Ammendment 2 (Marriage Protection Amendment) (Naples: schools, law, dangerous)

[gradco2004]

Can someone tell me who benefits from this ammendment?

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by riveree

For this reason alone (insurance), I don't think this amendment would ever pass. Who would vote for an amendment that would pull insurance away from others?

Riveree, my naive friend, you are totally wrong. No one is going to vote for or against the amendment based on insurance. The amendment will pass. The only question is by what margin?

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by TANaples

That is where the 14th Amendment comes in; Equal Protection Clause. This is why all the people bent on banning gay marriage know the ONLY way is to pass a FEDERAL amnendment banning it. Not going to happen.

No, a federal amendment banning gay marriage isn't going to happen. Neither is an appeal to the Supreme Court based on the Equal Protection Clause. Why not? Simple: Marriage is a state right, not a federal right. Heck, if a state decides to ban marriage altogether, it can do so.

States set their own conditions for marriage: minimum ages, age of consent, blood tests, familial restrictions (i.e. incest is banned), humans only (i.e. no bestial arrangements), etc. In the case of Mass., they added their own rule, which is that gender of the marital petitioners cannot be a basis of denial...i.e., gay marriage is fine. Within the scope of the 10th Amendment, that is perfectly within MA's right to do so.

A gay man and a straight man, for example, have the exact same rights. A straight man has the right to marry a woman and a gay man also has the right to marry a woman. Plain and simple. Whether they want to or not is not germane to constitutional rights.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by joninclay

Riveree, my naive friend, you are totally wrong. No one is going to vote for or against the amendment based on insurance. The amendment will pass. The only question is by what margin?

Jon, my overly confident friend, what shall we bet?

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by joninclay

Riveree, my naive friend, you are totally wrong. No one is going to vote for or against the amendment based on insurance. The amendment will pass. The only question is by what margin?

This is a very high percentage needed to pass. I think you underestimate the number of relatives one gay person has.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by OC2Jax

It's to keep marriages legal in other states from being recognized in this state.

It's a way the bigots in this state keep trying to deny marriage equality when other states grant equal rights.

As other states start to add the right for marriage equality (like the rest of the world is starting to), this amendment, if passed in November, will eventually be found unconstitutional down the road.

If indiviudal states start refusing to recognize marriages, domestic partnerships, civil unions from other states. Can one state legally say that they will not recognize a gay marriage or partnership from another state, but recognize a straight marriage or partnership from that same state? That is outright discrimination against a specific group of people, which is what happend with interracial marriage back then. They would have to say Florida is not going to recognize ALL marriages from Ma.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, New Jersey has Domestic Partnerships, which also includes straight seniors. Will Florida say we will not recognize the domestic partnerhips of gay couples, but WILL of straight seniors? This could have major implications since a lot of retirees move to Florida. Or will they tell the straight old folks you MUST get married?

I did a little research on the rulings from Lawrence (sodomy) case. One of the arguments they made was that the sodomy laws only applied to same sex couples. It was not against the law for opposite gender couples to engage in sodomy. The SC said that you could not single out one group of people and not the other. That is discrimination.

This has the makings of major lawsuit in the future.

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by TANaples

If indiviudal states start refusing to recognize marriages, domestic partnerships, civil unions from other states. Can one state legally say that they will not recognize a gay marriage or partnership from another state, but recognize a straight marriage or partnership from that same state?

Yes.

Originally Posted by TANaples

That is outright discrimination against a specific group of people, which is what happend with interracial marriage back then. They would have to say Florida is not going to recognize ALL marriages from Ma.

No, it isn't what happened with interracial marriage. There was a case in VA (Loving v. Virginia) whereby an interracial marriage performed in outside of VA (in DC) resulted in a criminal violation (and subsequently a criminal penalty) when the married couple moved into VA. The SCOTUS ruled, among other things, that the criminalization of a properly performed marriage was a violation of the Due Process clause.

If a gay couple gets "married" in MA and moves to FL, then FL may decide not to recognize their marriage...but FL cannot criminalize their marriage.

Originally Posted by TANaples

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, New Jersey has Domestic Partnerships, which also includes straight seniors. Will Florida say we will not recognize the domestic partnerhips of gay couples, but WILL of straight seniors?

I doubt it. My guess is that FL will say that if a man and woman are married in another state, they will recognize the marriage. Otherwise, they won't recognize it.

Originally Posted by TANaples

I did a little research on the rulings from Lawrence (sodomy) case. One of the arguments they made was that the sodomy laws only applied to same sex couples. It was not against the law for opposite gender couples to engage in sodomy. The SC said that you could not single out one group of people and not the other. That is discrimination.

Again, we're talking criminalization of behavior based on discriminatory grounds. Just as in the aforementioned Loving case. TX had criminal anti-sodomy laws that applied only to homosexuals. SCOTUS shot it down on 14th Amendment grounds. However, recently in Louisiana (and forgive me for not remembering the name of the case), a state's criminal anti-sodomy laws (maybe LA's?) were upheld and ruled constitutional. Why? Because the laws applied equally to men and women, gay and straight.

Whether the government has any business regulating private behavior between consenting adults is a different topic for a different day (and believe it or not, I likely share the views with nearly everyone here on that issue). The fact is, though, that courts have allowed states to do just that, so long as they do it equally.

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by TANaples

This is a very high percentage needed to pass. I think you underestimate the number of relatives one gay person has.

A Quinnipiac poll conducted two months ago showed support at the time to be 59%, and that's when folks weren't paying much attention. All it takes is a 1% swing forward to make it a done deal. And with the anticipated higher turnout in this year's election, it would be (in my humble opinion) naive to assume that the number won't climb. Seriously, you think this state is going to reject it? Seriously?

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by joninclay

A Quinnipiac poll conducted two months ago showed support at the time to be 59%, and that's when folks weren't paying much attention. All it takes is a 1% swing forward to make it a done deal. And with the anticipated higher turnout in this year's election, it would be (in my humble opinion) naive to assume that the number won't climb. Seriously, you think this state is going to reject it? Seriously?

as someone else stated and didn't pass when it was only by majority not 60%.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by joninclay

Yes.



No, it isn't what happened with interracial marriage. There was a case in VA (Loving v. Virginia) whereby an interracial marriage performed in outside of VA (in DC) resulted in a criminal violation (and subsequently a criminal penalty) when the married couple moved into VA. The SCOTUS ruled, among other things, that the criminalization of a properly performed marriage was a violation of the Due Process clause.

If a gay couple gets "married" in MA and moves to FL, then FL may decide not to recognize their marriage...but FL cannot criminalize their marriage.



I doubt it. My guess is that FL will say that if a man and woman are married in another state, they will recognize the marriage. Otherwise, they won't recognize it.



Again, we're talking criminalization of behavior based on discriminatory grounds. Just as in the aforementioned Loving case. TX had criminal anti-sodomy laws that applied only to homosexuals. SCOTUS shot it down on 14th Amendment grounds. However, recently in Louisiana (and forgive me for not remembering the name of the case), a state's criminal anti-sodomy laws (maybe LA's?) were upheld and ruled constitutional. Why? Because the laws applied equally to men and women, gay and straight.

Whether the government has any business regulating private behavior between consenting adults is a different topic for a different day (and believe it or not, I likely share the views with nearly everyone here on that issue). The fact is, though, that courts have allowed states to do just that, so long as they do it equally.

not Marriages, will not be recognized in Florida then? So unless they have "marriage" certificates by their state Florida will discriminate against them too. This is very much where the insurance factor comes into play.

As far as LA, no dice. SC struck down ALL sodomy laws across the board. It was not just on the basis of the discrimination of one group, but they also said it violated the Right to Privacy. It was a 2 prong agrument. It will violate that privacy whether it is in Texas or La, whether it is gays or straights.

What I think personally is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Just issue Civil Unions, with the associated civil benefits thereof, to ALL consenting adults regardless of their sexual orientation. Let people who want "traditional" marriage, and all the RELIGIOUS implications, go to a place of worship to get that. The clergy can discriminate, as they now do, all they want, but the government contract would be purely secular.

I have been married to the same man for 34 years. I could care less what you call it, but only the couple involved can define what that "marriage" is. One size does not fit all when it comes to relationships. Government can't define that and neither can religion.

Regarding that 59%, how many straight couples are aware that if they are living together, or have those domestic partnerhips in another state, that their employers can refuse to cover their SO under their insurance policies because they are not husband and wife with that piece of paper? These companies can site this law as their excuse.