Colorado also passed legislation similar to Florida's - banning all such 
legal unions.

Lisa Bates

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Rebecca Kukla wrote:

> Marilyn - Thank you so much for your post, which was a wonderful and
> optimistic way of thinking about this.  I have already shared it with
> several people.  I wanted to bask completely in the joy of Obama's election
> and the Republicans' defeat and this helps me find a way.
>
> Rosan is right that part of what is so 'monstrous' (that was my word) about
> the FL amendment is that it explicitly blocks civil unions, benefits for
> domestic partners, or other progressive ways of joining one's life with a
> loved that are alternatives to marriage.
>
> But you're right too.  39% of Floridians voted to defeat that amendment and
> keep the way open for other forms of love and life.  That's several million
> of us.  I was moved to see 'No to Amendment 2' signs on black community
> centers, inside Cuban coffee shops, on windows of convenience stores in
> working class areas, and all sorts of other places over the last month or
> so.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Marilyn Frye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Rosan,
>>
>> Well, I didn't realize they had that clause in there,
>>
>>  but that is only one state...in other states various kinds of civil unions
>> are still progressing toward appropriate establishment, and after a while
>> that Florida thing will be looking more and more backward, backwater, so to
>> speak.  As I see it, a cultural change is going on, and such local
>> set-backs, even a lot of them, are to be expected.  What % of Florida voters
>> voted AGAINST this hyperbolic amendment?  Whatever it is, it is a LOT of
>> people.  Than number will grow, only assuming the Floridian gay/lesbians and
>> their allies just keep on keeping on, and the changing times keep on
>> a-changing. There is no law or constitution that cannot be reversed or
>> changed.
>>
>> I have no idea where this awash-in-optimism came from...  but it seems like
>> a good thing, for now.
>>
>> Marilyn
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Rose A. Larizza wrote:
>>
>> *I so agree with you. But.*
>> *Ah Marilyn, the drafters of Florida's Anti-same-sex marriage amendment
>> have already thought of what you write about toward the end of your email
>> (see highlighted lines in your text).*
>>
>> The ballot language <http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_title>
>> says, "This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man
>> and one woman as husband and wife and provides *that no other legal union
>> that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be
>> valid or recognized." * (emphasis added)**
>> That language is vague, and could (and has in other jurisdictions) allow
>> for legal challenges to the granting of any rights or privileges under any
>> type of legal union other than marriage.
>> * *
>> *Rosan Larizza*
>> *Writing Specialist*
>> *Florida Costal School of Law*
>> *Phone: 904-680-7791*
>> *Fax: 904-680-7679*
>> * *
>> *From:* Feminist ethics and social theory [
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Marilyn Frye
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:33 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Election results on gay equality
>>
>> On these anti-gay votes...
>>
>> Apart from the fact that I have considerable political reservations about
>> the movement for gay marriage [the usual things: marriage is not an
>> institution worthy of feminist respect (I think) though socially respected
>> fairly stable and erotically involved unions of two or more people forming
>> something like households may be a good thing in a society and worthy of
>> state support; civil rights, entitlements, and access to health care should
>> have nothing to do with whatever couple-ish things people form up, nor with
>> employment; lobbying to be included in marriage feels to me like just
>> lobbying to get privileges that no one should have....oh, and on and on.]
>>  Anyway...
>>
>> When my state (Michigan) passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional
>> amendment in the last election, I had this thought:  Hmm.  So 40-45% of my
>> fellow citizens voted FOR something they thought of as a benefit to and
>> approval of gays and lesbians coupleing to form domestic
>> something-or-others.  That is amazing!  Had they had the chance to vote for
>> something that had that meaning for them, say 30 years ago, I'll bet about
>> 10-12% would have voted for it, if that many.  We've really made progress.
>>
>> So...for those who want the institution of the status of marriage for gay
>> or lesbian pairs, and the rest of us who at least can see "gay marriage" as
>> some sort of indicator of admission of lesbians/gays to civil and social
>> okay-ness, I think we just have to keep at it.  We'll see-saw on, and move
>> by inches to a world that is not systematically hostile to same-sex lovers.
>>
>> Another thought: These gay marriage prohibitions may contribute
>> psychologically and politically toward making marriage irrelevant to the
>> rights and entitlements that people try to get by marrying. As various
>> alternatives like civil unions become available, more non-gay/lesbian people
>> will go for them, and more of the good stuff that has been attached to
>> marriage will be available in more ways. It may work in favor of taking
>> marriage out of its privileged place in the social/political map. That might
>> be good for all of us, whatever our sexual inclinations. It might be good,
>> by the way, in general, for women.
>>
>> Don't despair!
>>
>> Marilyn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/08 11:09 AM, "Rebecca Kukla" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> And Florida, despite finally turning blue and bringing it home for Obama,
>> also seems to have passed one of the most monstrous of the anti-gay-marriage
>> constitutional amendments around, by a narrow margin.
>>
>>
>> Rebecca
>>
>> On 11/5/08, *Callahan, Joan* <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> This is a GREAT day for the U.S.
>>
>>  But please don't forget that Americans continue to ensure that certain
>> inequalities will be written into law --
>>
>>
>>
>>  Yahoo News, November 5, 2008
>>
>>
>>  LOS ANGELES - California's proposed constitutional amendment banning
>> same-sex marriage - and with it the personal lives of thousands of gay
>> couples - hinged on about 3 million absentee and provisional ballots early
>> Wednesday.
>>
>>  Sponsors of the ban - widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's
>> 153 ballot measures - declared victory, but the measure's opponents said too
>> many votes remained uncounted for the race to be called.
>>
>>  The amendment would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time
>> such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.
>>
>>  Even without the wait, gay rights activists had a rough day Tuesday.
>> Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and gay
>> rights forces suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure
>> banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.
>> Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target. . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Lisa Bates, Instructor
Department of Philosophy
University of Colorado
[log in to unmask]