A federal judge in Florida will overturn the Gay marriage ban. And authorizes all county clerks acro - Polidicks

[QUOTE](Reuters) - A federal judge in north Florida ruled on Thursday that county clerks statewide must issue marriage licenses to all same-sex couples who request them starting Jan. 6, the effective date of his decision to overturn Florida's ban on gay matrimony as unconstitutional. The latest opinion by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of Tallahassee addressed questions raised among court clerks about the reach of his previous ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, and whether it applied beyond Washington County and the two men named as plaintiffs in the case. In a sharply worded four-page order, Hinkle said it was not the injunction he issued more than four months ago against Florida's gay marriage ban that compels statewide compliance, but the U.S. Constitution. Ruling on the merits of the case on Aug. 21, Hinkle struck down a 2008 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution defining marriage exclusively as the legal union of one man and one woman. But he temporarily stayed his own ruling to give the state an opportunity to appeal. [B][U]"The defendants did that. They lost," Hinkle wrote. The stay is due be lifted Jan. 5, after which Florida will become the 36th state where gay and lesbian couples are free to marry.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/02/us-usa-florida-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0KA1WI20150102[/url] [editline]2nd January 2015[/editline] Good start of the year for same-sex marriage, I would say.

Florida Man catches a break.

Heh, never expected Florida to do this, especially a north Floridian judge. Either way, this is great news.

Still say anything short of all 50 states is unacceptable. But as previously stated, good start for the new year.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46841637]Still say anything short of all 50 states is unacceptable. But as previously stated, good start for the new year.[/QUOTE] Its going to go back in front of the supreme court, garenteed because there is a split ruling now that some circuits have ruled against while others have ruled for it, I'd rather it fall state by state, generates less animosity that way but it'll ultimately happen

Oh if it has to be one by one, so be it. It'll happen eventually. Of course, I also wonder why its taken us this long.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46841826]Oh if it has to be one by one, so be it. It'll happen eventually. Of course, I also wonder why its taken us this long.[/QUOTE] Because [I]unfortunately[/I], religion(s) is a foundation of civilization. Only now are most people actually realizing that it just might be bullshit.

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;46841885]Because [I]unfortunately[/I], religion(s) is a foundation of civilization. Only now are most people actually realizing that it just might be bullshit.[/QUOTE] I wonder if there would even be an "institution" like marriage in modern society if we didn't have religion or traditions. You can see marriage as an idea falling apart everywhere you look.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46842209]I wonder if there would even be an "institution" like marriage in modern society if we didn't have religion or traditions. You can see marriage as an idea falling apart everywhere you look.[/QUOTE] really its all semantics, if say all states implimented civil unions to replace marrige, reserving marraige strictly as a formality for religious couples (like a church produces a marraige certificate and the state keeps it on file), there by all couples can get joined legally, and the religious version of marraige stays the same, however of course the church still being largely ingrained in our legal code, this won't happen and we have to forcibly destroy religious marraige to fix legal marraige. also if civil unions weren't inherantly a second-class of marraige then this wouldn't have been an issue, its just every time a concession was made towards gay-rights, people had to stick their fingers in and make sure they are still a second-class and now gay-rights activists have no choice but to destroy the traditional belief in marraige because nothing less is a violation of the fourteenth amendment

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;46841885]Because [I]unfortunately[/I], religion(s) is a foundation of civilization. Only now are most people actually realizing that it just might be bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yeah, if there was no religion there would obviously be no sexism, racism, or any of those other things. Definitely.

Good news from Florida at last. Thanks LoganIsAwesome.

[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1419416"]Previously on SH, Judge Hinkle overturned Florida's ban in August but stayed his ruling pending appeal.[/URL] Now the appeal's over and the ruling stands, and Florida joins the majority on this side of the 21st century. 2014 was the year the dominoes began to fall, let's hope 2015 sees the momentum continue. Also, holy shit, 2014 was an amazing year. At the beginning of the year, there were 18 states, plus D.C., that allowed same-sex marriage. By the end of 2014, there were 35, and now 36 with Florida. And there are more cases pending appeal that have about the same odds of winning. The arguments against gay marriage are, on legal grounds, indefensible, and it's about time they were swept aside.

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;46841885]Because [I]unfortunately[/I], religion(s) is a foundation of civilization. Only now are most people actually realizing that it just might be bullshit.[/QUOTE] Quite a few religious people support gay marriage you know.

I do wonder if there is a secular argument against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;46841175]Florida Man catches a break.[/QUOTE] florida man marries florida man

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46842876]I do wonder if there is a secular argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] There is, but it comes down to prioritizing the birth rate over equality and such. In short, nothing that should be legitimately argued in a developed 21st-century democracy.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46842907]There is, but it comes down to prioritizing the birth rate over equality and such. In short, nothing that should be legitimately argued in a developed 21st-century democracy.[/QUOTE] Guess I should have asked if there's a sound and valid secular argument against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46843052]Guess I should have asked if there's a sound and valid secular argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Most people who oppose gay marriage do it on personal grounds (it's icky!!!) and not on religious ones.

[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46843606]Most people who oppose gay marriage do it on personal grounds (it's icky!!!) and not on religious ones.[/QUOTE] In my experience that's is entirely untrue.

[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46843606]Most people who oppose gay marriage do it on personal grounds (it's icky!!!) and not on religious ones.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say most, but I've seen my fair share of people who oppose it on non-religious (and entirely fucking stupid) grounds.

Score one for the rainbow tide.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46842876]I do wonder if there is a secular argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] None comes to mind, not even the lawyers infront of the supreme Court could come up with one [editline]2nd January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46843606]Most people who oppose gay marriage do it on personal grounds (it's icky!!!) and not on religious ones.[/QUOTE] No its really the opposite, I know people who are fine with men/men and women/women couples but don't believe that they should be able to marry because of the religious conotation

Could say I am partially surprised, this is a Republican-ish state(its random usually) and most seem to be against same-sex marriage based off of people I met there, but when I was in high school there, when we were doing an issue, my group seemed to support it. But its a good thing Florida is allowing it now. As for religion being part of this, I think their deity is a bit bi-curious as well, or doesn't care as long as said person is good in heart. So religion being used against same-sex marriage is, well kinda a weak argument.

Alabama next? :c We're not all retarded

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46843052]Guess I should have asked if there's a sound and valid secular argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] You could argue natural selection but that would be a dickish thing to do

[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;46846515]You could argue natural selection but that would be a dickish thing to do[/QUOTE] i don't think marriage suddenly gives two dudes the ability to reproduce and adoption/artificial insemination are both still available to unmarried couples regardless, albeit with some legal complications.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46843052]Guess I should have asked if there's a sound and valid secular argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] A lot of people argue that states who have marriage bans that were voted in by the populace would be the most valid because a marriage license is a state issued license. Therefore the state is responsible for setting the requirements and the populace having voted on it is akin to "The people have spoken, and they don't want it." That would be the largest and best secular argument against gay marriage with the most ground to stand on.

I love how well this is spreading through the US

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;46841885]Because [I]unfortunately[/I], religion(s) is a foundation of civilization. Only now are most people actually realizing that it just might be bullshit.[/QUOTE] If religion hadn't built Europe you could kiss all that Roman and Greek knowledge bye-bye. and say hello to your new Mongol overlords.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46846604]A lot of people argue that states who have marriage bans that were voted in by the populace would be the most valid because a marriage license is a state issued license. Therefore the state is responsible for setting the requirements and the populace having voted on it is akin to "The people have spoken, and they don't want it." That would be the largest and best secular argument against gay marriage with the most ground to stand on.[/QUOTE] But your constitution disagrees and states aren't allowed to ignore it.