6 gay couples sue to overturn Fla. ma...

6 gay couples sue to overturn Fla. marriage ban

There are 14 comments on the Turnto10.com story from Jan 21, 2014, titled 6 gay couples sue to overturn Fla. marriage ban. In it, Turnto10.com reports that:

Six gay couples filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to overturn Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a series of cases across the country that contend such prohibitions are unconstitutional and effectively relegate gay partners to second-class status.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Turnto10.com.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jan 21, 2014
Basically every state which bans same-sex couples from marrying will have a lawsuit challenging those bans.

It's a race to see circuit appeals court overturns all their bans first.

I'm betting on the 9th or 10th.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Jan 21, 2014
Dale wrote:
Queers have to sue in order to force their filthy lifestyle on a society that doesn't want it.
We won the last 4 statewide votes on the issue in Maine, Maryland, Washington, & Minnesota.

But it if take suing in court to overturn the remaining bans, that's certainly our constitutional right to do so.

Of course you anti-gays don't care about the constitution in the first place or your wouldn't support these bans.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6 Jan 21, 2014
Dale wrote:
Queers have to sue in order to force their filthy lifestyle on a society that doesn't want it.
Marriage is filthy?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Jan 21, 2014
Dale wrote:
Queers have to sue in order to force their filthy lifestyle on a society that doesn't want it.
No we weren't the ones that decided to re-write marriage laws.

Marriage is a fundamental right.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right
July 19, 2012
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
----------
Constitution of the United States
Article. 3.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

ARTICLE 4 [Legal Status of the Constitution]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13 Jan 22, 2014
Stewart wrote:
<quoted text>
HOMO-"marriage" sure IS!
There is no such thing. The actual term is "marriage" according to the definition, the law, common sense, and the wording on every marriage contract.

Try again.2656

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Jan 22, 2014
I wonder why they chose to sue in state rather than federal court?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#17 Jan 22, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
No we weren't the ones that decided to re-write marriage laws.
Yes you were. They re-wrote them here to pander to gays. It makes more sense for a brother to marry his sister than it does for two men or two women to marry. BTW, it makes no sense to allow a brother to marry his sister, and he can't.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Jan 22, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't the litigation in every single marriage equality case commenced in state courts, usually based on some equal protection clause in the relevant state Constitution?
The Windsor case was not explicitly a marriage equality case; it was at its core a case against the IRS, which of course is a federal matter.
No, most of the current cases all originated in federal court after the Windsor ruling and are based on 14th amendment claims of equal protection.

The states with bans remaining are mostly conservative Republican controlled states- like Florida- with mostly Republican appointed state judges. Statistically they have been less likely to be swayed by equal protection arguments.

I would think we'd have a better chance of a favorable ruling in federal court in Florida.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Jan 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you were. They re-wrote them here to pander to gays. It makes more sense for a brother to marry his sister than it does for two men or two women to marry. BTW, it makes no sense to allow a brother to marry his sister, and he can't.
There is no reason to ban 2 unrelated adult men from marrying.

There are numerous reasons to ban a brother & sister from marrying.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Jan 22, 2014
Freedom Rings wrote:
<quoted text>
You [email protected] sure do crave attention huh.
Apparently you do....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23 Jan 22, 2014
Dale wrote:
Stand strong Florida!
Fight for decency!
Keep the ban!
When did bigotry become decent?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24 Jan 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you were. They re-wrote them here to pander to gays. It makes more sense for a brother to marry his sister than it does for two men or two women to marry. BTW, it makes no sense to allow a brother to marry his sister, and he can't.
They are already blood relatives. BTW, an adopted non-biological brother can marry his unrelated sister even if they were raised as brother and sister in the same family because they are not blood relatives. Do you really have any point?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#26 Jan 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you were. They re-wrote them here to pander to gays. It makes more sense for a brother to marry his sister than it does for two men or two women to marry. BTW, it makes no sense to allow a brother to marry his sister, and he can't.
No kiddo. In Massachusetts the marriage law there was enforced to apply to all citizens. The law wasn't re-written. It was simply applied to all citizens.

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry.

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The plaintiffs had asked the Court to say that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated Massachusetts law. Instead the opinion said: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Dep...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#27 Jan 23, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
It figures you wouldn't worry unduly about inbreeding.
Marriage laws were first re written to get rid of the long standing practices of polygamy, women as chattel, child brides.
Marriage laws never thought to bar same sex couples. Then the mentally ill christianists starting re writing marriage laws to do this once same sex couples started showing up for licenses.
You're addled and none too bright, backwater fundie.
Isn't it amusing to listen to these people whine, "Well you started it"?

Sort of reminds me of the 60's and people saying, "Why they gotta get so uppity all of the sudden?"

In a sense yes we did start it when we decided we wanted the laws applied to us just as they applied to anyone else. Look at the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision from the MA Supreme Court.

"In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The plaintiffs had asked the Court to say that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated Massachusetts law. Instead the opinion said: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

The similar decision in Hawaii started the ball rolling on SSM bans (DOMA).

As I often pointed out at the very beginning to all these 'traditional marriage' people, "If marriage has always been one man one woman why do you now need to re-write the laws to say that?"

We have many people to be thankful for in getting where we are today. Even the Archie Bunkers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police need more training on hate crime, says A... 35 min fallen angel 26
News A Monument to Gay and Transgender People Is Com... 49 min 16 TEEN SHOTS chi... 6
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 100
News Thanks to Trumpa s vague order, LGBT activists ... 1 hr Rick Perry s Closet 16
News Serbia gays say election of gay PM to be historic 2 hr Gremlin 4
News Poll: Younger Republicans more liberal on immig... 13 hr The Troll Stopper 5
News Transgender Woman Launches Facebook Site '... 21 hr DCrohns Farts 16
More from around the web