This page best viewed with

A Book By CM. Click To Get A Copy

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Created by OnePlusYou

No Rights Reserved. Take Anything You Want, But If You Steal Any Text Link To Here.

Send Your Hate Mail To


Sloth:Very High

Take the Seven Deadly Sins Quiz

King Gambrinus - Patron Saint of beer.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Florida Amendment Proposal 2

I predicted something I failed to blog about. As such there is no record of my prediction. OH WELL!

But what I said, and have no proof to back up, is that Florida amendment proposal 2 would be tossed out by courts.

And no, not by those "liberal activist" courts I keep hearing so much about but have never seen myself. And why is it that a court that rules the way the hard right wants is a "court that is strictly interpreting the Constitution", while a court that rules contrary to what the right wants is a "liberal activist" court?

And by the way, if you bother to actually read the Constitution, it states that one of the functions of the courts is a check on the powers of the lawmakers. So courts are SUPPOSED to review laws, and if they have reason to strike them down as unconstitutional then they can. And the ruling can be appealed - all the way up to the supreme court.

Now I realize that judicial review may piss on your parade. But that is just how it is. Don't like it? NO PROBLEM! Take your parade to a country with a different system of laws. I promise not to stop you. And there you will not have to worry about those pesky liberal activists.

Anyhow - I do not see how the courts can not toss out one election result. Amendment 2.

I am sure you have heard of it. Everyone has. With all the protests and all. But just in case you have not heard of it, this measure says that not only is marriage defined as one man and one woman, it goes on to say that no other union can be recognized by law.

And it was passed by voters.

So that is it right? Only a liberal activist court would overthrow election results right???

Now I could go on to talk about Broward County voting, in a public election, to allow Vegas style slot machines - and one Governor Jeb Bush and his clingers on taking every measure they could to undo this measure passed by voters. Screw the courts! They were not going to help. So the State tried its best to make a system where it would be impossible to put a single machine in any horse track. Liberal activisim indeed.

Anyhow, that is not the point. The point here is that Florida voters also passed Jim Crow laws. So - since they were voted in - those were constitutional?

Well some horrible liberal activist courts disagreed.

Amendment 2, in my views, crosses the bounds of equal protection under the law. And now Ill take you through my reasoning. If you care.

So marriage is one man and one woman. Nobody is saying people can not get married. Right? So there is no problem! OK then, lets go with this. Lets say marriage is later defined as two men or two women, and no other union would be legally recognized.

Would THAT be OK?? You can still get married after all! Just not to someone of the opposite sex. So there is no legal discrimination.

Crazy you say? Maybe. But why would you think that if you do not want to marry someone of the same sex, someone who is gay really wants to marry someone of the opposite sex?

Argument 2 is that it would would cause morality to collapse, and it would be tought in public schools that being OK is perfectly fine.

I would make the case that capitalism is a much bigger threat to morality. We even soiled God by connecting him to something as dirty as money. In God We Trust huh? Taking that off our money would also "destroy morality"! Well then before 1864 this must have been one hell of an immoral place - because 1864 was the first time these words appeared on any US currency. And it was not till 1956 that it became the "motto" of the USA.

By the way, 1956 was also about the same time "under God" was added to the pledge.

And since 1956 - morality is WAY UP!! Good thing congress passed those laws!

What is really killing morality, and causing divorce, is capitalism. Money. At least this is the way I see it. Why rob the 7-11? MONEY! And with that money you can buy things.

What is "success"? Is it a happy family? Oh hell no! Success is a $60,000 car. Success is a house full of new things. Success is a closet full of clothes that are the latest style. Success is a $5,000 television. Success is how much money you have, what your net worth is.

NOWHERE is the consumerism version of success do things like "happiness" come into play. Can you sell happiness? NOPE! Then it is WORTHLESS!

I think this is one reason why divorce is so prevalent. It is easier to split up than work things out. It may even be cheaper to split up than work things out. Plus, why should a man who schieves "success" not have a young hot girlfriend? He can afford her after all! And if he can also afford the divorce - well guess what?

And I have news for you all. As a product of public schools, I can tell you this. Back in the 80s if you beat up some kid because you thought they were gay - your ass was expelled. Gone. No questions. If you were asked "what started the fight" and you said "gay boy over there was acting like a fag" then you were going to be removed from the school in handcuffs.

Because violence is not acceptible in school.It has nothing to do with "teaching that being gay is acceptible". It is not like teaching kids that it is NOT ok to beat someone up because of what you think they are.

Marriage is nothing more - and this is a big one - NOTHING MORE than a legal contract. I know that some will have a shit fit over this - but you DO NOT HAVE TO INVOLVE ANY RELIGION to be married. Really. You can decice to have a religious service if you like, but no state requires this.

So marriage is a secular thing. You just go to the court house, fill out some paperwork, fork over a few bucks, and thats it. You can sign the papers in front of a clerk of the court acting as a witness, and then you are married.

On the other hand, if you DO NOT get the paperwork from the courts - you can have all the church services you want. Legally - it will not mean diddly squat.

And for what it is worth, I know two married couples that did not have any church service. They walked into the courthouse, and an hour or so later were married.

BOTH marriages are doing just fine. One couple has been together for something like 15 or 16 years - the other for closer to about 4 or 5 years.

I lost count of the people I know who did the whole church thing and later got divoriced.

So much for that huh?

But gay marriage cheapens marriage!!

Really? You think that? Well if gay people getting married cheapens marriage - what does divorce do? Strengthen marriage?

So then if we are going to be so concerned about things that cheapen marriage - lets OUTLAW DIVORCE!! ONE man and ONE woman. Forever. Pick someone, marry them, and no matter what happens there is no divorce.

I bet that ballot measure would be defeated 100% to 0%. You think the Mormon church would dump millions into passing that one?

No, that would be crazy. Few would go along with that.

And no, I do not care if two people of the same sex want to get married. It does not change who I am. I do not define my relationships by the acts of other people. If you do - well then I hope you can get help.

Actually - I question your sexuality if you really think that gay marriage is a "threat". To whom is it a threat to? Not to me! I do not see that at a threat at all.

If you do see it as a threat - here is what I think. I think you may have gotten married just to cover up who you really are. You thought that by getting married, you would be "normal". And you also know that if you could, you would leave your spouce for your secret boyfriend / girlfriend. If you had to live a lie - then everyone else like you should be forced to as well.

Otherwise - nothing else makes sense. At least not to me. I know that I will not suddenly decide to be gay. I do not care if gays can get married, or even if they are given wonderful prizes after they are married. Likewise I think that anyone who does "decide" to be gay was already gay - and would continue to be gay even if it were illegal.

If you are gay then you are gay. If you are not then you are not. NOTHING is going to really change that. I do not care what insanity chicks drive me through, I have never EVER thought "well you know, I should give this man love thing a shot". Never. So therefore, it does not make a lot of sense to me for a gay man to suddenly decide to switch teams either.

And if it really is a "choice", as some maintain - who the hell would decide to make a choice to be someone who would be excluded from society? Why make the choice to be someone who could get the shit beat out of them just for walking down the street? This is a crazy concept to me.

And like I said, applied to my life - if being gay is really a choice - then at some point it stand to reason we all had to decide if we wanted to be straight or gay. Do you ever remember making such a choice? Well neither go I. I never remember sitting down with a peice of paper, divided in half, writing down the merits of either choice, and then arriving at a conclusion.

No, it was more of a matter of starting junior high, and then suddenly noticing chicks. About 30 seconds later I noticed how little of a shit I gave about what the math teacher was saying. Math was suddenly a LOT more boring than it usually was.

If my view, this is a fucked up situaton. Seperate and not equal was written back into the Florida Constitution. Equal protection under the law was removed.

So no, I do not think the courts can ignore this.



Blogger Lily Strange said...

People sure know how to make a big deal about nothing. Why the hell should anyone care if two people of the same sex want to be legally married? Are they forcing people who don't want to be gay into gay marriages? Hardly! What a stupid thing to worry about when there are real problems.
Some people take it as an affront to their hetrosexuality if someone of the same sex hits on them and they get all belligerent about it. I don't care if a woman hits on me, as long as she can take "no" for an answer. But I feel the same about unwanted advances from guys. Accept a polite no politely, and I'm good with it, maybe even a bit flattered, and it's nothing personal on my part. But get pushy with me, and I don't like it. Same rules apply to guys as to girls.
What's funny is, with women I can say honestly "thanks anyway, but I'm straight." With guys I'm not interested in, if they're too persistent I used to lie and say I was a lesbian. But I find it's actually more effective to say I'm married with six kids. Then you don't get the asshats who find it oh so necessary and clever to say "wow! Can I watch?"

Blogger Jane said...

Well said Iggy. Really good blog post. We've got civil partnerships here for same sex couples - not quite the same as marriage but it gives most if not all of the same rights as marriage. There has been no sudden implotion of morality here (no matter what the Daily Mail says).

I've seen the idea of banning divorce on a few blogs now and I feel that is a proposition I can sign up to. It would be the funniest thing to watch the fundies try to explain why Jesus's teaching on Divorce, from their always true and always relevant bible, aren't actually applicable.

Blogger M@ said...

I'm playing on a new group blog today:

Blogger Econo-Girl said...

Marriage is great, but it can also be tough. If a couple really wants to make that level of commitment, they should be allowed to.


Post a Comment

<< Home