Political Discussions
This isn't a topic about Proposition 8
Posted by voodooKobra • 11/20/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: you-should've-seen-this-coming
Nope. This is about Florida's prop 2. Discuss.
User Comments
-
I'd like to, but I need some time to adapt to the idea of a thread that isn't about Proposition 8.-
We're in strange and unfamiliar territory now.
-
-
Whoa, wait ... not a thread about Proposition 8?
How can this be?!
I-I-I'm a bit ... scared.
-
I'll second that!
-
-
Cognitive dissonance.
Brain freeze.
Panic. -
Is Prop 2 like Prop 8 except one-fourth as awful?-
Proposition 2: One-fourth the number, same old awful.
-
-
Howard Simon: Amendment 2 just delays the inevitable
The vote approving Amendment 2 (the "marriage protection" amendment) was a devastating but temporary setback for the cause of equal treatment for all.
By a 1.9-percent margin (beyond the 60 percent needed to amend the state Constitution), Florida voters prohibited allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to have their relationship legally protected, denying religious institutions the authority of law "invested in the institution" to bless the relationship. Voters in Arizona and California also amended their Constitutions to impose similar restriction.
Despite the propaganda, "gay marriage" was not on the ballot. Floridians approved a prohibition on the recognition of anything "that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." It will take years of lawsuits and countless lawyers to sort out the measure's intended and unintended consequences.
The forces behind Amendment 2 have said their mission is accomplished; marriage has been protected. But none of the economic and social pressures on marriage that have resulted in the terribly high divorce rate have been addressed. That would have been an honest program to "protect marriage."
It remains a mystery how the institution of marriage is "protected" by denying the right of some people the ability to enjoy its benefits.
www.tallahassee.com/article/20081120/OPINION05/811200305/1006/OPINION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what does that mean for the same sex couples affected?
They do not have the right to file joint income tax returns with their partner;
they do not have the right to make financial and medical decisions on their partner's behalf, should that person be unable to do so for themselves;
they lose all eligibility for social security, medicare and disability compensation reserved for spouses, as well as rights to education and military benefits;
they do not have the right to visit their partner in ICU, make burial arrangements after their death, or consent to post-mortem examinations and procedures;
If they and their partner split up, they lose all right to equitable division of property and spousal support.
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
BOO hissssssssssssssssssss at the mean spirited right wing religious zealots, who are unaffected by same sex marriage, but still chose to fund hateful, deceptive and fallacious pre-election campaigns aimed at denying other citizens the same rights that they enjoy.-
I'm sad to see Florida do that.
I wonder how my friends in the keys are dealing with the set back
-
-
Here's a serious question (though I hate to bring Prop 8 back into this). On a national level, why is the California provision getting so much more press coverage?
-
In my opinion, because CA actually legalized gay marriage, prop 8 literally takes a right away, while prop 2 et al is a prevention of the legalization of such rights.
I think they are all horrid, however legalizing it, then taking it away is particularly nasty.
Plus, you do have the issue of retroactive marriage protections to deal with. -
California was considered by many to be the "gay marriage" state.
-
-
Am I being a bit stupid...or perhaps not understanding how American law works...but if Obama manages to act upon his civil rights agenda, will that not negate Prop 8 et al.?-
It's hard to see what the President could do that would have an impact on this issue.
-
Have you read his civil rights agenda?
"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights." -
Yes, but none of those things would impact a state's right to define marriage. The only way that could happen at the federal level would be a U.S. Supreme Court decision determining that such a distinction violated the U.S. Constitution or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--neither of which a President can bring about.
-
No offence...but America has a bloody stupid legal system! Laws that apply to the whole country...but then States can decide what laws they feel like having that contravene what central government wants...barmy!
-
Actuallly, it's the other way around, Siuil--it's the federal government that attempts to (and increasingly succeeds in) contravene the laws of the states. Our system of government was created to be an association of sovereign states,and our Constitution explicitly reserves most powers to the states,with only a handful of narrow powers vested in the federal government. The federal government just keeps finding ways to steal those powers from the states.
-
But you have a country that has different laws in every bit of it! That doesn't make practical sense! If you had the same laws applying to the whole country that would surely be better? You know...like everyone else...?
-
@siuilaruin
I surmise that it's similar to ancient warlords and their territories. Each governor with their own state, and an overarching Constitution that they are all bound to, however, each state can vary the constitutional agreement by means of amendment. I find it hard to relate to because I'm Canadian. -
Two things to keep in mind, though. One is that a strong central government was precisely what our founding fathers were attempting to escape, and that our Constitution is created to protect against that. The other is that the U.S. is a vast and geographically disparate country. We have very different economies from place to place; some states are rich in natural resources and some have few or none. Some states are largely agricultural, while others are largely industrial. In short, there are few circumstances under which a blanket law across the U.S. would make sense for everyone to whom it was applied.
-
-
hmmm but just not calling it marriage? -
There are only 2 ways for Prop 8 to be mandated by the Federal Government (either for or against)
1) Supreme court decision dictating constitutionality for or against it.
2) A constitutional amendment for or against it.-
You're being off-topic.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
