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 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]] 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. . . . .