Shameful Bigotry Amendment Passes In Florida

[Thunder]

Lets not forget that gay men and gay women are still allowed to marry. They simply cant marry someone of the same sex.

Doesnt Florida have a domestic partnership status that is equal in every way except in name, to marriage? If they dont, they should have one. And if they wont, then, they should let same-sex couples marry.

To me, this is all about equal rights and equal status. If domestic partnership is equal in every way to marriage, then thats good enough for me.

 

[1337m4n]

Doesnt Florida have a domestic partnership status that is equal in every way except in name, to marriage?

Not anymore.

 

[bpesta22]

There are now 30 states that have amended constitutions to ban gay marriage and 20 that have not.

Banning or not at the state constitution level correlates:

.46 with the % of evangelical xtians in a state.
.45 with how religious a state is (measured by surveys with items like "mine is the one true religion").
-.36 with state iq

It's all about protecting the family, too, as states that ban have:

more families in poverty (r=.34)
more teenage births (r = .37)
higher divorce rates (r = ..30)
higher rape rates (r = .32)

The list goes on and on.

Where's the hope?

% voting for Obama and banning or not (r = -.49)
Obama and religiosity (-.61)
Obama and state IQ (.48, after controlling race).

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well there is the whole thing that at our current technology level it is impossible.....

Fusing sperm as you mentioned is only necessary if they want to have a child that is equally their own on a genetic leve. I was also referring to the possibility of adoption or surrogacy.

 

[Ziggurat]

What ever happened to majority rule, minority rights?!

Constitutionally, there is no such thing as minority rights (hell, constitutionally there's no such thing as minorities). What there is is equal protection. But prohibiting gay marriage doesn't exactly violate equal protection. As mentioned, gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people do, and straights are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Yes, it's not fair, but that's a different issue. And it's an issue that will ultimately need to be solved by swaying public opinion, not the courts.

Legally, this is a question of gender, not one of sexuality. And if you think making distinctions on the basis of gender is the same as making distinctions on the basis of race, ask yourself if you seriously think American society wants genderless public restrooms.

 

[1337m4n]

-.36 with state iq

It's all about protecting the family, too, as states that ban have:

more families in poverty (r=.34)
more teenage births (r = .37)
higher divorce rates (r = ..30)
higher rape rates (r = .32)

Yer talkin bout mah Flahrida thar, boy. Them's fightin' words.

 

[bpesta22]

Yer talkin bout mah Flahrida thar, boy. Them's fightin' words.

yer just clinging to your guns (gun ownership correlates .44 with state religiosity).

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fusing sperm as you mentioned is only necessary if they want to have a child that is equally their own on a genetic leve. I was also referring to the possibility of adoption or surrogacy.

Surely if they use a surogate or a donar no one can stop them from having a kid, and as far as adoption, wouldn't De Facto or common-law marriages suffer the same issues? Surely it's better to change the law to allow adoption for those in a "long term stable relationship" rather than changing marriage and still preventing those that don't want the trouble of an expensive ceremony and piece of paper from being able to adopt.

See in NZ same sex couples have all the rights of married couples even without a civil union, except for the next of kin. I personally think the civil union was a waste of time, they should have just introduced a legal next of kin where a person can nominate the person they want to have next of kin responsiblilty and then stuck with our cohabitation law which gives unmarried couples the same rights and responsiblities of married couples after 6 months together (iirc) unless they opt out of it and form their own contract. Much cleaner and it gives the rights to a whole bunch of people that get forgotten in the whole marriage debate.

 

[gumboot]

Surely if they use a surogate or a donar no one can stop them from having a kid, and as far as adoption, wouldn't De Facto or common-law marriages suffer the same issues? Surely it's better to change the law to allow adoption for those in a "long term stable relationship" rather than changing marriage and still preventing those that don't want the trouble of an expensive ceremony and piece of paper from being able to adopt.

See in NZ same sex couples have all the rights of married couples even without a civil union, except for the next of kin. I personally think the civil union was a waste of time, they should have just introduced a legal next of kin where a person can nominate the person they want to have next of kin responsiblilty and then stuck with our cohabitation law which gives unmarried couples the same rights and responsiblities of married couples after 6 months together (iirc) unless they opt out of it and form their own contract. Much cleaner and it gives the rights to a whole bunch of people that get forgotten in the whole marriage debate.

Distinguishing different relationship status in New Zealand at all is a waste of time because the Bill of Rights Act quite clearly states that discrimination on grounds of relationship status is illegal. There is no legally recognised definition of "next of kin" in New Zealand, however a de facto partner (automatic status achieved after 2 years living together), spouse, and civil union partner in New Zealand all have identical rights, by law.

What we should do is abolish civil unions, abolish the religion aspect of the Marriage Act, and redefine marriage as a union between any two consenting adults, irrespective of gender or orientation.

The religious right can go

Edited by tim: 

rule 10

themselves.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Distinguishing different relationship status in New Zealand at all is a waste of time because the Bill of Rights Act quite clearly states that discrimination on grounds of relationship status is illegal. There is no legally recognised definition of "next of kin" in New Zealand, however a de facto partner (automatic status achieved after 2 years living together), spouse, and civil union partner in New Zealand all have identical rights, by law.

What we should do is abolish civil unions, abolish the religion aspect of the Marriage Act, and redefine marriage as a union between any two consenting adults, irrespective of gender or orientation.

The religious right can go F*** themselves.

I have to disagree here. I agree that the Civil Union Act was a waste of time and Paper, but since as you pointed out the Bill of Rights and the Relationships, Families, and Adoption laws cover everything except next of kin, which was the major focus of the Gay Marriage proponents in NZ and gave rise to the Civil Union Act. In NZ there are acts that allow for Same Sex or De Facto couples to have all the rights of a married couple, without the need for marriage, including adoption of children. What they are missing is the ability to act as their partner's family in certain situations. I still advocate that the better legislation would have been to introduce a Legal Next of Kin to cover that one anomaly. Not only would it have given same sex couples the cover, but de facto and also those people who wish to sever ties with their biological family. This is where I believe the proponents have got it wrong. They are so focused on having to have marriage to get the rights that they believe go with it (in a NZ sense since we have very little "special rights" for marriage now) that they are missing the forest for the trees. Instead of going for marriage, they should go for the rights. I'd personally rather have a system where relationships were registered by application to the state (here I'm talking New Zealand as the State, not a State as in a State of the US) and given equal rights based on that, with marriage then being made as a purely religious thing that transfers no other rights at all but that people can have if they want to do so.

 

[Gazpacho]

Was pointed out in another thread already. Interestingly the Judge appears to misquote the case law he is using, Skinner v. Oklahoma

That doesn't matter. It is the law. Admittedly, it is not a precedent that applies neatly and directly to gay marriage, where the issues of marriage and procreation are separate. (Attention knee-jerkers: I am talking here about what the courts have said.)

As you ought to know, the Fourteenth Amendment does not enumerate any rights at all (nor should it). It merely says "all the rights and privileges" and leaves the rest to the courts.

Well pointed out in another of these threads, Article 16 of the UN The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is likely a better source.

It's not one that carries much weight in a federal court.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not one that carries much weight in a federal court.

However the US Federal Court carrys no weight outside the US. A human right is not a human right if it's only recognised as such in the US. (c.f. right to bear arms)

 

[Gazpacho]

However the US Federal Court carrys no weight outside the US. A human right is not a human right if it's only recognised as such in the US. (c.f. right to bear arms)

American homosexuals will not be helped at all by academic discussions and wishful thinking.

 

[PhantomWolf]

American homosexuals will not be helped at all by academic discussions and wishful thinking.

And those Americans and non-Americans in de facto relationships will not be helped while people merely focus on Gay Marriage instead of the real issue, equal rights for all people in a commited long term relationship, marriage licence or no.

 

[gumboot]

What they are missing is the ability to act as their partner's family in certain situations.

What situations?

 

[Neally]

If I grow old (I hope) and suffer a stroke, or one of other debilitating conditions that have afflicted people in my family, the only people allowed to visit me and take care of me are my family.

Another response to this has already been made, but here is another: There are no laws that I know of that dictate who the hospital allows to visit. The hospital can allow or exclude anyone they want for any reason. This is not something that is dictated by law or marriage. Further, I have not heard of any specific hospital denying visitation of unmarried partners, same sex or different as would have been accorded to married partners.

What happens in your scenario when one spouse dies and the other spouse keeps the property, does that spouse have to inheritance taxes?

Transfer of property can be controlled by wills and trusts. Inheritance taxes are a separate issue unrelated to marriage.

What about spousal privilage? If you are involved in a court case, you can confide to your spouse without having to fear your spouse being called on the stand to testify against you.

Not an absolute right for married people, as there are exceptions, but something that should be granted to all partners, married or not.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Constitutionally, there is no such thing as minority rights (hell, constitutionally there's no such thing as minorities). What there is is equal protection. But prohibiting gay marriage doesn't exactly violate equal protection. As mentioned, gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people do, and straights are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Yes, it's not fair, but that's a different issue. And it's an issue that will ultimately need to be solved by swaying public opinion, not the courts.

Yet this is exactly what the CA supreme court did in Perez V. Sharp. They stated in their opinion that the argument that Blacks and Whites are EQUALLY bound by anti-miscegenation laws proves that there is no violation of equal protection is not tenable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet this is exactly what the CA supreme court did in Perez V. Sharp. They stated in their opinion that the argument that Blacks and Whites are EQUALLY bound by anti-miscegenation laws proves that there is no violation of equal protection is not tenable.

They would not likely find so now. The difference is that the state should be indifferent to race, and so should not even consider race when deciding whether or not to permit a marriage. The state is not, and will not be, indifferent to sex (at least not anytime soon). That's why race-separated bathrooms are unacceptable, but gender-separated bathrooms are. I brought up the example of bathrooms for a reason. And while the state should indeed be indifferent to sexuality (if for no other reason than it's not suited to making such determinations), the prohibition on gay marriages actually opperates on sex (something the state is not indifferent to), not sexuality.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What situations?

Mainly medical issues were the family of the patient would decide on what treatment or lack there of was required. While most Hosptials would certain recognise the partner and their wishes, if the family contradicted those wishes, the Hospital would have to listen to them over the partner because there is no legal standing.

Consider my best friends back home, they have been together for 15 years, but legally his family would have more rights to control his fate in the case of a medical emergency than his partner of 15 years.

This was one of the main issues of the Gay Marriage campaign in NZ, though it totally ignored that straight De facto couples suffered the exact same issue as same sex ones did.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

They would not likely find so now. The difference is that the state should be indifferent to race, and so should not even consider race when deciding whether or not to permit a marriage. The state is not, and will not be, indifferent to sex (at least not anytime soon). That's why race-separated bathrooms are unacceptable, but gender-separated bathrooms are. I brought up the example of bathrooms for a reason. And while the state should indeed be indifferent to sexuality (if for no other reason than it's not suited to making such determinations), the prohibition on gay marriages actually opperates on sex (something the state is not indifferent to), not sexuality.

That's a bit of a over-simplification IMO. The state has an interest in keeping restrooms separate, namely safety. The state can (and does) legally discriminate (and rightfully so) when there is a compelling state interest at hand.

How is public safety impeded by recognizing same-sex marriages?