On behalf of myself and my fellow Satyriconistas: congratulations to PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama’s capacity to unite and inspire was proven today when millions of Americans chose hope and idealism over fear and negativism. May he lead our nation with the same intelligence, charisma, fortitude, and integrity he has shown during his campaign.
As my best friend – a minority in this country for far too long – texted to me: “Its a new day.”
Unfortunately, Flori-duh did not get the message. Yes, my state voted for Obama. But, we also voted to retain a bigoted, useless constitutional provision authorizing institutional racism. Amendment 1, which would have deleted a superfluous constitutional provision allowing the legislature to prohibit “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning real property, was defeated 52% to 48%. We also approved – by a greater than 60% margin, mind you – a constitutional provision designating an entire class of persons as second class citizens. The Florida “Marriage” Amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and disregarding any other type of committed relationship, has passed.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
What a great title! I’m upset that all the anti-gay amendments passed, but at least heartened that my beloved Tarheel state finally sent Jesse Helms packing (in the form of Elizabeth Dole’s awful bigoted campaign).
Disgusting…
I was raging pissed when I found out the results of the Florida Amendments. The peninsula is a place of bigots. We had a chance to change it, we had a chance to be ahead of the curve, we had the chance to do what the CONSTITUTION DEMANDS! YES…DEMANDS! If you do not believe me, please see the RIGHT TO MARRY and Loving v. Virginia. Then please return to this site and educate me on how those two can stand with a prohibition on same-sex marriage. Ok…so you are from Baldwin, FL then please see approach #2 below:
What do the YES voters on 2 say to this: Same-sex couple is legally married in California. The loving same-sex couple legally adopts an infant in California. The same-sex couple then move to Florida. Florida YES voters force the state to step in and say “we do not accept your marriage. Further, we do not accept your aoption.” So, innocent infant of a loving same-sex couple becomes an orphan and Florida now has possession of a ward. Yup, YES on 2 was a good vote.
I voted Libertarian and I can say that a vote for 2 was a wasted vote. All YES voters should be ashamed. If you voted YES and are a minority, you should hang your head in shame in public. If you are an interracial couple that voted YES, you should go door to door to the gay community and apologize. If you are anyone in the state that has gained from the 14th Amednment or any of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, you should be forcibly ex-patriated (btw, this is everyone in the state).
On a side note, the state of Florida is 100% behind corportate tax breaks.
Disgusting…
Interesting. One of the reasons I enjoy this blog so much is because of the legal issues- however, just so you know, I tend to skip ahead of some of the posts because they are written in pure legalese which is a language I am not familiar with.
I do think it’s an absolute shame, though, to remove the adoption status of a child from a family. If that is true it is upsetting. Also, I hardly know a thing about constitutional rights. So is same sex marriage a right? I’m all for equal rights- I guess I’m not always clear on what the definition of a “right” is. And is marriage what people are after or is it the “rights” that come with it? Sorry, but I’m a stickler for cause and effect. I’m also pro- anything that benefits society as a whole, especially (but not exclusively) where taxes are concerned, which is often what we are talking about. Whether something does or doesn’t benefit society is often controversial.
Screw taxes. Fundamental rights are the issue. I am more concerned with the actors and the effect of individuals.
No, same sex marriage is not a right per se. However, the right to marry is a fundamental right. It is read into the right of privacy and the penumbras of the 9th Amendment. The twist is that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. So, while the sexes of the parties are not defined, it is assumed that the 14th Amendment filled in the gap. If we were true to the ideals of the Constitution, every consenting adult would be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.
Florida does not give Full Faith and Credit to marriages in other states. However, if other states have similar rules and regulations, Florida will allow the marriage to stand. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), read as Only Straight People Marriage Act, allows Florida to deny valid same sex marriages from other states. So the fallout described above is a real possibility in Florida.
I cannot support legislation that creates second class citizens. I cannot look at an individual and say “you are less than me because you are different.” Alas, Florida did that very thing…
I appreciate your passion, truly, just am curious of the logic. Passion without logic is futile. I’m not against what you say, just curious. In fact, you could sway me to vote your way (or not). I do believe human rights is the issue fundamentally. I just think taxes are the preface to that. Is it in my interest to pay taxes for a bigotted nation that creates animosity between classes or is biased against certain citizens? I vote “NO” -because I think ‘Einstein’ can come from any class and he could benefit my country, and the world, so I vote to pay my taxes toward encouraging creativity and opportunity. I encourage gay relationships for the very same reason and fully support adoption for gay couples.
I’m only curious if there is a desire for “marriage” or a desire for equality. Like I said, cause and effect. I think marriage is a governmental position on taxes. I think family is a different scenerio involving children and human rights. I’m only asking about the differentiation of taxes and human rights here. It seems to me that if the human rights issue were resolved then the tax issue would be resolved. I personally blame the current political times for not being able to differntiate, but please feel free to elaborate legally.
It is not a desire for marriage. It is desire for equality. Marriage is an outdated institution that gained a position as the foundation of a committed realtionship. Today, no culture, religion, or specific group can claim ownership of the institution of marriage. Every state and the federal government allow marriage. So if marriage is allowed, it must be allowed to everyone.
Said without law: I can marry. You can marry. However, if you have a penis, you and I cannot marry. Please insert logic if you can. I argue, no one can make this argument with logic.
To add another twist: I can marry. You can marry. I can marry a male that transforms into a female. Why? Who know…apparently marriage law transcends transgender people.
I do not understand your tax analogy. If the government needs taxes, it will tax. However, if you advocate for more taxes then gay marriage would create more revenue. It makes little sense that a country with a deficit and recession would deny itself the ability to tax.
Fundamental rights are the issue. The Constitution creates the power or ability to tax. The Constitution does NOT mandate taxation. In contract, the Constitution demands equal protection of the law. Strictly speaking, equal protection is not discretionary.
Heather – I’m not so sure I follow your argument as far as taxes are concerned. You don’t ‘vote’ to pay your taxes. You are required to do so. The purposes supporting those taxes are largely irrelevant to your duty to pay those taxes. As are fundamental rights. As Mr. Blevins previously outlined, the United States Constitution guarantees to all individuals equal protection of the laws. The right to privacy – including the right to marry, the right to procreate, the right to sexual privacy, etc. – is a fundamental right. State governments cannot infringe those rights by denying the equal protection of laws – allowing different legal protections to different persons. Whether equality is desirable, again is irrelevant. Its mandated by the Constitution.
I’m a bit concerned that amendment 2, which seems to lead the state into an area of religion (marriage) where it probably does not belong, was also misleadingly offered.
The title and summary said that it would “protect” marriage. I’m having a hard time seeing either (a) the threat (b) the protection offered thereby. I admit to a certain reluctance to head up to Tallahassee in order to bring suit, but it is hard to imagine that the amendment would have survived a challenge.
Well, thank you for taking the time to explain your positions. Like I said, I know nothing about constitutional law. I think my point about taxes comes more from not viewing marriage as a religious institution, though I guess that I should. I don’t know though, it just seems like whether the government recognizes the marriage or not should be irrelevent unless it infringes upon rights, which is where the problems with adoption or taxes or healthcare come in.
I do understand that my desire for equal rights is beside the point as you said. Ha, constitution for beginners, thanks. But I guess the point to be taken here is that the best way to fix the problem of inequality is to legally allow marriage. Although I might be inclined to think rather that the government shouldn’t recognize any marriages and then we can all go about our unions as we like. The issues of adoption, taxes and healthcare could be dealt with differently. I think that is where my confusion is coming in.
I’ll think on it, but the legal aspects aren’t likely to make full sense to me anytime in the immediate future.
Heather, I think I understand your position and question a little better. You seem to be wondering exactly what the legal (as opposed to purely religious) form of marriage is. And you are correct. The government sponsored institution of marriage is basically a granting of special status and rights to a pair of individuals. Each state grants the couple certain rights: tax breaks, succession of assets, etc. The government’s purpose behind granting these rights is usually to encourage people to have families. (We could debate the biological, psychological, and sociological necessity for government to involve itself in procreation and familial relations, but all of that is largely irrelevant to the legal significance.)
Again, the government sponsored institution of marriage is just a state grant of special status and rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the specific rights sought to be encouraged and protected by marriage – reproduction, sexual relations, and individual relationships – are inherent “rights to privacy.” Rights to privacy are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. This is where our issue with these bans on “gay marriages” comes up. The Constitution demands that where states infringe or inhibit the exercise of fundamental rights, they do so in the least infringing or inhihibiting manner and again only if justified by a compelling purpose. Prohibiting marriage – a fundamental right – altogether to a certain class of persons certainly infringes on a the rights of those persons to conduct their family relationships in the way they see fit. My colleagues and I, with case law to support our position, do not believe there is any government purpose that is sufficiently compelling to justify the complete prohibition of these fundamental rights to an entire class of persons.
The Constitution also demands that where states create classifications among persons, those classifications must be justified by a sufficient purpose. Where the distinction is made with respect to fundamental rights, the distinction must be justified by a compelling government purpose and narrowly tailored to achieve that particular interest. As previously stated, we do not believe there is a government purpose that justifies singling out an entire class of persons to be denied the protection of the laws with respect to fundamental rights.
Yeah, Tara, that addresses my question better. Great explaination. My point of view is coming from my own need to seperate social and economic issues as much as possible (obviously it’s not completely possible). You’ve given me another perspective as far as “special status” though I’m still confused about the “fundamental rights” and “rights to privacy” terminology.
I agree that the need for the government to get involved in procreation is debatable. I somewhat see that as related to immigration and other population issues, but I am newly interested in the complexities of maintaining rights while balancing other issues. Things I’d thought about, but not terribly in depth. It’s easy for the layperson to hear about social issues in the media and not think about the constitution, rather to think about morality.
Anywho, appreciate your detailed response. Thanks!