If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.
Posted on 12/07/2022 11:22:43 AM PST by Jacquerie
More than a decade ago, Florida voters approved a ban in the state’s Constitution on same-sex marriages, ratifying a declaration that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
With the multitude of state and federal policies at play here, what does the state Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriages mean for the future?
Given the messy political context, it’s hard to say exactly.
During the 2008 general election, Florida voters were presented the proposed constitutional amendment to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of marriage under the law.
As a refresher in Florida politics during that election cycle, that is the same year 51 percent of Florida voted for Democratic President Barack Obama, according to state election data.
Meanwhile, former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was in the middle of his term. He supported the amendment, a move he has since apologized for, according to a 2014 report from CBS Miami.
The measure was called “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment” and it passed, gaining approval from 61.9 percent of voters. According to data from the Florida Division of Elections, some 4,890,000 voters approved the measure while 3,008,000 voted against it.
To this day, the Florida Constitution 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 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, striking down anti-marriage equality laws, rendered the amendment toothless, but LGBTQ+ advocates have fresh reason for concern. And, again, the U.S. Supreme Court is responsible.
U.S. Supreme Court.
Florida is not the only state with a state-wide ban on same-sex marriages. States Newsroom, the nonprofit news network that includes the Florida Phoenix, has reported that 30 states still have bans against same-sex marriages in state constitutions or laws.
Justice Clarence Thomas called that guarantee into question in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortions. The entire court didn’t go along with Thomas’ reasoning, but he suggested the court consider revisiting a range of precedents finding unenumerated privacy rights (those not specifically written down in the Constitution) to access contraception, homosexual conduct, interracial marriage, and — yes — marriage equality.
By the 9th Amendment, Scotus was duty-bound to protect declarations in state constitutions.
Months after Obergefell, Anthony Kennedy admitted that what he did was "the right thing to do." IOW, judicial lawmaking which is oligarchy at its worst.
I believe California had a similar vote which also was passed.
So they simply had the state Supreme Court declare the referendum invalid.
Yes they did- The voters didn’t want gay marriage=- The state’s courts said “Tough! You’ll have gay marriage and like it or else!”
Anthony Kennedy admitted that what he did was “the right thing to do.”
Didn’t he come out and say that his decision was based more on his emotions than on the rule of law?
Yet another backstabbing POS that was able to sneak on the court.
It means that nobody wanted this Queer crap that you can’t escape from nowadays, and the only reason polling changed is because people are too afraid to say how they really feel without getting fired from their job.
The author asks a question, but I don’t see the answer.
Before Obergefell, I doubt that I ever heard of the word “tranny.”
Now, there’s thousands of unscrupulous doctors making big $ screwing up the lives of young people.
Oh, and Scotus determined that guys have a 14th Amendment right to wear dresses to work.
The civil society is on its last legs.
I only knew about it because when I was a teenager kids in school talked about “The Crying Game” and it was such a shocking and revolting concept that a lot of the kids debated whether or not that it was even a real thing.
“Gay marriage” is legal in america because a bunch of oligarchs wanted to force it on the public against their will as a form of ritualistic humiliation.
only what the commie regime wants matters
Nothing, massive brainwashing can change public opinion on a dime.
A test case would involve arresting a "gay" couple for getting "married". I predict that won't happen.
I also predict not much longer for the United States, one way or another.
I watched the interview, (NPR IIRC) in which Kennedy thought it was wrong that children in same sex households couldn’t have married parents. He made a legislative decision and soiled the 14th Amendment along the way.
So much evil is done in the name of doing good.
Anything he said about that ruling was done after he retired.
It better mean there are no same sex marriages taking place in Florida, that's what.
<>Where in the Constitution is defining marriage a responsibility of the Congress, the Judicial, or the Executive?<>
It is tucked away in a crease of the 14th Amendment. See, the Framers of the 14A were ignorant of the nuances of their amendment. It took modern savants, the philosopher-kings of Scotus in 2015 to figure out what Congress and the ratifying states didn’t realize in 1868.
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.