Shameful Bigotry Amendment Passes In Florida

ImaginalDisc

Penultimate Amazing
I
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
10,219
My state has passed ballot amendment 2 which reads:

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
Click to expand...

Never mind that there's already a state statute against it, and Florida adopted the DOMA, we had to go for this bigotry as well. As I told the guy violating the "No campaigning past this line" marker before I got him thrown out who was shouting "Protect our families" gay marriages don't harm anyone's family.

Right now, I have to go to work. Afterward, I'll need a strong drink.

ETA: Actually, this probably belongs in the main politics forum.
 
So what now happens if a same-sex couple enters into a marriage in another state and then moves or even just visits Florida?
 
Darat said:
So what now happens if a same-sex couple enters into a marriage in another state and then moves or even just visits Florida?
Click to expand...

I'd thought that in that case the marriage is valid because one state's laws cannot invalidate a marriage formed in another state, but I'm no lawyer.
 
That's what DOMA is about. The trend is to allow states NOT to recognize marriages from other states. It's going to take a constitutional amendment, though, and with CA's Prop 8 apparently going down in flames, it's setting up a SCOTUS decision along the same lines as Dred Scott.

The rational solution to me is states out of the "marriage" business altogether. They issue civil unions and churchs do marriages according to their beliefs. But that will never happen.
 
Let's just be patient... wait a few years.

We have a new president, and hopefully a few new SCOTUS appointments. Once the new justices are in place, THEN we take the state to court. I'd recommend starting with California since gay marriage was actually LEGAL before the constitutional ban (i.e. rights were taken away rather than never afforded to begin with).

Then this whole issue will be moot. If the SCOTUS sides with us, then same-sex-marriage for all 50 states.
 
boloboffin said:
The rational solution to me is states out of the "marriage" business altogether. They issue civil unions and churchs do marriages according to their beliefs. But that will never happen.
Click to expand...

I hear that assertion frequently, but I've never been clear on what that means. Marriage has so many legal and financial reprocussions that I can't see you could protect them while getting the states out of "the "marriage" business altogether." Are you perhaps assuming that such benefits should be abolished?

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. Were I married to another man, I would have to suffer alone, and he wouldn't have the chance to help me in my hour of need. Robert Lancaster and his wife are going through a terrible period, as we all know - a period which would be made infinitely worse if she was not allowed to even see him in the hospital. That is a protection marriage grants.

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

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.

There are other benefits as well, but they're more nuanced legal and financial benefits and I'm sure I don't understand the finer details of how they work.
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
That's what DOMA is about. The trend is to allow states NOT to recognize marriages from other states. It's going to take a constitutional amendment, though, and with CA's Prop 8 apparently going down in flames, it's setting up a SCOTUS decision along the same lines as Dred Scott.
Click to expand...
I heard the opposite, that Prop 8 looks like it passed. What is your source?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I hear that assertion frequently, but I've never been clear on what that means. Marriage has so many legal and financial reprocussions that I can't see you could protect them while getting the states out of "the "marriage" business altogether."
Click to expand...

A number of benefits (though not all of them) can already be replicated by civil contract equivalents between any two people.

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. Were I married to another man, I would have to suffer alone, and he wouldn't have the chance to help me in my hour of need.
Click to expand...

If you give someone else medical power of attorney, not only will they be allowed to visit you, they can even make life-or-death medical decisions (like whether or not to keep you on life support) for you. That can be granted to anyone. While it's conveniently available through marriage, gay couples who cannot get married can (and should) still make such arrangements.

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

A lot of libertarians want to do away with inheritance tax completely, which would solve that problem.

What about spousal privilage?
Click to expand...

This is one of the benefits which I don't think can be duplicated.

There are other benefits as well, but they're more nuanced legal and financial benefits and I'm sure I don't understand the finer details of how they work.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's really only two other significant benefits: child custody and tax filing status. Something would have to be done about the former if states got out of the marriage business, but in principle we don't need to have the latter at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
A lot of libertarians want to do away with inheritance tax completely, which would solve that problem.
Click to expand...

Right. This is not the place to discuss why libertarianism is unwise and destructive so let's try to stay on topic by finding ways to protect the benefits of marriage while disentangling the state from it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Actually, there's really only two other significant benefits: child custody and tax filing status. Something would have to be done about the former if states got out of the marriage business, but in principle we don't need to have the latter at all.
Click to expand...

There's another significant benefit - immigration and emigration.

Linda
 
Just Curious. Does the SCOTUS have the authority to override state constitutional ammendments if they are found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?

I ask this because prop 8 in CA, ammendment 2 in FL and prop 102 in AZ all passed and were all constitutional ammendments.

Also AR passed a measure banning unmarried couples from adopting.

All in all, aside from a liberal democrat being elected pres, not a very cheery election this year for us friends of Dorothy.
 
cwalner said:
Just Curious. Does the SCOTUS have the authority to override state constitutional ammendments if they are found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

That's what the supremeacy clause in article VI of the U.S. Constitution says:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

From Martin v. Hunter's Lesee that's been upheld, as far as I'm aware.


Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this post does not constitute legal advice or sufficient defense against kaiju.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
My state has passed ballot amendment 2 which reads:



Never mind that there's already a state statute against it, and Florida adopted the DOMA, we had to go for this bigotry as well. As I told the guy violating the "No campaigning past this line" marker before I got him thrown out who was shouting "Protect our families" gay marriages don't harm anyone's family.

Right now, I have to go to work. Afterward, I'll need a strong drink.

ETA: Actually, this probably belongs in the main politics forum.
Click to expand...

Argh...FWIW, I voted against this tripe. Using the constitution is a vehicle for discrimination is a travesty.

The same day we elect a black man, we tell homosexuals separate but equal is OK. :(
 
Last edited:
IchabodPlain said:
Argh...FWIW, I voted against this tripe. Using the constitution is a vehicle for discrimination is a travesty.

The same day we elect a black man, we tell homosexuals separate but equal is OK. :(
Click to expand...

Exactly. How many civil rights movements does this country need to have? It seems as soon as we make right by one group, we move onto kicking around another (even though gays have always been kicked around).
 
Ziggurat said:
Actually, there's really only two other significant benefits: child custody and tax filing status. Something would have to be done about the former if states got out of the marriage business, but in principle we don't need to have the latter at all.
Click to expand...

If we are all about tradition, why not go the traditional route there, children belong to the father and the fathers family, the mothers have no rights to them.
 
moon1969 said:
I hope Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mary Cheney and Mark Foley voted yes.
Click to expand...

Asside from Mary Cheney why would any of the people on the list want there to be gay marriage? They are not in long term relationships with men(well I don't know about Foley now).

There are plenty of men who want women for marriage, but want to mess around with men on occasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom