Posted on 12/15/2007 4:18:09 AM PST by Man50D
More than 611,000 petition signatures have been verified by Florida's 67 counties, putting a proposed state constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman on the 2008 election ballot.
"Today, the people of Florida have spoken. And they will speak again in November of 2008," said John Stemberger, chairman of the Florida4Marriage organization that supervised the petition effort.
He said reaching the required number of petition signatures "is the next critical milestone in the effort to protect the institution of marriage in Florida. A super majority of Floridians believe, and the research clearly indicates, that children do best when raised by a mom and a dad."
In earlier elections, 27 other states have approved such amendments, many times replacing statutory language amendment supporters feared could be thrown out by a judge.
Stemberger noted state officials confirmed that the number of verified signatures had passed the 611,009 that was required, but he said the signature collecting would continue, in preparation for a possible court challenge on the number of signatures submitted for the issue to be decided by voters in the Nov. 4, 2008, election.
But he said "misleading information" already is being launched by opponents to the proposal, which reads: "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."
"The primary group opposing the amendment is the so-called 'Florida Red and Blue' committee," said a statement from the marriage protection campaign committee. "In a recent interview on Tampa's Fox 13 'Your Turn' show, Campaign Manager Derrick Newton disingenuously stated with a straight face, 'We do not have an opinion on gay marriage.'
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
W00t
Ultimately a waste of time I think. Eventually the matter will be before the Supreme Court where the United States Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will trump the local restrictions.
Florida can choose to set its own restrictions on marriages performed in that jurisdiction, but legal marriages from elsewhere are legally binding on Florida and any other state. To illustrate, consider how different states set varying age requirements for marriage, but the marriage isn’t void when moving to a state that sets a higher age. And interstate travel to marry in a more accommodating state is already common.
You also had the same situation in the old days when divorce was much more limited. People got around this by going to Nevada for a quickie divorce the original restrictive state was forced to recognize.
Absent a federal constitutional amendment, which apparently isn’t going to happen, I really see no other final outcome.
The Supreme Court will never get involved now. Over half the states have spoken. The majority of State constitutions are not going to upended by the Supreme Court of the United States. As for the “Full Faith” clause, that itself is dependent on legal wording, which every state has in place (except Mass.), and none of them include language accepting homosexual marriage as a bonafide arrangement.
Massachusetts doing what it did is itself a violation of Full Faith, because it is a two-way street. One state cannot and will not willy-nilly decide what the other 49 states must accept. As my legal beagle has told me, allowing that to happen will open doors to other states making laws forcing the other 49 states into situation and it will never end.
>>>The Supreme Court will never get involved now. Over half the states have spoken. The majority of State constitutions are not going to upended by the Supreme Court
Abraham Lincoln once put a proposition to vote by his Cabinet. All present voted “nay”. Lincoln then voted “aye” and declared the “Ayes” have it. Just as Constitutional law isn’t a matter of majority vote, and Full Faith and Credit is fundamental and firmly established.
>>>As my legal beagle has told me, allowing that to happen will open doors to other states making laws forcing the other 49 states into situation
That already occurs. I already gave the example of the quickie Reno divorce where one state trumped the restrictive divorce laws of every other state. When those people went back to their original state, the law didn’t force them to stay married. It couldn’t, because they had legally dissolved the marriage and that had to be recognized and given force by their home state.
Voters and legislators can make nearly any sort of local laws they wish. But in the long run none of these can supersede the settled Constitutional requirement that a legal marriage from another state be recognized in all other states.
Yes it is a hot potato and one a Supreme Court justice would probably rather avoid, much like the DC Gun case. But as more gays marry in the states that do permit it, and as they move around the country and run up against the local barriers and file legal challenges, the Court will eventually have no choice but to rule. Without upending precedent back to Marshall I don’t see how else they can decide but to maintain the primacy of FF&C.
I agree that it’s a waste of time as far as “protecting” marriage is concerned, but that’s of course not its real goal; it’s about motivating the most conservative voters — who may otherwise not be very motivated to come out and vote in November for the eventual Republican nominee — to make sure they come on election day.
Doesn’t matter. Our governor wouldn’t enforce the law, and even if he would, he wouldn’t get a chance to: the ACLU friendly Florida SCOFLAWS, the black robed Masters in Tallahassee, will nullify the will of the people.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.