HockeyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 04:58 PM
Original message |
Florida's Amendment 2 MORE Restrictive than Prop. 8 |
|
Yet, this is going totally under the radar."inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
The second part of this amendment also strikes down Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as well. This not only applies to gays with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, but straights as well. So, gays with Civil Unions from Vermont, and Domestic Partnerships from NJ will not be recognized in Florida.
Also, any straight senior couple with a domestic partnership from NJ, well, their's won't be recognized either.
Florida really went the extra mile with this one. They not only don't like gays, but they don't like straight couples either who are "shacking up and living in sin", even if they are Grandma and Grandpa. All those old folks from Ca. who voted for Prop 8 better stay the hell out of Florida unless they are living in "scared, holy, matrimony".
The Mormon Church may have been responsible for pushing Prop 8, but here the amendment was written by the Baptists, with a lot of help from the Catholics.
Don't tell me that either of these bigoted legislation wasn't RELIGIOUS in nature. Oh, I so hope that now that Obama is in the White House, we can END all this discrimination and put the religious right in their place.
I am from the North. I am not surprised that this passed in Florida. I AM very surprised this passed in California.
|
ROakes1019
(434 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
My daughter, who lives in Tampa, was very upset about the amendment. It sort of ruined Florida's turning blue for her.
|
funkybug
(59 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I wanted to be proud ... and instead I was disgusted with my state.
And I'm still disgusted that NO ONE is even TRYING to fight it!
|
yardwork
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I've been posting this over and over again and it's not getting much attention. |
|
Not only Florida, but Arizona and Arkansas passed anti-gay laws on election day.
As you note, the Florida decision is especially onerous as it also outlaws civil unions. Also, it can't be remedied as easily as California's, because so many people in Florida voted for it (63%).
This country needs an awakening to the need for equal rights for all.
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
3. "Scared holy matrimony" it is, then, in FL. |
|
They'd better be scared -- gays and unmarried heteros can find states other than Fl and Ca.
|
JustFiveMoreMinutes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Probably unconstitutional as written because of it's vagueness |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 05:23 PM by JustFiveMoreMinutes
Doesn't it say something in there about an appearance of marriage or some wording? It would be way overreaching and should be struck down on constitutional grounds because of the vagueness. "substantial equivalent" too subjective and can be used to invalidate powers of attorney and medical durable.. if taken to extreme...
California's was a bit more direct and not over-reaching.
|
Moloch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I was really hoping that it would get less than 60% |
|
but that was not to be.. I worked pretty hard to get out the vote against this bigoted piece of shit but it looks like there are too many ignorant people here in florida.
|
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-08 07:08 PM
Response to Original message |
7. The one that passed in VA two years ago is even worse than that |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:57 PM
Response to Original message |