please, look around......however there small numbers should not dictate laws.

What country are you talking about? Clearly not te United States, which is a constitutional republic, not a strict democracy. The majority DOES NOT always rule in this country, not when it comes to constitutional rights. Perhaps you should take a Civics 101 course.

[Liberal Media Agenda]

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
And back in 1967 an even greater majority would have voted to keep marriage between two people of the same race.
Fact is, the majority does not trump the constitution. That's why in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court finds the same about the opposite-sex restriction. This amendment may pass in Florida, but it will only be a short-lived victory for bigots. The Constitution will prevail.

Idiot! You cannot confirm such a majority ever existed for one. For two how do you pretend to make dirty unnatual choice equvalent to a God give color of skin? Your bad choices have clearly driven you crazy and out of touch with reality.

[Liberal Media Agenda]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, there is nothing like the warmth one feels from the expression of "Christian" love such as yours. While you do have the right to believe in what you mistakenly refer to as "universal law passed down from the begining of time" you do not enjoy the same right to impose that "law" on those who do not hold to it. Your right to the freedom of your religion and belief is our right to be free from it, deal with it.
I was simply stating a reality that you are going to have to live with and that is that it really doesn't matter what percentage that you get to vote in favor of your tyrannical attempt to deny constitutional rights to others simply because you've chosen to be irrational and judging by your comments to me, rather hateful, because in the end this "amendment" will have to stand up to the challenge of what the constitution has always granted us and that is the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as equal protection under the law. Sorry, but calling us "strange, abnormal and sick" isn't really going to work out for you in the end and will only serve to enshrine your rather ugly place in our history...

There is nothing to like love or otherwise about Murder, Rape, Burglary or Homosexuality the later crime being the more destructive of all. The Homosexual act is in fact a criminal act.