He's in the GOP, right? OK, he's gay. Problem solved.

After eight years of the Jeb Bush regime, with his required fundie Terri Schiavo nonsense and methodical destruction of common sense and decency, the Charlie Crist era feels like God woke up and forgave Florida its shortcomings over the decades.

This is why only morans vote for a party over a person.

That kind of proves for me that he's straight. The closeted GOP politicians are the types that froth at the mouth against gay marriage...

Seriously, I don't understand why people would vote for this. Someone out there in a red state, tell me. Do people feel that threatened by the idea of gays marrying? Don't they realize that this would give people important rights regarding hospital visitation and children, etc.

/Sound incredibly naive but am astounded by people sometimes.

FTFA: "The people of Florida have spoken today, and they will speak again on Nov. 4, 2008," said John Stemberger, an Orlando lawyer who leads a coalition of sponsoring groups. "I think the message is timeless and it is clear: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman."



"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

The only people that give a fark are the small minority of gay people with an unnatural love for the word 'marriage' and the small minority of religious nuts suffering the same affliction. This is both the reason that no gay marriage initiative can pass at the moment and the reason one eventually will if the nutty activists repeatedly try for long enough.

//Really a flip of the coin wether a nut explicitly bans it or a nut gets it explicitly legalized first. Thankfully, as one of the 99.9999% not-giving-a-damn segment, I can laugh at everyone in the meantime.

Why do people so dearly hold an institution with (at least) a 50% failure rate?

This is the same guy that used his past work with Bill Clinton to sway voters in his gubernatorial race, right?

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

/Against gay marriage.
//Also against all other forms of legal marriages

The institution of marriage may be troubled and doomed to failure half of the time, but it serves a purpose as well. For example, if one falls in love in a foreign land then it is possible to return as a couple to the United States by declaring committment through marriage. Gay people don't have this option and so must leave the US or be satisfied with meeting on those occasions when tourist visas are available. This is especially pressing now that homeland security has driven the entire US insane with fear.

Good for Charlie. After that smirking bastard Jeb, Charlie Crist is an oasis of sense.

coco ebert: Seriously, I don't understand why people would vote for this. Someone out there in a red state, tell me. Do people feel that threatened by the idea of gays marrying? Don't they realize that this would give people important rights regarding hospital visitation and children, etc.

-The reasons for opposing gay marriage will vary by any number of variables. A wish to uphold traditions and a desire to enforce religious beliefs are probably the two most common influences behind the opposition to gay marriage rights, but a very close third would be the idea that homosexuality can be learned behavior (and thus taught to vulnerable children), rather than instictual behavior.

Don't forget, many Democratic constituencies are just as opposed to gay marriage as their counterparts in the GOP.

Jim_Callahan: The only people that give a fark are the small minority of gay people with an unnatural love for the word 'marriage' and the small minority of religious nuts suffering the same affliction. This is both the reason that no gay marriage initiative can pass at the moment and the reason one eventually will if the nutty activists repeatedly try for long enough.

How is it nutty to want the same rights as straight people? To not allow me to marry whomever I choose (as long as they're an adult and so on) is nothing short of discrimination. Just imagine what it would be like if there were millions of people out there that you had never met trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning anyone named Jim from getting married. I realize that it isn't exactly the same thing, but it's close. They want to prevent people they don't know from living their life in the manner they choose.

The only thing that comforts me is that I'm pretty sure, in 50 years, we're going to look back on all of this similar to how we look back at the civil rights movement today. We'll see all these people who're against gay marraige for what they really were, and nobody will care who marries whom.

What I think is that the pro-gay-marriage groups should start calling themselves pro-family, pro-love, pro-happiness, etc. They should also start referring to the anti-gay-marriage groups as anti-family, anti-love, anti-free-choice, etc. If nothing else, it would be funny, and it's more accurate than what those groups call themselves.

Crunch61: Why do people so dearly hold an institution with (at least) a 50% failure rate?

Because the nuclear family is one of the most cherished icons of the American way of life.

"The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." - George Murdock

If you're going to raise children, you pretty much have to be married unless you want to be some kind of freak show with a single parent, divorced parents, polygamists, or worse, two or more gay parents. People that have children and get divorced should be killed and their family line extinguished to show that this type of disruptive family behavior is not acceptable to the American way of life.

The only exception to this is when a single parent must raise the children after the spouse dies, through no act of malice on the part of the other spouse. In that case the government should pay the remaining single parent $5.5 million in cash for death benefits so that the parent will be able to successfully raise the family through to adulthood without worrying about finances. The $5.5 million value should be periodically adjusted for inflation.

capecodcarl: Crunch61: Why do people so dearly hold an institution with (at least) a 50% failure rate?

Because the nuclear family is one of the most cherished icons of the American way of life.

"The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." - George Murdock

If you're going to raise children, you pretty much have to be married unless you want to be some kind of freak show with a single parent, divorced parents, polygamists, or worse, two or more gay parents. People that have children and get divorced should be killed and their family line extinguished to show that this type of disruptive family behavior is not acceptable to the American way of life.

The only exception to this is when a single parent must raise the children after the spouse dies, through no act of malice on the part of the other spouse. In that case the government should pay the remaining single parent $5.5 million in cash for death benefits so that the parent will be able to successfully raise the family through to adulthood without worrying about finances. The $5.5 million value should be periodically adjusted for inflation.

y halo thar murder for obscene profit.

Jim_Callahan: The only people that give a fark are the small minority of gay people with an unnatural love for the word 'marriage' and the small minority of religious nuts suffering the same affliction. This is both the reason that no gay marriage initiative can pass at the moment and the reason one eventually will if the nutty activists repeatedly try for long enough.

//Really a flip of the coin wether a nut explicitly bans it or a nut gets it explicitly legalized first. Thankfully, as one of the 99.9999% not-giving-a-damn segment, I can laugh at everyone in the meantime.

Actually, a lot of gay couples care. You could live with somebody in a "domestic partnership" for 50 years, and when they die, all money/assets goes to the next of kin. In a marriage, that's the spouse. In anything else, it's a random family member that may or may not be estranged. There are other issues as well, regarding benefits, etc.

capecodcarl: If you're going to raise children, you pretty much have to be married unless you want to be some kind of freak show with a single parent, divorced parents, polygamists, or worse, two or more gay parents. People that have children and get divorced should be killed and their family line extinguished to show that this type of disruptive family behavior is not acceptable to the American way of life.

Rev Phelps?

Nice satire. I hope.

State_College_Arsonist:

Don't forget, many Democratic constituencies are just as opposed to gay marriage as their counterparts in the GOP.

Yes sir, an asshole is an asshole regardless of party.
Thanks for pointing that out. Country before party.

Doesn't this deserve a "Hero" tag intead? Especially is a Floriduh politician.

Earguy: Rev Phelps?

Now there's a guy I'd like to see have his entire family line extinguished. What a douche bag.

capecodcarl:

Because the nuclear family is one of the most cherished icons of the American way of life.

And yet 50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce.


If you're going to raise children, you pretty much have to be married unless you want to be some kind of freak show with a single parent, divorced parents, polygamists, or worse, two or more gay parents. People that have children and get divorced should be killed and their family line extinguished to show that this type of disruptive family behavior is not acceptable to the American way of life.

Thank God you set the true path for all Americans - because you must be right, you know, being that you are right and all.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with this body of work but I believe you might want to browse through it, become familiar with it, and then decide if this type of government is right for you.


The only exception to this is when a single parent must raise the children after the spouse dies, through no act of malice on the part of the other spouse. In that case the government should pay the remaining single parent $5.5 million in cash for death benefits so that the parent will be able to successfully raise the family through to adulthood without worrying about finances. The $5.5 million value should be periodically adjusted for inflation.

I can't wait for the conservatives to weigh in on that idea.
You're going to have to turn in your RNC membership card.
Oh, and I'm guessing you're off their Christmas card list.

NURBS: How is it nutty to want the same rights as straight people? .

I think that he's referring to how many Americans don't care if you call it a Civil Union, but take all of the rights that are afforded to straights.

He's saying that is a route that can be examined and probably used instead. I think it's worthwhile to give gays thsoe rights right now as civil unions, mostly because giving marriage is an entirely impossible thing to do right now.

capecodcarl: Crunch61: Why do people so dearly hold an institution with (at least) a 50% failure rate?
Because the nuclear family is one of the most cherished icons of the American way of life.

Saying you need marriage to have a nuclear family is like saying you need religion to have morals.

The amendment

The amendment would add a new section to Article I: "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."

Why? Seriously, why? What's the benefit of this?

NewportBarGuy: He's in the GOP, right? OK, he's gay

no, that's only if he DID campaign against it the same way that Nero campaigned against Christians

I heard all the stuff about gays wanting to get married threatening marriage.....well what about the way people divorce at the drop of a pin here?

Generally I was born only being attracted to women. A couple of gay people getting married isn't going to change they way I am...or what my wife and I have. A marriage is between two people in the end. I'm sure to some people that fact that I am white and my wife is Asian would cheapen our society in some way. She even once was....an alien...(shock)

Leave the couples business betwen the couples and you stay the hell out of it. Worry about yourself. Its their business NOT yours. This really is about economics of insurance companies and things like that. Gays being considered married is going to cost them more money.

That being said...a church should have the right to stick to what its thinks its about. They should not be forced to marry gays if its what they are against, etc.

In the end, what is sad/crazy is how some people let things like this cloud the real issues of this country over. We fall for the easy target every time.

Charlie Crist is gayer than a handbag full of rainbows. END

Crunch61: Saying you need marriage to have a nuclear family is like saying you need religion to have morals.

Hell, you don't even need to have morals to have religion.

It's because he's young, and his heart is an open book.

Crunch61: Saying you need marriage to have a nuclear family is like saying you need religion to have morals.

What you said is confusing to over 40% of the US population.

"An activist judge, with one stroke of a pen, can shut down a fundamental human institution,"

Oh come on, that's like saying you can have more than one friend is shutting down "the best friendship institution" How people interact and value one another can't be legislated. I'm not sure how a marriage between Ma and Pa Kettle is lessened because Joe and Jimmy can get married. Do Ma and Pa look at themselves differently afterwards? Well honey we did have something going on for 50 years but now since 2 dudes can get hitched, I'm a gonna go fark a sheep and kill some kids as my morals are out the window.

Right before this guy was elected I got a pamphlet from him telling the world how he cried himself to sleep every night over the death of embryos all over the world. Scared the hell out of me.
Now everything I hear out of him I like. Common sense indeed.

Aeonic_Blue: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

for good or for awesome: Right before this guy was elected I got a pamphlet from him telling the world how he cried himself to sleep every night over the death of embryos all over the world. Scared the hell out of me.
Now everything I hear out of him I like. Common sense indeed.


It's like he's the anti-politician. He's saying all the right things to get the Republicans to elect him then whammo! Common sense...

He lives in Florida. If he wasn't well-tanned it would be a bit weird wouldn't it? Wouldn't it suggest he was a vampire?

Trefusius: He lives in Florida. If he wasn't well-tanned it would be a bit weird wouldn't it? Wouldn't it suggest he was a vampire?

Dude I'm white as hell and I've lived in Florida all my life. I think seeing my aunt's leathery tanned skinned scared the bejeesus outta me when I was little or something.

Confabulat: After eight years of the Jeb Bush regime, with his required fundie Terri Schiavo nonsense and methodical destruction of common sense and decency, the Charlie Crist era feels like God woke up and forgave Florida its shortcomings over the decades.

This is why only morans vote for a party over a person.

Well said. While a dedicated Democrat, if other parties field a better candidate, I got the the better candidate.

/Don't see it happening on the 2008 Republican Presidential turkey shoot so far though.
//They all sort of suck and represent the opposite side of issues I'm concerned about.

Actually, a lot of gay couples care. You could live with somebody in a "domestic partnership" for 50 years, and when they die, all money/assets goes to the next of kin. In a marriage, that's the spouse. In anything else, it's a random family member that may or may not be estranged. There are other issues as well, regarding benefits, etc.

There is a legal document called a "Will" or "Last Will and Testament" that can eliminate that problem. I know it is rarely used and mostly obscure, but there are some attorneys that could advise couples on this matter.


I think that the sticking point is the term. Marriage is, or was the term for a religious ceremony joining two people in front of God.

Government should get out of the marriage business entirely. All couples should have to form a "civil union" or some other legal contract with each other to gain the legal benefits of a married couple. If you are able to find a church that is willing to preform the ceremony then you can get married.

I would guess that the vast majority of people that are against "gay marriage" are more concerned with the state mandating that their church be forced to marry gay couples. I say let the government set up the legal union and let the individual churches decide who they want to marry.

Submitter needs a kick in the nuts. Hard. The homophobic "if you support gay marriage you're probably gay, and being gay is evil" line implied by the headline is the exact sort of farked up belief religious fundamentalists want to perpetuate.

And fark all the people talking about the necessity of discrimination and homophobia to "preserve the institution of marriage." Slavery was an institution too, assholes, and so is divorce.

My fellow Americans,

We desperately need to protect the sanctity of the union of marriage. The selfish culture of our country is eroding the ideals that our nation was founded upon. That is why I support an amendment mandating the death penalty for adultery, and making it retroactive for the past 50 years.
I'm sure Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani will be the first signatories.

friendinpa: I would guess that the vast majority of people that are against "gay marriage" are more concerned with the state mandating that their church be forced to marry gay couples. I say let the government set up the legal union and let the individual churches decide who they want to marry.

Yeah, the vast majority of people that are against "gay marriage" are farking idiots and retards. "State mandating that their church be forced to marry gay couples?" That's all kinda fail right there. That's about the same level of stupid as people in West Buttfark, Arkansas being concerned that the terrorists are coming to blow up their Walmart coz they hate low, low prices.

Anyways, no, the truth is that people don't actually fear this. If they did, 30 seconds of pointing out that the state can't force a church to do anything would clear up the whole controversy. No, really, it's bigotry, homophobia, and fear that with the added temptation, many of them might leave their wives and start blowing their fishing buddies.

friendinpa: There is a legal document called a "Will" or "Last Will and Testament" that can eliminate that problem. I know it is rarely used and mostly obscure, but there are some attorneys that could advise couples on this matter.

But wouldn't that incur probate fees upon estate transfer, whereas the estate bypasses probate in the case of a marriage?

I don't know Florida law, so I'm seriously asking this.

That was a major sticking point and part of the reason that marriage was de-segregated in Canada. The fact that gay couples received different legal treatment in estate law than straight couples.

Gay marriage: the old ball and chain, with a couple of extra balls.

friendinpa: There is a legal document called a "Will" or "Last Will and Testament" that can eliminate that problem. I know it is rarely used and mostly obscure, but there are some attorneys that could advise couples on this matter.

So, I'm guessing you know essentially nothing about intestacy law, right?

Among other things, the spouse/widow has a special role in every state such that they cannot be excluded beyond a certain degree by the will. In some states, this means a spouse is guaranteed 50%, others more or less. There is no such protection for a "live in partner".

Moreover, this allocation cannot be challenged by the other inheritors in almost every state. This means that an irritated adult child cannot contest the widow's rights to that amount, whereas all aspects of the will are in fact contestable. So, a widowed spouse gets to just have the money, whereas a willed inheritor may spend months or years fighting to get a dime of what was promised them in the will.

Wills and estates is not an extremely complicated area of law for lawyers with training in those areas, but most lay-persons have little to no knowledge of how it actually works, and how painful that can make the process for their heirs.

Its ok Charlie, we know your gay, and we're cool with it.

miseducated:But wouldn't that incur probate fees upon estate transfer, whereas the estate bypasses probate in the case of a marriage?

I don't know Florida law, so I'm seriously asking this.

That was a major sticking point and part of the reason that marriage was de-segregated in Canada. The fact that gay couples received different legal treatment in estate law than straight couples.

There's all sorts of crap and legal B.S. that a will won't help if one of us dies.
It doesn't need to be called marriage for me. Really I don't give a rip what it's called just as long as my old lady can be taken care of if something happens to me and visa versa.

miseducated: friendinpa: There is a legal document called a "Will" or "Last Will and Testament" that can eliminate that problem. I know it is rarely used and mostly obscure, but there are some attorneys that could advise couples on this matter.

But wouldn't that incur probate fees upon estate transfer, whereas the estate bypasses probate in the case of a marriage?

I don't know Florida law, so I'm seriously asking this.

That was a major sticking point and part of the reason that marriage was de-segregated in Canada. The fact that gay couples received different legal treatment in estate law than straight couples.

There are all sorts of legal asymmetries for gay/straight couples, based on the legal concept of marriage: for example, in Florida (and almost all jurisdictions) you can give a one-time gift of a tremendous amount of money (varies from state to state) to your spouse, tax-free (they referenced this in Shawshank Redemption, yes, but it's still true). Other examples include the stuff I mentioned in my previous post, as well as tax benefits (which I won't list in full here).

Perhaps more egregious are the medical issues: for example, a gay partner is not a "family member" in the eyes of medical liability law, and as a result they are typically excluded from a patient's side in an emergency at the hospital, have lessened visitation, etc.

General family law issues are even worse: gay partners have no automatic legal link to their partner's children, are not covered by each other's family medical insurance (as opposed to spouses), and thus similarly one partner's child isn't covered by the other partner's insurance. This means that gay couples are often forced to purchase outside medical insurance - something tremendously more expensive than most job insurance plans - for a child because the child's biological parent doesn't work.

Most of us who demand the right for gays to marry are concerned about these issues, and not the ridiculous mythological crap (e.g. the "nuclear family", religious models of parenthood, etc.).

miseducated

It might, I am neither a Floridian or an attorney so I don't know. It is another good reason to give all couples the same legal rights though.

It just seems to me that if we get the extremists and idiots from both sides out of the conversation a reasonable middle ground can be reached. Of course that could apply to many of the problems in the world today. It is no secret in these parts that I am about as conservative as you can get and I would like to see all couples have the same legal protections.

Anyways, no, the truth is that people don't actually fear this. If they did, 30 seconds of pointing out that the state can't force a church to do anything would clear up the whole controversy. No, really, it's bigotry, homophobia, and fear that with the added temptation, many of them might leave their wives and start blowing their fishing buddies.

Theaetetus
I suppose in your mind the reason people are racist is because they are afraid of turning into a different race.

If he weren't a GOP, he'd have a hero tag on Fark.

friendinpa:
I suppose in your mind the reason people are racist is because they are afraid of turning into a different race.

So, I take it you really do believe that this is about people being so stupid as to fear that the gub'mint will force their church to marry teh gheys?
Then please re-read the first paragraph of my post.

You know, with guys like Crist and Schwarzenegger, I'm hopeful that the backlash against the "religious right" in the GOP has begun. That's why I think the Republicans taking an assbeating of historic proportions, which could happen if both they and the Democrats nominate the right people (Huckabee vs. Obama would be a lot of fun), would be good for our country.

I mean, a GOP not dominated by the religious right still wouldn't get my vote; I think they're still wrong on many issues, particularly if the influence of the "neo-cons" remains. But it would get rid of the worst things about the GOP now.

mattharvest
So, I'm guessing you know essentially nothing about intestacy law, right?

That would be an excellent guess. And thank you for the extra information. Obviously I am not a lawyer, I was just disputing the notion that all assets would automatically go to a random family member and the partner would have no recourse.

Most of us who demand the right for gays to marry are concerned about these issues, and not the ridiculous mythological crap (e.g. the "nuclear family", religious models of parenthood, etc.).

I understand that and agree wholeheartedly. I have a family member living in Florida with her long time partner. Believe me when I tell you that I am on your side here.