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. . . . . > > > >