Tallahassee, FL - Late this evening, the Florida Division of Elections reported that the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment (Amendment 2) received more than the 60% vote required to pass constitutional amendments. Since 2006, all state constitutional amendments in Florida must pass by at least 60% of the vote.
Amendment 2 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and will prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same-sex marriage from being recognized in Florida. The amendment states: "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." This amendment prohibits same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage under a different name. The fight to pass this amendment was a coordinated effort by many individuals, organizations and churches.
The process to amend the state constitution to protect marriage began in 2005, after a series of lawsuits was filed, challenging Florida's Defense of Marriage Act (which Mat Staver drafted) that was passed in 1997. A coalition of groups joined together and agreed on the language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment that was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver. In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU's challenge to the marriage amendment. Following the ruling by the Court, nearly 650,000 signatures were certified. This was the largest grassroots petition drive in the history of Florida.
Although about half of Florida voters voted for Barack Obama, a supermajority voted for the marriage amendment. This indicates that voters voted for values when it came to marriage, and yet many of those who voted for marriage voted for Obama, who opposed Amendment 2 and who promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act if elected. It is the federal Defense of Marriage Act which protects states such as Florida from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage. Marriage amendments are also on the ballots in Arizona and California. Early reports indicate that the amendment will pass in Arizona. The numbers are not yet available for California.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented on the occasion: "Florida families are the real winners with the passage of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, because it affirms marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is a victory for children and for the future of Florida. Amendment 2 will prevent activist judges from redefining marriage by the stroke of a pen. The passage of this amendment is a bright star on an otherwise dismal night, in which America elected the most liberal President in her history. A supermajority of the people vote for values when they understand the issues."
Please tell me how this connects to the issue of abortion?
This this prolifeblogs, or conservatives-are-always-right-blogs?
Again, Suricou raven with your repeated demand that we be "single-issue" people so you can then hate and condemn us for doing just that as you have done in the past. This is now the third time I'm pointing this out to you in 2 years. You have said before here that you hate prolifers, why do you keep asking us to pigeonhole ourselves into the very single-issue mindset that you condemn us for? Seriously, it's time to come up with something substantial to say instead of this attempt to just be a troll.
I'm not asking you to be single issue. I'm asking that the blog be single issue. It's a pro-life blog. One title, clearly specifying one issue and a position taken on said issue. To be pro-life is this blog's purpose. Gay marriage is a subject related only in the most tenuous way, because a quirk of american politics causes a statistical corelation in positions.
Splitting hairs, Suricou, splitting hairs. eing prolife is soooo many things, not just abortion, yet you still refuse to "get that."
Don't like it, don't visit, is all we can say. Trying to put us "in a box" won't happen. It's all related: go read this if you really truly want to understand why it doesn't have to be as YOU wish it to be here:
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1531
specifically this:
"All human rights depend on the right to life. If you’re not alive, you’re not too concerned about the Dow Jones, foreign policy or health care. That’s why voting pro-life is not "single issue" voting, but rather morally appropriate priority issue voting, based on a properly formed Christian or moral conscience. All Christians and all people of good will are morally obliged to exercise priority issue voting."
We can talk about all these issues as it relates to voting, elections, etc. It's all related, whether you like it or agree with it or not. So stop wasting our time or we will probably just delete your repeated request rather than have it continue to be a time-waster.
It was established over a year ago that you don't want to learn anything. You've shown nothing to indicate that that's changed.
I'm still trying to convert your attempt at an argument into a form I can comprehend logically. I'm failing. I've managed to understand it's political power, and a powerful one it is, but politically powerful arguments do not need to make any real sense.
What I have so far comes down to this:
1. Only Christians can be pro-life.
2. All Christians will fight the gays.
3. Therefore, all pro-life people are also anti-gay.
4. Anyone who isn't anti-gay isn't really pro-life.
It's a very good political method - it allows you to reenforce the smug sense of superiority posessed only by those driven by absolute conviction in their moral perfection. It then combines this already powerful manipulation with a black and white worldview, seperating the world into 'true christians' and 'non-christians' so that the latter may be demonised and turned into a strawman enemy. But it's not an argument. It's propaganda at best.
What is said in this comment is a twisted re-interpretation of Annie's statements and not worth responding to. It is a logical fallacy to argue against a fabricated position.
Thanks, Tim, for the only best response to that. Suricou Raven was banned in 2007 for this kind of twisted-logic, timewasting trolling. He or she already knows we have atheist friends who are prolife, etc., and that we don't hate or judge gays, contrary to what popular media say, and that we do however defend marriage as it is supposed to be defined and is defined by the majority of folks (even in California)...SR is just trying to wrap us up in wasted time and putting words in our mouths, much like the media does.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
This is awful. People have a right to marry whomever they love no matter what sex someone is! This is taking someone's rights away! No where in the Constitution does it mention anything about one man and one woman marriage much LESS marriage period. Not giving someone the right to marry is horrible. That is all I have to say.
Should children and adults marry?
Should two children marry?
Should two men marry one woman?
Should two women marry one man?
Should groups of more than two of any gender be able to marry?
Should a man marry an animal?
Should a woman marry an animal?
Not giving these people the right to marry "is horrible."
The proponents of phony marriage between homosexuals want limits on marriage. They just want different limits.
Human anatomy and physiology speak loudly about homosexuality. They are manifest evidence of how foolish it is. Women are meant for men and men for women. There is no anatomical or physiological proof for homosexuality.
Are you over fifty? Go and kill yourself. Right now. Nature does not intend for humans to live so long - it is only via medical advances of most unnatural means that we have been able to make it the rule rather than the exception.
What is natural matters not in the slightest. It isn't natural for me to wear glasses. For people to get food from the supermarket. None of the surgical techniques used today are natural, and few of the drugs are. We are debating this over computers - how unnatural can we get?
You are using nature to define morality only in those situations where it agrees with you. This is highly inconsistant. If you want to condemn homosexuality as 'unnatural' then it's time you learned to throw a spear and found a cave to live in - and I hope you make that spear out of naturally-occuring pointy rock and stick.
As for your prior argument, it's a textbook slippery slope. We can debate those situations when the time for them comes, but they are not the current issue. Exactly the same argument was raised back when interracial marriage was legalised - the anti-interracial-marriage campaigners warned that if interracial marriage was legal, then soon pedophilia and bigamy would legal too. That was a good many decades ago, and still it hasn't happened.
My how tolerant.
A rectum is not a vagina. Strictly scientifically speaking, a rectum is the last part of the large bowel. It is a poop warehouse, not a sexual organ.
When you prented it is a sexual organ you tear the tissue and make it easy to transmit disease like AIDS. Contact with poop is a reason why homosexuals get a lot more hepatitis than people who know what a rectum is for, particularily when anal contact is accompanied by oral contact.
Don't be so intolerant.
We are not talking about animals we are talking about human beings. In some societies children are allowed to be married, in my opinion I do not think it is acceptable and I am glad that most people in our society (in the USA) do not allow this. But Love is Love (with in the legal age limits), meaning 18+ , although you have a problem with an adult an a child but do you have a problem with an 18 yr. old and a 60 yr. old if they are in love and want to get married? it is perfectly legal? and they are heterosexual. Maybe I should change my view. Homosexuals, unwed mothers, unmarried couples who are committed to each other and families who have decided just not to wed should just have the same benefits as marriage, legally. Keep marriage this "sacred institution" even though GOD still loves EVERYONE but give these people who have families out of wedlock the right to have insurance and same benefits as married couples.
Oh and Lou. Goodness Sweetheart. Are you forgetting about the lesbians out there too? Most, I believe, don't go around messing with rectums all day. Some straight women take it in the bum too. ha ha ha. and AIDS is a terrible disease, and if that is what your argument comes down to then I am very, very saddened. HIV and AIDS can be contracted to anyone by anyone. through vaginal or anal intercourse. but this has nothing to do with whether or not Gay and Lesbian PEOPLE should be able to have the RIGHT to get married.
It must be difficult to be a homosexual, female, male, or self-mutilated person, aka transgender.
There is no better evidence that they don't belong together than their own bodies. No argument from me or anyone is more eloquent in saying, "We don't belong together," than the evidence provided by their own body.
To save time, you may want to just read my blog post on this blog post:
http://moronality.blogspot.com/2008/11/mini-morons-rather-than-go-after-one.html