Originally Posted by fumar

Thanks Steve..

I am in total agreement with you.......Our entire gov't, structure was never intended to recognize Illegal unions....

VOTE YES ON 2.....

There are a lot of things that were not legal at one point or another....and now are...because of smart, open minded, nonjudgemental, progressive thinking.....
Or were illegal and now are not....

Women can now vote! Blacks are not slaves!

If we were living the way our government was originally established...God help us all!!

Vote NO....

If our supreme court would interpet the constitution as it was written , we wouldn't be in the mess we are today !!!!

Fumar....I am not sure what you meant in your last post...that perhaps women should not be voting? Blacks should still be slaves? I am not sure...however here is some information for you and all to look at.
Websites for you to educate yourself! This has nothing to do with GLTB marriage...it is only going to hurt ALL "unmarried" residents of the state.......you don't have any friends man and woman....that live together....like husband and wife...but are not legally married...mainly because of benefits and money issues...do you not know anyone in this situation? It could devestate them!!


http://www.fairnessforallfamilies.org/
www.sayno2.com


From the SAY NO 2 website....

6 Reasons to Say No 2

Taking Away Benefits
Amendment 2 could take away existing benefits from all unmarried Floridians

Hurting Seniors
Amendment 2 could force seniors to choose between important benefits like sharing health care and important government benefits.

"Gay Marriage" Bait & Switch
Amendment 2 claims to ban "gay marriage" but Florida already has multiple laws banning same-sex marriage
Massive Government Intrusion
Amendment 2 puts the government where it doesn't belong - regulating the personal relationships of Floridians

Hiring Expensive Lawyers
Amendment 2 could force unmarried Floridians to hire expensive private lawyers just to protect their basic legal rights

Dramatic Consequences
Amendment 2 could take away job benefits from university employees and be used as a defense to domestic violence - as in other states which passed similar amendments

In fairness to the righties out there....here is the other website...
http://www.yes2marriage.org/

Originally Posted by Cassie325

Which is why we must Vote NO on amendment 2 in my opinion...this is a state law....that must be voted against! Ironically the state published information on their website on each amendment...and with attached websites for voters to look at...they ONLY published one website...the one that is FOR this law!! Doesn't seem right to me!! A little one sided...the "RIGHT" side...but the wrong things to do!

We agree to disagree. In my opinion, the Amendment, as crafted, provides the basis for systematic analysis of action-and-effect for subsequent legislation/regulation and does not block any action.

If you are viewing the proposed amendment as an impediment to expansion of "gay rights," then you are not seeing this as one who writes legislation/regulations.

If the amendment passes, then Sections II-A & B can be used as the foundation for any bill or draft regulation to expand and/or clarify any topic (e.g, intestacy, property division, etc.) under state/local jurisdiction. Without the foundation language, everything becomes a matter of whether the state/local law/regulation-making bodies have authority to deal with the matter. It takes the "guesswork" away from state/local law/regulation-making bodies and keeps the courts from "law-making from the bench." What's wrong with that? ? ?

The Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment:

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

I. The Purpose of the Amendment.

A. The Amendment defines and preserves marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

B. The Amendment prohibits any other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof from being valid or recognized as marriage.

II. The Amendment, Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions.

A. The Amendment does not prohibit the state or local government from passing laws which confer rights to unmarried persons as long as the laws are not designed to treat unmarried relationships as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.

B. The Amendment does not affect benefits offered or contracted in the private sector.

C. The Amendment prohibits any other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof from being valid or recognized as marriage.

This thread is all academic anyway as this amendment hasn't a prayer of passing....
saner heads will prevail........

fumar

Originally Posted by The Great Fumar

This thread is all academic anyway as this amendment hasn't a prayer of passing....
saner heads will prevail........

fumar

Wow Fumar, step out into the light from your cave. This is the 21st Century! There is a whole spectrum of different kinds of families and relationships that don't just consist of man, woman and child. Hello! Time to wake up and smell the change!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

...

Time to wake up and smell the change!

That "smell the change" is profound! Reminds me of the lipstick remark?

At one point I thought that Fumar and Steve were open minded...willing to listen to others and not as right winged as some of our other friends on here. However, I have changed my mind. Think about your own lives...think about if your son or daughter could not marry the person they loved, would you care?

Steve...you talk about the freedom we are given here in the US because of what our troops have done in the past. How is it that only certain people have all Freedoms....

Shouldn't everyone have the Right to Pursue Happiness....whereever that happiness comes from.

I can't believe you are both so CLOSED minded about this situation.

This is just my opinion....and I am saddened today...thinking that there were two great opinions that I loved to read...and no longer will read them with the same eyes.

Originally Posted by Cassie325

...

Steve...you talk about the freedom we are given here in the US because of what our troops have done in the past. How is it that only certain people have all Freedoms....

Shouldn't everyone have the Right to Pursue Happiness....whereever that happiness comes from.

I can't believe you are both so CLOSED minded about this situation.

...

Not "closed minded" - pragmatic.

We live in a society of laws. All laws have multiple interpretations (the writer may interpret it very tightly, and the reader may intepret it very broadly), and that is normal. Once laws are passsed by legislatures, regulations then are drafted by the agencies responsible for enforcement and administration in order to make the law actionable by government and the public. If the laws and regulations are not so precise that disputes in interprettions still occur (which is almost always the situation), the courts get involved via lawsuits, resulting in courts (which also disagree) more fine-tuning things from the bench.

I gave my reasons why I think the Amendment makes sense, that being the foundation for future legal actions so that every county, state and federal judge at the various trial and appellate levels doesn't find him/herself playing Solomon on related issues, and the resulting decisions being inconsistent. I like predictability when it comes to legal actions, rather than "Oh, we'll worry about that when it happens." It ALWAYS happens, and it's always a controversy, and no one is ever satisfied when courts get involved in societal matters.

The Pursuit of Happiness is a concept contained within the Declaration of Independence, and not within the U.S. Constitution. The latter is the supreme law-of-the-land, while the former is the ultimate "press release" describing the reasons for the colonies' secession from Britain.

So, if it's "closed-minded" to expect that any modifications to the legal fiber of our society - at any level - go through the established legal process so that multiple interpretations (including the biases and personal mores of the interpreters) are avoided as much as possible, do not cause even more frustration and subsequently generate excessive litigation, then I guess I am.