Florida Amendment 2: Gay Marriage.

I’m surprised there isn’t more chatter about this. Amendment Two will be on the ballot Nov. 4 in FL and it will, in effect, amend the state constitution so that same sex marriage, or the equivalent (civil unions), are not recognized in Florida. We already have a law to that effect, but this would put it in the constitution.

The catch is that we require a 60% majority to pass an amendment, and the latest polls show between 56-58% support.

If such a defeat, if you will, would happen, what would that do for the same sex marriage supporters in the nation? Could the FL Supreme Court use this to strike down the anti SSM law in FL? Would this, coupled with a Cali defeat of its proposal start a downhill slope?


I was very surprised to see this on my ballot this week!! I meant to start a thread about it, I’m glad you did. Has there been much discussion about it at all in Florida?? Commercials, or anything? I hadn’t heard a thing about it until I saw it on the ballot.
Considering I was only going to vote for the president and that’s it, I’m glad I decided to read the rest of the ballot to see what was on there!!

By the way, have you seen the way it’s wriiten on the ballot? It’s horrible!! It comes off as very innocent. It doesn’t include any bad words like forbid or discriminate or anything like that. Thousands could possibly vote in favor without even thinking it through.

It actually uses the word “protects”. How fucked up is that? The old senile bastards in Florida wouldn’t dare vote NO on something designed to “protect” them.

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.
The direct financial impact this amendment will have
on state and local government revenues and
expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected
to be minor.

Seems like an attempt to pull out voters who will vote against SSM as well as will vote for McCain in Forida. Worked pretty well in 2004, so why not? After Jessie recently tried to screw over Obama in FL (and elsewhere), why not try to finish the job?

IANA Florida Voter- But this shit pisses me off royal. I don’t know how many times, in this area- reading my voters pamphlet you read a measure that is made to sound so reasonable… without further research you may vote against how you really feel about the issue.

It is almost borders on deception- and since it comes officially from the state- it just ticks me off.

It may be a lot of things, but how is it deception? I think any third grader could read that and see what it is trying to accomplish.

I could see an objection to the word “protects” but the FL Supreme Court, who is about as liberal as you can get, approved the language on the ballot.

If it fails, they’d probably try again. A SSM amendment failed in Arizona in 2006, they’re back again this year. Unfortunately, this year the Mormon church has written the Yes side a blank check and it will probably pass.

Well, I’m not voting for Obama but I’m voting No on Amendment 2. My sister tried to send me AFA glurge about it until I shut her down.

Here’s hoping it fails.

Someone not really keeping up with everything might read it as an amendment agains polygamy. The whole “one man and one woman” phrasing. We’re dealing with Florida here, remember. I can picture their lil heads thinking “well, there should be only one of each! I’m against marriages to multiple wives–I’ll vote YES”

I wouldn’t quite call it deceptive, but geez, it certainly comes off as a bit biased. “Protects marriage” my ass. How about an amendment that actually does protect marriage–making divorce illegal and marriage counseling free.*

*(Not that I’d vote YES on that, but how could you claim anything else actually protects marriage??)

I love how it “protects” and “provides”. At least its a 60% vote. Sad that that is necessary to count on.

I see lots of “Yes on 8. Protect Marriage” signs in CA. Actually it is about the only one I see. Way more common than either Obama or McCain signs. It’s sort of surreal that people still get more fired up about hating on their neighbors than they do about things that actually matter in the real world. I have started seeing another sign that just says “Vote No on Religion” which I guess must be the “No on 8” sign, but I’m not sure. Still, I have yet to see a sign re: any other proposal.

Should we just expect this to be on every ballot year after year, for a few more generations?

Well, courts don’t generally look at the defeat of a proposal (almost always in the context of a bill) as having any precedential value—there are lots of reasons something doesn’t become law, and none of them mean the opposite is legal.

I’d also argue your thoughts put causation the wrong way around-the “downhill” slope is caused by people realizing (As they did in MA, hopefully have done in CA, and will do in CT) that their lives haven’t fallen apart because of same-sex marriage, and a bunch of rather pleasant people they know are 1) gay and 2) then get married.

The hopeful defeats of discriminatory amendments are the result, not the cause of this kind of popular movement, as I see it.

Yup. You need 8% of the statewide vote to propose an amendment. Seems pretty probable there’s going to be 8% of the florida electorate in favor of such a proposal for a while, and then the limiting factor is just cash to keep getting signatures.

It’s the problem with such a simple constitutional amendment process, IMO-even after an issue is well settled, the other side only needs to win once.

SECTION 3. Initiative.–The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith. It may be invoked by filing with the custodian of state records a petition containing a copy of the proposed revision or amendment, signed by a number of electors in each of one half of the congressional districts of the state, and of the state as a whole, equal to eight percent of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state as a whole in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen.

For those who think the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate and have children, why don’t they add the provision:

“Only heterosexuals who prove to be currently fertile, able and willing to have children, can legally marry.”

They might also add, “…as marriage is sacred, divorced people are not allowed to re-marry, otherwise you are making a mockery of the institution.”

Add those two little tidbits and let’s see how those proposals fly.

Unfortunately, yes. The only reason the last one didn’t pass was because it would have involved throwing some government employees under the bus as well as homosexuals, and the good citizens of Arizona decided that that they didn’t hate gays/SSM to quite that extent…barely. But when it’s just SSM on the ballot? Yeah, no way it’s not going to pass. :frowning:

Reminds me of a recent letter to the editor in my local paper, which seems to run letters almost entirely sent in by idiots…
The writer claimed that gay marriages aren’t as stable as hetero marriages–which certainly makes one wonder how all those divorces and adultery and other problems occur. She also said that having a child gives a couple more of a reason to stay together. For f’s sake…How does a baby become marriage glue?
Another idjit wrote in to say that gays adopting kids shouldn’t happen because it doesn’t help us to replenish the earth with additional young’uns. Is six billion plus people not enough?

Who thinks that? I know several people who believe that the PRIMARY purpose of marriage is procreation, but I have never heard anyone at all say that the elderly or other sterile people should not be allowed to marry.

Take a 75 year old man and a 75 year old woman who lost their respective spouses three years ago. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that the marriage laws shouldn’t apply to them, even though there is no chance of children in this marriage.

Use discrimination, or other arguments, but this is not one I have ever heard expressed, and I attend a Southern Baptist church…:wink:


Can’t this amendment be repealed at a later date through the same process? Couldn’t pro gay marriage people propose an amendment that says the opposite for the 2012 elections?

As I’ve said in a GD thread that I started before, I firmly believe that it’s because when they think “marriage,” they think “two people are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together,” and when they think “gay marriage,” they think “emotionally empty arrangement for financial and legal benefit, because you know those deviants don’t ‘love’ anyone - all they care about is continuous, promiscuous sex.”

Now that I think about it, the base motives and assumptions behind this is probably the same reason why swingers and open marriages were/are viewed as populated by freaks as well.

I just meant “downhill” as starting a juggernaut for legal SSM. I think that only Arizona has, to date, defeated an anti-SSM/civil union proposal. If a southern state like Florida were to defeat it (less than 60, and the 60% requirement would quickly get lost in the noise) then how long before the calls that “even rednecks in Florida support gay marriage” begin?

And I could see the Florida Supremes crafting an opinion striking down the state marriage law as discriminatory, and noting that the people had a chance to state their preference on illegal SSM, and did not vote to enshrine it in the constitution.

I see this vote as huge.

Well, a loss in Florida and California plus an Obama victory might convince the Republicans to get away from SSM as an issue. That would help as I’m sure the issue will eventually get to the Supreme Court.