Federal Judge Strikes Down Florida's Gay Marriage Ban

Adds to rulings from several judges within the state

A federal judge on Thursday declared Florida's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, joining state judges in four counties who have sided with gay couples wishing to tie the knot.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle in Tallahassee ruled that the ban added to Florida's constitution by voters in 2008 violates the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process. Hinkle issued a stay delaying the effect of his order, meaning no marriage licenses will be immediately issued for gay couples.

Hinkle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, compared bans on gay marriage to the long-abandoned prohibitions on interracial marriage and predicted both would be viewed by history the same way.

Comments

[josh]

sex with ducks just keeps getting closer and closer....

[jgress]

And what's wrong with sex with ducks, may I ask?

But seriously, while I see no reason to ban gay marriage in a secular state, since arguments against it are entirely based in religion, I also don't see why individual states can't decide for themselves whether or not to allow it. This is setting a very bad precedent in constitutional law, I'm afraid.

[T.A.L.L]

Actually the ban on gay marriage is not "entirely based on religion." The reason the gay marriage ban was upheld in Tennessee was not because of a religious argument but because the state "has a compelling interest in the promotion of heterosexual marriage as it will most likely produce offspring which is a benefit to the society at large." The reason the state can give special tax breaks and privileges to heterosexual marriages, and also place a ban on homosexual marriage, is the same reason it can subsidize an industry or show favoritism to companies owned by minorities when it comes to government contracts.

[Curtisls87]

The logic of this argument was very compelling in the 18th and 19th century as pols wanted to see the population increase in order to compete economically with European nations. Anymore, not so much. I don't doubt for a second that Tennessee was able to raise the argument, but in my view, it is actually specious, at this time.

Note also that the Tennessee case was decided by a county circuit judge, not a federal judge. It is ripe to be overturned.

[gaoxiaen]

It kills the duck. And if you happen to be a Muslim, you can't eat an animal that you fuck, so it's wasteful.

[AlgerHiss]

Can 3 gay guys marry?

How about a mother and daughter?

Perhaps 2 gay guys and 2 lesbians can form a marriage?

If not, why not?

[antisocial-ist]

Because discrimination is only bad when it's against people you like. Honestly, I don't give a shit who does what as long as every one involved is a consenting adult. The real problem here is that everyone is forced to accept a state marriage whether they want to or not. Get the state out of it.

[Curtisls87]

Agreed. The only compelling reason for the state to be involved is for legal protections for individuals. In this I mean such things, as property rights (inheritance, for example), medical rights (do not resuscitate orders), et cetera. These could be covered by legal contracts, rather than a marriage license issued by the state.

Otherwise, the state has no compelling interest, any more, as long as the parties are consenting. If religious organizations want to designate a specific type of arrangement for marriage, that is their concern.

[Barnstormer]

"U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle...." must be related to A. Barton. I smell a rat, or it could be a gerbil.

[gaoxiaen]

What happened? Did the string break?