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. . . . .
>
>
>
>