• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Shameful Bigotry Amendment Passes In Florida

I've lived in Florida all my life. And I'll tell you right now: Florida voters vote "Yes" on every bloody amendment, no matter what it says.

There was this one time where Florida voters passed an amendment to add a publicly funded bullet train system. It got voted in by a wide margin. A whopping two years later, opponents proposed an amendment to repeal the bullet train, and that got voted in by a wide margin as well!

In two years I will try to propose an amendment to repeal this one. Hopefully the tradition of blind Yes-voting continues.

God my state is so dumb. It's no wonder all the confusion in 2000 was centered here.
 
Last edited:
How many civil rights movements does this country need to have?
Click to expand...

Just to try and throw a cat amongst the pigeons.... Can you actually prove that Marriage is a civil right?
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
 
I just never got why people are so dog goned afraid and/or against same sex marriages/civil unions. In 2000 the VT Supreme Court ruled that VT's marriage laws violated the equal protection clause in both the state and federal constitutions, and the legislature needed to provide equivalent statutes for same sex couples (though it wasn't required to be called marriage). The VT legislature passed a civil union package (which is virtually identical to marriage law in all but name, and some terminology ie. divorce is called dissolution). The homophobes and Christian right wingers were up in arms! It was going to ruin the state, we were going to be overrun with homosexuals and AIDS etc. etc. etc. Eight years later, Vermont seems to have weathered the onslaught ;) The only tangible effect seems to be a slight bump in tourism, as same sex couples come up for a weekend or a vacation and to "get married" (even if it's not recognized in their home states). Marriage/Civil Union as provided by the government is a civil contract, it has nothing to do with religion, and the gov't can't and won't be forcing them to marry same sex couples within their faiths.
 
BazBear said:
. Marriage/Civil Union as provided by the government is a civil contract, it has nothing to do with religion, and the gov't can't and won't be forcing them to marry same sex couples within their faiths.
Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right here and a big part of the problem is that "marriage" is an institution with a lot of different meanings. On the one hand, it's a religious institution, considered a sacred bond in many faiths. On another hand it's a social institution, where people publically commit to each other and celebrate with their friends and family. Finally, it's also a legal institution, a government recognized contract. It is a very old institution, having been inherited from a time when there was very limited separation of church and state, and it is difficult now to separate the different aspects.

People get all bent out of shape over gay marriage because they fail to recognize the many different interpretations of what marriage means. For some people getting married is a way to protect joint assets, for some it's a non religious declaration of love and for some it's being bound to another by God. People feel the need to "defend" marriage because they are unable to accept that it means something for other people than it does for them.

In my opinion, governments should have nothing to do with any institution called "marriage". It is not needed for the legal side of the arrangement. All marriages should be civil unions in the eyes of the law. Recognizing "marriage" as a civil institution conflates it with the religious institution and confuses the issue. If "marriage" in law was replaced entirely with "civil union", the social and religious aspects of marriage could then be endlessly debated by competing factions without it mattering a bit.

There are some religious people who consider those who marry in civil ceremonies to not really be married. There are some Catholics who consider people married in a Protestant church to not really be married (and vice versa). They are entitled to their opinion, but it doesnt stop the objects of their ire from being legally joined and calling themselves "married" if they wish.

The government should be above the fray as far as competing religious ideologies are concerned, and the whole legal institution of "marriage" should be considered an issue of the separation of church and state. It's the government's business if I am legally connected with someone, but it's up to me whether I'm "married".
 
ArmillarySphere said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...

I still don't see Marriage listed.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Please point out where the 14th Amendment says anything about Marriage.
Click to expand...
It certainly does not, however the "equal protection" clause leads me to the same conclusion the VT supreme court reached; that denying same sex couples the same basic and relevant rights as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional.

I do however believe that using different terminology is a fair compromise, if only for the fact a same sex couple can't procreate (at least not in the manner a heterosexual couple can). As long as same sex couples that are in love and want to make a legal commitment to each other can do so; and if under the eyes of the law it's in all relevant respects equal to the rights a heterosexual couple enjoy, I think the 14th Amendment issues have been addressed.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm a very straight male; I have "no dog in this fight" other than what I think is fair, just, and constitutional :)
 
BazBear said:
It certainly does not, however the "equal protection" clause leads me to the same conclusion the VT supreme court reached; that denying same sex couples the same basic and relevant rights as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional.

I do however believe that using different terminology is a fair compromise, if only for the fact a same sex couple can't procreate (at least not in the manner a heterosexual couple can). As long as same sex couples that are in love and want to make a legal commitment to each other can do so; and if under the eyes of the law it's in all relevant respects equal to the rights a heterosexual couple enjoy, I think the 14th Amendment issues have been addressed.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm a very straight male; I have "no dog in this fight" other than what I think is fair, just, and constitutional :)
Click to expand...

Well pointed out in another of these threads, Article 16 of the UN The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is likely a better source.
 
Here's a rant I went on to a friend of mine today. Before you ask, yes I was very angry at him for actually going out and voting for prop. 8.

The point is that the whole debate is silly! Ok, I'm an atheist and fully admit my bias...I have an illogical need to make sense! And concerning the ability and right for gays to be wed in fully legal fashions I am concerned with only one thing! Is there any secular reason that gays should not be wed? Is there any secular reason that they should not be allowed to have children?

No? I thought not. The fact is that the arguments against gay marriage are one in the same as those that were brought up against interracial marriage. Interracial couples are against the natural way of things and we shouldn't allow it. God is against interracial couples. If I child is born to an interracial union then he will have a hard time fitting in and will be made fun of at school. What ever happened to majority rule, minority rights?!

The idea that we should allow gays to have a union but not to call it marriage is laughably absurd! What possible reason could anyone have to motivate you to create a separate term for gay marriage? There is only two options, in my humble opinion. Pure ignorance or blind bigotry. I know some would say calling gay marriage a "union" is a fair compromise but I have a bit of news for those folks. When it comes to basic human rights you don't compromise! What if Dr. King said: Ok we'll have equal rights for blacks in regards to lynching but we'll stay segregated and with less pay as well? Or what if when Hitler invaded Poland and we left Europe to Germany so long as Hitler promised to play nice with the Jews? I tell you right now I wouldn't be here that's for damn sure! I'd either wouldn't exist right now or would be waiting for my turn in the gas chambers!

Separate but equal is not equal!
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
Loving v. Virginia
Click to expand...

Was pointed out in another thread already. Interestingly the Judge appears to misquote the case law he is using, Skinner v. Oklahoma, because Skinner v. Oklahoma doesn't say that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," but rather that procreation is a "basic civil right of man" and that marriage and procreation are "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" based apparently on the idea that procreation can/should only occur inside of wedlock. Since the case being quote apparently interprets marriage as being fundamental only because it allows for procreation, the question one could ask is that is marriage is not required for procreation, nor desired to in fact have procreation, is it still "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" and thus a requirement to protect the right of procreation?

However, this is moot because Article 16 of the UN Universal Rights is pretty clear on the matter and isn't based on misquoted case law.
 
Is there any secular reason that they should not be allowed to have children?
Click to expand...

Well there is the whole thing that at our current technology level it is impossible.....
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Last i checked my sperm are completely viable hence no technology needed.
Click to expand...

Well if you can work out how to fuse two sperm into an embryo or how to allow a male to bring a fetus to term then go for it, I'm sure it will win you the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
 
I voted against it and for Obama - as did my wife. Unfortunately, only the Obama part took here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom