SOME good election news: Fla. Marriage Amendment Winning by Large Margin

[CMG22]

Marriage is not a right, it is a priviledge.  It is a SOCIETAL issue and people are drawing on their morals and sense in their decision.

If marriage is a privilege, please name anyone from whom it is denied (aside from minors, obviously)!!  You may call it a privilege, but if it is available to every citizen, I’d say that’s more of a RIGHT.

You also fail to recognize that Amendment 2 not only prohibits gay marriage, but also can easily be interpreted by the courts to strike down civil unions.  If Amendment 2 didn’t call into question civil unions, I would not be nearly as upset.  The fact is that the GAO has identified over 1,400 rights and legal protections that are conferred to married couples.  All I want is a guarantee that I can share my partners’ medical insurance, visit him in the hospital (without the immediate family challenging me just because they’re homophobic), inheritance benefits, etc.  It’s about life planning, and life sharing.

You think you’re protecting marriage from people who want to emulate it?  I thought that imitation was the highest form of flattery?  Apparently not…

It is aberrant and will not be enshrined into law as equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman.

First of all, the only things that have been “enshrined” into law are anti-gay legislation, as far as marriage is concerned.  Allowing same sex couples to marry requires NO additional legislation.  You may site the change in the California marriage licenses from “bride” and “groom” to “partner A” and “partner B,” but quite frankly, as long as my name is on the certificate, I don’t care which side it’s on!  Yes, indeed sir, discrimination has been codified (and you may not say it’s discrimination, but BY DEFINITION, it isâ€"“treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit”).

Additionally, I can see how African Americans, particularly those who view gay marriage as wrong or worse, would take issue with gay marriage being compared to interracial marriage of the past.  Certainly, the plight suffered by slaves and subsequently African Americans up, through and beyond the civil rights movement is far more severe than anything a homosexual, especially one in 2008, has had to endure.  However, when one analyzes the arguments against miscegenation and then those against gay marriage, the parallels are impossible to ignore.  Hell, Jerry Falwell warned in a sermon in 1958 that miscegenation would destroy the white race.

…MORE IMPORTANTLY and telling, indeed, is that Mrs. Mildred Loving, of the case Virginia v. Loving, the Supreme Court case which struck down all miscegenation laws, said on the 40th anniversary of the decision:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

MOREOVER, Coretta Scott King stated that it is indeed a civil rights issue, and said in a speech in 2003:

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

and…

Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage.

If two of the most important women in the civil rights movement (an expert opinion, I’d say) say that is a civil right, I tend to believe it, and perhaps the African American community as a whole should be more open minded and remember the details of their struggle, and if not agree with, at least empathize with our cause and allow us a right that is so integral to life.

[CMG22]

Also, in Jerry Falwell's defense, later in life, he was "no 'Agent of Intolerance,'" as stated by John McCain.  He even told Tucker Carlson on MSNBC when asked about working for gay rights:  "I may not agree with the lifestyle, but that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that part of our constituency."  Better still, he said that equal access to housing, civil marriage, and employment are basic rights, not special rights, saying, "Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."

If even Jerry Falwell can change his tune over the years, perhaps StephenDare is right...

Times change.  This kind of namby pamby ignorance will fade away.

One can only hope...

I would love to hear some responses.  Perhaps I am thinking about this the wrong way?

[uptowngirl]

I am all for it.

BUT, I do not want to be listed as Partner A or Partner B, that is just crazy and an infringement on MY rights!  So I do not support switching bride and groom to partner A and partner B. Want to get married to a same sex partner….cool choose bride or groom period…after all that is what “marriage” is. Hell I might have voted for the ban in CA if that had been on the ticket, not because I have an issue with gay marriage, but I DO have an issue with everyone being called “partners”. I am not a “partner” in my marriage; I am a bride and wife.

Equal rights=no protectionist laws. When this happens we will all have equal rights to fail or succeed in anything we do based on our own merits.   

[CMG22]

I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... 

[ChriswUfGator]

I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... 

Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.

[BridgeTroll]

Really??  Source please?

[ChriswUfGator]

Really??  Source please?

Ask and ye shall receive:

Pay attention to the quoted Times-Union article in the text, according to the TU the rate was 84.4%:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/1999-October/002322.html

And here is a more recent government-funded study, that pegs the divorce rate at 73%:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/bfmpduvalch4_2003.pdf

So out of the two statistics I can find, one is 84.4% and the other is 73%. I suspect it fluctuates a bit year-to-year, but clearly the figure is around the 80% range that I quoted. So again, WTF are we 'protecting' exactly? LOL.

And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL

I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".

I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.

[civil42806]

Really??  Source please?

Ask and ye shall receive:

Pay attention to the quoted Times-Union article in the text, according to the TU the rate was 84.4%:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/1999-October/002322.html

And here is a more recent government-funded study, that pegs the divorce rate at 73%:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/bfmpduvalch4_2003.pdf

So out of the two statistics I can find, one is 84.4% and the other is 73%. I suspect it fluctuates a bit year-to-year, but clearly the figure is around the 80% range that I quoted. So again, WTF are we 'protecting' exactly? LOL.

And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL

I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".

I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.

Those are sort of odd links, don't recognize either one of them.  I did find this link from a bit better recognized source, but it describes the divorice rate per population.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/12/marrying_smarter_later_leading_to_decline_in_us_divorce_rate/

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

[ChriswUfGator]

Those are sort of odd links, don't recognize either one of them.  I did find this link from a bit better recognized source, but it describes the divorice rate per population.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/12/marrying_smarter_later_leading_to_decline_in_us_divorce_rate/

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

If you read through the fluff and get to the mathematical bottom-line on those stats you posted, what they're actually saying is that the divorce rate per unit of population is only declining because fewer people are getting married, which naturally leads to fewer divorces. It's a skewed stat.

That's why those stats on divorces-per-XX-number-of-people are pretty much worthless. To get a true picture on this subject, you want to know what percentage of those who DO get married later get a divorce.

[RiversideGator]

I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... 

Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.

The fact that some marriages fail does not discredit the institution of marriage.  If anything, it discredits our no fault divorce system and modern culture.  The solution is not to destroy marriage by allowing all manner of perversions to be included in its definition.  The solution is to strengthen marriage by making it harder to divorce, require pre-marital counseling, and to effect a general cultural shift so that marriage is as highly valued today as it was in the past.

[RiversideGator]

And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL

I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".

I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.

So why are you so hot and bothered than you would even post on this topic if marriage is so obnoxious to you?  You do your thing and let the rest of society do theirs.

[ChriswUfGator]

I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... 

Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.

The fact that some marriages fail does not discredit the institution of marriage.  If anything, it discredits our no fault divorce system and modern culture.  The solution is not to destroy marriage by allowing all manner of perversions to be included in its definition.  The solution is to strengthen marriage by making it harder to divorce, require pre-marital counseling, and to effect a general cultural shift so that marriage is as highly valued today as it was in the past.

Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.

It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.

And I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?

[ChriswUfGator]

And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL

I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".

I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.

So why are you so hot and bothered than you would even post on this topic if marriage is so obnoxious to you?  You do your thing and let the rest of society do theirs.

The thing that bothers me is the mindset that we can blame other minority groups for the destruction of the institution of marriage, when if you get right down to it, it has been destroyed from within, with no help from anybody else. Excluding others won't change that.

That's the fallacy of all this "protective" routine, it's complete B.S., because what are you protecting? Something that's FUBAR anyway...

[downtownparks]

I actually agree with Chris. There is no sanctity left in marriage. It has been made a mockery of by our society, and it has become like some sort of club that we exclude gays from. I have some gay friends who are in very committed meaningful relationships who I can find no logical reason to keep from marrying.

Will there be bad gay marriages? You bet. What makes that any worse than whats going on?

[fatcat]

Gator,

i think you forget by preventing the gay cats to marry, you also prevent the IRS from collecting marriage penalty tax from them. totally unfair to the straight cats that chose to marry. 

on a serious note, marriage as an institution is associated with many legal rights. The most important part is the assumed "package deal". I am no legal expert but I can see the "package" is the base for many basic rights such as: file tax as a family, visiting rights, custody and more. The gay couples should have as much rights as straight couples to be recognize as a "package". What do they do in their private is not the concern of anyone outside the package.

Marriage as an institution is good or bad is not the concern of the argument. It is really cold to swim in the ocean right now. However, if it is OK for the straight to swim then gay should be allowed to swim too. If the swimmer gets drown, catches cold or has a good time is not related to the sexual orientation.

If we are interested in the sanctity of marriage, we should focus on pre-marriage education such as require parties who decide to enter marriage passing an exam about the responsibilities of marriage and mandatory engagement period for which they stay on an island by themselves for survival test for a year