What we think about Florida's amendments

What we think about Florida's amendments

There are 37 comments on the Orlando Sentinel story from Sep 21, 2008, titled What we think about Florida's amendments. In it, Orlando Sentinel reports that:

Sure, the sexiest of Florida's constitutional amendments -- tax reform and vouchers -- got yanked from the ballot by the state Supreme Court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Orlando Sentinel.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jul 07

Orlando

#1 Sep 21, 2008
Due to the effect Amendment 2 would have on domestic partnerships I don't think it would pass.
However, the backers are going around to Baptist churches to try and slip this one by. Apparently they think Baptists are gullible enough to vote for this travesty.
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9339.art...
gjv

United States

#2 Sep 21, 2008
It is more important to protect small businsess's from government abuse than worry about potential tax shelter abuse. Vote yes for ammendment 6.
Ordinary Citizen

United States

#3 Sep 21, 2008
Doesn't matter what you say. Amendment 2 will pass.

Since: Jul 07

Orlando

#4 Sep 21, 2008
Ordinary Citizen wrote:
Doesn't matter what you say. Amendment 2 will pass.
At least one of us will be right
doug diggler

Merritt Island, FL

#5 Sep 22, 2008
what's sad is that Amendment 2 will pass and Amendment 1 won't.

The NY Times said it best when they said "FloriDUH"
Geo

Collierville, TN

#6 Sep 22, 2008
Hmmmm, sounds like more left wing reporting by the Slantinel. According to this website Amendment 2 does not change any of the current laws on the books it just puts existing laws in the constitution so no one,like activist judges, can subvert it. Vote yes on Amendment 2.

http://www.yes2marriage.org
cigar afficianado

Orlando, FL

#7 Sep 22, 2008
Since the Slantinel is wrong 99% of the time I think I vote opposite of your recommendations.
Grad Student

Boston, MA

#8 Sep 22, 2008
Geo wrote:
Hmmmm, sounds like more left wing reporting by the Slantinel. According to this website Amendment 2 does not change any of the current laws on the books it just puts existing laws in the constitution so no one,like activist judges, can subvert it. Vote yes on Amendment 2.
http://www.yes2marriage.org
Of course that website says that. It belongs to the ultra-right wing, political action committee that wrote and gathered signatures for it to pass.

There are two reasons why this amendment was put up:

*the Right Wing knows that it will help the base come out to vote for Bush, I mean McCain.(even though Crist only pretends to support it so he's not in trouble when he tries to run for a higher office)

*Same-sex marriage is becoming less of a threat to the general population (look at Arizona, California, recent Florida polling) and by putting it the Constitution the Right Wing wants to make it harder for ANYONE to overturn even when the majority won't who if two men or two women marry.

A law was enacted by the Florida Legislature years ago. Florida's Republican Governors have placed most of the Justices on the Supreme Court. This decision should not be made by scare tactics. There is a reason why we have a Democratic-Republic instead of a pure democracy and court oversight. To protect the minority from the majority.

Thank you Sentinel for agreeing with ALL other editorial boards who announced their oposition to this bigoted and needless piece of garbage I will have to read on Nov 4.
Watching

San Antonio, TX

#9 Sep 22, 2008
Geo wrote:
Hmmmm, sounds like more left wing reporting by the Slantinel. According to this website Amendment 2 does not change any of the current laws on the books it just puts existing laws in the constitution so no one,like activist judges, can subvert it. Vote yes on Amendment 2.
http://www.yes2marriage.org
Since you put it that way (the left wing crap), my vote will be "no" on Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 will never pass in Florida - ask Anita Bryant.
Rich Charron

Christmas, FL

#10 Sep 22, 2008
Geo wrote:
Hmmmm, sounds like more left wing reporting by the Slantinel. According to this website Amendment 2 does not change any of the current laws on the books it just puts existing laws in the constitution so no one,like activist judges, can subvert it. Vote yes on Amendment 2.
http://www.yes2marriage.org
Hmmmm, sounds likes somebody from Tennessee doesn't know Florida law. Imagine that! To recap:

In 1997, the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature overwhelmingly adopted the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically states marriage is the "union between one man and one woman" and bars the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. It was codified as s. 741.212, Florida Statutes. Also on the books are the following laws: law prohibiting marriages between persons of the same sex (s. 741.212(1), Florida Statutes), and defines “marriage” as the legal union between one man and one woman and provides that the term “spouse” applies only to a member of such a union (s. 741.212(1),(3), Florida Statutes).

Now, if we're keeping score this weekend, that's the 2nd smack-down Tennessee's gotten from Florida. But thanks for your contribution of propaganda and for continuing to dumb down the state and the nation!

All this fear of gay people is simply stunning!
Gloom and Doom

Silver Spring, MD

#11 Sep 22, 2008
All the gays can go get married up in Vermont or California. They just love those chocolate candy wrappers up there. No more taxes for any reason what so ever down here.
DCM

United States

#12 Sep 22, 2008
"One man/one woman" is not perfect, and it's definitely not easy, but it's what what people are designed for. It's a sad day for the world when even saying that is considered "extremist," etc.

All substitutes for man/woman marriage are just ways of trying to get its benefits without doing the work it takes.(In fact, so are many actual marriages, which is why they fail.)
Edward and Kerri Charles

San Francisco, CA

#13 Sep 28, 2008
This was a huge help to my wife and I, thanks for your laymans explanation of these ammendments. We need to have an ammendment that forces the writers of these ammendments to show both the pro's and con's of each position. Thanks again from Palm City Florida.

“Vote No On Amendment 2”

Since: Jun 08

Tampa, Florida

#14 Sep 29, 2008
I'm very pleased the Orlando Sentinel editorial board joined with the many other major news agencies across the state in recommending: "Vote No On Amendment 2."

Stemberger continues to vehemently deny Amendment 2 will do nothing more than define marriage as between a man and woman, as husband and wife. Which Florida Statue 714-212 and the Defense of Marriage Act already do. As an attorney, he carefully crafted the language of Amendment 2 to be vague and ambivalent. He know very well, "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof" will in fact be considered by the courts to include Domestic Partners Registries, for both unmarried heterosexual and gay couples. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see Stemberger and Amendment 2's true agenda, domestic partnerships benefits and rights are in their crosshairs and their hand is on the trigger.

Florida voters, please do their research and take a long hard at Michigan and Kentucky. Where their citizens Domestic Partners Registries benefits and rights were repealed soon after their Amendments passed. Both their Amendments contained similar wording, however, neither were as open to interpretation than Amendment 2. Let there be no doubt, Floridians will suffer the same loss of benefits and rights as did the citizens of Michigan and Kentucky. Keep in mind, same-gender marriage is and will remain illegal in Florida whether Amendment 2 passes or not.
Do we dare take the chance Floridians will lose insurance benefits, social security, visit their loved ones in a hospital, make medical decisions for them when their unable or be kicked out of the home they share by their partners family? I pray we're not willing to take this chance.

Stemberger and YesOn2 supporters must believe Florida voters are uneducated or stupid, I hope you'll prove them wrong. We must protect Floridians benefits, rights and never write discrimination of any kind into our states constitution. Vote No On 2 It's the Right Thing to Do!

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#15 Sep 29, 2008
Geo wrote:
Hmmmm, sounds like more left wing reporting by the Slantinel. According to this website Amendment 2 does not change any of the current laws on the books it just puts existing laws in the constitution so no one,like activist judges, can subvert it. Vote yes on Amendment 2.
http://www.yes2marriage.org
That's what anti-gay activists in Michigan told voters in that state when a similar amendment was proposed. They said "nothing will change", and they guaranteed that domestic partnerships would not be affected. They lied.

Courts found that the amendment in Michigan, which is worded in the same way as the amendment in Florida, does prevent the state from offering domestic partnerships. Florida law currently allows domestic partnerships, and many senior citizens in this state are in domestic partnerships. Those seniors will likely lose their benefits should this amendment pass. This isn't just an anti-gay amendment. Seniors need to know the truth.

Vote NO on 2.

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#16 Sep 29, 2008
ZekeTB wrote:
I'm very pleased the Orlando Sentinel editorial board joined with the many other major news agencies across the state in recommending: "Vote No On Amendment 2."
Stemberger continues to vehemently deny Amendment 2 will do nothing more than define marriage as between a man and woman, as husband and wife. Which Florida Statue 714-212 and the Defense of Marriage Act already do. As an attorney, he carefully crafted the language of Amendment 2 to be vague and ambivalent. He know very well, "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof" will in fact be considered by the courts to include Domestic Partners Registries, for both unmarried heterosexual and gay couples. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see Stemberger and Amendment 2's true agenda, domestic partnerships benefits and rights are in their crosshairs and their hand is on the trigger.
Florida voters, please do their research and take a long hard at Michigan and Kentucky. Where their citizens Domestic Partners Registries benefits and rights were repealed soon after their Amendments passed. Both their Amendments contained similar wording, however, neither were as open to interpretation than Amendment 2. Let there be no doubt, Floridians will suffer the same loss of benefits and rights as did the citizens of Michigan and Kentucky. Keep in mind, same-gender marriage is and will remain illegal in Florida whether Amendment 2 passes or not.
Do we dare take the chance Floridians will lose insurance benefits, social security, visit their loved ones in a hospital, make medical decisions for them when their unable or be kicked out of the home they share by their partners family? I pray we're not willing to take this chance.
Stemberger and YesOn2 supporters must believe Florida voters are uneducated or stupid, I hope you'll prove them wrong. We must protect Floridians benefits, rights and never write discrimination of any kind into our states constitution. Vote No On 2 It's the Right Thing to Do!
Exactly. Had the crafters of this amendment wanted to protect domestic partnerships, they could have easily worded the amendment in such a way to make that clear. They could have worded it similar to the proposed amendment in California which would not take away domestic partnership benefits. Instead, they wrote it in the same way as amendments that courts have found outlaw state recognition of domestic partnerships. Their real agenda is quite clear.

Vote NO on 2.
KOOKY

Memphis, TN

#17 Sep 29, 2008
DCM wrote:
"One man/one woman" is not perfect, and it's definitely not easy, but it's what what people are designed for. It's a sad day for the world when even saying that is considered "extremist," etc.
All substitutes for man/woman marriage are just ways of trying to get its benefits without doing the work it takes.(In fact, so are many actual marriages, which is why they fail.)
Really, and what exactly is the "work" you put into it that differs from the work I would put into my marriage? Seems to me gay marriages work alot better and onger than most straight marriages, so you're argument is invalid.
KOOKY

Memphis, TN

#18 Sep 29, 2008
oops

"Longer"
jim

Atlanta, GA

#19 Oct 2, 2008
preventing "foreigners" from owning property in FL is not a good example of "bigotry."

"Amendment 1

What it would do: Don't confuse this with last January's tax-cutting measure. This Amendment 1 would strike from the constitution an archaic provision dating back to the early 1900s that allows the Legislature to ban foreigners from owning property. Such laws got their start in California and were aimed at stopping Japanese from buying land. Fortunately, Florida's Legislature never enacted such laws.

Good idea or bad idea? Great idea. This is a no-brainer. The Florida Constitution is no place for bigotry.

Our recommendation: Vote Yes."
One Bad Cat

United States

#20 Oct 2, 2008
Gloom and Doom wrote:
All the gays can go get married up in Vermont or California. They just love those chocolate candy wrappers up there. No more taxes for any reason what so ever down here.
Also Hawaii.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Michigan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 1 hr WasteWater 8,877
News The definition of insanity: The Democratic Part... 1 hr YouDidntBuildThat 2
News Naked man arrested was high on LSD chasing seag... 3 hr Faith 17
News LGBT group asks Civil Rights Commission for leg... 8 hr Charlie 2
News Retiring Taylor police chief will become specia... Tue Ben 1
News 18-year-old shot by Grand Rapids police during ... Tue Faith 7
News Grievance filed over mowing goats at university... Mon Faith 2
More from around the web