-
Obama won because he won over moderates. He didn’t win over any of the rabid right, just as Bush didn’t win over any of the rabid left in '00 and '04.
-
Since some people get all freaked out by two people of the same sex calling themselves “married”, maybe gay rights advocates should simply come up with a new term for a same sex union. If they want to get cheeky, they could call it a “fairiage.” Or get hoity-toity and call it a “gay-riage.”
Yes, that will help.
No. Bigots don’t get to claim this country, fuck that.
I’m a big fan of government not sticking their noses into the matter of marriage. They should issue civil union licenses, which covers the legal, financial, etc. aspects of such a pairing. Churches can then decide who they want to marry. Why do fundamentalists think that part of their sacred union in the eyes of God involves a government contract?
They’ve always claimed this country.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is Florida, after all. In a discussion with my co-workers on the subject, I discovered that many (possibly most) of them were unsure whether Amendment 2was supposed to protect gay marriages or protect marriage from gays. I have the lurking suspicion that many well-intentioned but thunderously dim people may have voted in favor of the amendment, believing that it would “amend” the current situation wherein gay marriage is illegal in Florida. Okay, it’s kind of a stretch; I realize that.
Yeah, but if the open-minded don’t stick behind, they’ll get the whole thing, is what I’m saying. I shudder to think of the effect.
I’m all for this. However, Prop 2 outlaws it.
Stop by in Oslo, I’ll buy you a beer for that one.
Same here. I am utterly unsurprised by this. All I can say is that we’ll keep trying and someday we’ll get it.
I can’t believe I’m seeing this stuff in the 21st century. It looks no stupider in my eyes than laws against inter-racial marriage. Obviously, I must be in the minority on this view (compared to the real world, not the SDMB).
Aside from all the warm and fuzzy feelings one presumably gets from marrying their loved one, what rights or advantages would same sex couples gain under state law (California or Florida)? Does the federal government recognize these marriages?
Look, it’s understandable that people are upset about this, I’m personally OK with gay marriage, and/or the elimination of all ‘marriage’ as a ‘class’ with a legal definition, but like the presidential election, the people have spoken. Some with honest, decent, real beliefs in the one man+one woman=marriage concept, including President-Elect Obama.
It didn’t happen this time, but on the other hand, there’s a black man heading for the white house in two short months. One step at a time people.
sigh
Well, at least we’re “protected” now.
As to MOIDALIZE’s question, the new constitutional amendment also bans civil unions for everyone. That means that couples who aren’t married forfeit any rights or protections. Like the ability to visit a hospitalized loved one as “family”. If I understand it correctly, it could also theoretically prevent benefits from more progressive companies.
I’m not gay, I don’t have any close friends in the state that are gay, but it just sucks that they had to enshrine a law that amounts to bigotry.
Dude, last time I checked, Canada was still in North America. Same-sex marriage has been legal here long enough to elicit yawns from the vast majority the electorate. And, contrary to all of the doomsayers, I have yet to encounter any hellfire or pitchforks on my daily commute to work (despite the re-election of Stephen Harper).
This is a pretty pointless amendment, since gay marriage isn’t legal in Florida, but it basically ensures that SSM couples who are married elsewhere don’t have to be treated as married couples. It also makes things pretty tricky in terms of it becoming legal here.
I’d like to think you’re right; it makes absolutely no sense to amend a Constitution to deny rights, so these ballot initiatives are always confusing. Still, I gotta believe just as many anti-SSM people were confused too.
State constitutions can provide more rights than the Federal Constitution, but not less. IOW, if a federal judge rules that SSM is a constitutional right (which I don’t think will happen, at least not in three years), this amendment and the other similar ones (CA Prop 8, NM Prop… something) will be struck.
So what ? What happens to the many ordinary people screwed by this is more important than the success of one guy.
And NO ONE who supported this is “decent”; it’s pure bigotry.
I wish this surprised me but it didn’t. I just do not understand why so many people feel the need to vote on something that has nothing to do with them. I did have a bit of hope that they wouldn’t get the 60% early in the evening but that didn’t last long.
Actually, no, it’s not. FL Prop 2 is basically just a big “fuck you” to gays; it won’t affect more than a few dozen people.
Winning the White House back, and with it, the hope that the Constitution can be restored and the excesses of the last eight years reversed, is much more important.
I’m just pissed at the voters of my state for approving this initiative.
Can we throw Arkansas Initiative 1 into the mix? They voted that anyone who is outside a valid marriage cannot adopt or become a foster parent. This whole thing is freaking sad.
http://www.arelections.org/index.php?ac:show:contest_statewide=1&elecid=181&contestid=5
That’s what I’ve been telling my classes. Win or lose, it’s just going to be back on the ballot in 2 years. We lost this battle. The war goes on.