UPDATE: Gay couple sue Florida DMV over driver's license names

[D'Artagnon]

This article appeared in our local paper today.

 

http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20141201/gay-couple-sue-dmv-over-drivers-license-names

 

Also appears in these places as well (thanks to my boyfriend for running these two down as well)

 

 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird/2014/12/married-gays-denied-fla-drivers-licenses.html

 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/florida-dmv-married-gays_b_6246502.html

[ken barber]

Why does this make Florida DMV sound like a school yard bully. And Doesn't a marriage in any state with a name change make that the official name anywhere. The logic behind this is baffling, their legal name is different in different states now. WTF

[D'Artagnon]

There is statewide resistance, mostly partisan, to the trend of gay marriage approval in Florida.  I know a couple who live near me that are dealing with this.  One member of this marriage is a foreign national who is legally emigrating, and this couple were married in Niagra last year.  They had to go through a lot of hoops to get the federal government to approve things, and they both work, pay taxes and live without breaking laws.  You'd think we might encourage such citizenship.

[Kyle Aarons]

And it is for reasons like this SCOTUS needs to make a ruling once and for all and stop playing politics by defering

[ken barber]

I agree Kyle. its time to stop playing pass the buck here

[D'Artagnon]

As much as I agree with both of you, and as much as it seems rather silly, we have to go through due process.  Once all appeals, arguments, and arrogant self-absorbed attempts to make the issue something other than the real point of it all are exhausted, then the law can be solidified.  We forget that SCOTUS isn't about fast tracking legislation or legalization, but about making sure it's all proper, slowing down the process to make informed decisions; to test and poke legal issues to make sure things are understood.  Congress sometimes acts like spoiled children, they make rash decisions that sometimes need cooler heads to prevail.  Just because a law is popular, doesn't make it right, necessary or just.

 

And in the end, gay marriage needs to be exactly as equal, right, necessary and just - the same way that traditional marriage is.  And protected under federal law in the same ways.

 

Opinions?  Discussions?

[ken barber]

I feel as though due process has been served. The justices have been  holding off on this issue for long enough. Its time they make a stand. 

[Rilbur]

I feel as though due process has been served. The justices have been  holding off on this issue for long enough. Its time they make a stand. 

 

At the same time, D'Artagnon is right: the courts are not the place to make this type of change.  They have the power, but forcing them to use it to enforce gay marriage rights is wrong.  Worse, it's a strategic blunder to push it that far.  There's no way to tell for 100% sure how they will choose to jump, and a poor ruling by the Supreme court would be a disaster.

 

That said, pushing a matter of 'faith and credit' that far is a good idea, so the above is just a general discussion.  If one state issues a marriage license or a name change, all other states are bound to accept it -- like it or not.

[GayActivist]

Not sure if I am following you guys correctly. As I understand it, the marriage bans permit the state to not recognize gay marriage from any other state. Which boggled my mind, as I would think that would be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. If so, then you know that is going to end up in court to be settled.

 

As for the SCOTUS, it was clear, they could of taken on the marriage issue when prop 8 and the Windsor case was before them. But the gay marriage issue was not the crux per se of those cases. At least not so much that they could rule in the manner they did without having to touch the elephant in the room. Was that, just to avoid the issue? Perhaps. Could it be they wanted to let things play out? Perhaps.

 

It is long standing practice, to not take on cases unless there is a split in the lower circuits. Which just recently happened with the 6th Circuit ruling. So now with a split, SCOTUS will have to take up the issue, the main issue, at some point and settle it once and for all.

[Rilbur]

Not sure if I am following you guys correctly. As I understand it, the marriage bans permit the state to not recognize gay marriage from any other state. Which boggled my mind, as I would think that would be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. If so, then you know that is going to end up in court to be settled.

There are two closely related arguments here.  One is the strongly implied sentiment that the Supreme Court should take up marriage in general.  The other is the explicit argument that they should take up gay marriage bans Vs. the full faith and credit clause.

 

I threw out a warning that the first is just a bad idea, and why, just to address the elephant in the room.  I then explicitly broke that argument off to tackle full faith and credit -- where, as far as this totally-not-a-lawyer can tell is a done deal.  Or at the least, if it's not a done deal then something is seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Kyle Aarons]

I look at it this way, either people can vote against gay marriage or they can't the laws are all over the place. If it is something SCOTUS says the people have a say in, then it should go to a national vote. If not, they can say it is a right and to hell with the voters. either way, they need to pull their heads out of the sand and pull this country out of the gay marriage quagmire it is now in.

[D'Artagnon]

Further action in push for Same Sex Marriage in Florida

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/20/us/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html

[tkyrchncs]

Freedom of association is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.  Consensual sex between adults in private is covered under the fundamental right to privacy according to the SCOTUS.  The right to own property in common with any other person capable of making his own decisions is fundamental.  The right to have children is fundamental, whether natural or adopted.  There exists in every state a procedure to change one's legal name (the one registered at birth, in most cases) to any name one wishes, as long as there is no purpose to defraud.  Many states follow common law and allow anyone to use any name one chooses to use, as long as there is no purpose to defraud, and to have that serve as a (an additional) legal name. The SCOTUS has already ruled, on four separate occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, even for those in prison, sentenced to life, or to death. Where are the issues here?  Fundamental rights are not subject to votes, by ANYONE, the people, or any of their representatives, elected or appointed.  It is the DUTY of the court to abrogate ALL votes, public or legislative, attempting to interfere with fundamental rights; that is one of the primary reasons for the existence of courts in general and the SCOTUS in particular.

The SCOTUS has said, "Get Real!" to the majority of the nation, on several occasions, and I think it is past time that they do that on this issue.  What is the point of allowing this situation to persist when it gives "conservatives" (?) hope that they might prevail,  and causes so much injustice to so many gay couples? 

[D'Artagnon]

Part of the reasons against are a very outdated and overwhelmed bureaucracy that is entrenched with those that prefer not to change.  Paperwork rules the world and there just aren't (in some people's opinion) the right forms to make things legal and proper.  This argument is the easiest to change, especially in the age of digitally generated official "paperwork."

 

 

Part of it is a very honest political discussion based on the concept of where lines are drawn.  And as silly as some proponents of the second reason may seem, I think an honest appraisal of where that line is and should be is merited.  Granted, I don't think we should allow people to marry their dog or some inanimate object like a car or television, but if you get the rules grounded and set, they may be more palatable to some.

 

Part of it is also that in many states, Florida high on the list, there is a direct connection from many fundamentalist christian religions to the National Republican Party.  This connection is strong, deep and goes from the federal level all the way down to judicial appointments in lower courts and even into some supposedly non-political positions as school board representatives and water management boards.  Many fundamental christian sects, and there are more than a few, believe that the Bible specifically states, in the name of God directly quoted, that homosexual behavior is "an abomination."  This misconception is based on a mistranslation of a word.  The meaning isn't "abomination" but "not the common practice."  Also, in that same book of the Bible, it gives advise for selling your daughters into slavery, what types of slaves you may own, proscriptions against eating pork or wearing clothing made of different fibers.  All of which, if considered "abomination" would likely result in criminal charges in modern society.  Shopping at Wal-Mart would never be the same, much less having ham on Christmas.

 

It's a tangled mess, and I think at the heart of it, despite all the legal wrangling and outright cynicism and hypocrisy and fear on all sides, is a fundamental wish to not be in the wrong.  People of faith need to think for themselves and actually read what religious texts say and mean, especially when that text contradicts itself.  People wanting gay marriage (and I am among them) need to realize that changing someone's mind, especially about religiously held beliefs, is neither easy nor likely.  

 

An old adage goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."  It's good to let everyone know where the water is, but we can not control when they get thirsty.

 

Still, offering water is always a good first start.

 

Ideas?  Discussions?  Thoughts?  Let's hear 'em!

[D'Artagnon]

The State of Florida has started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as of January 6th, 2015.  Almost immediately, couples all around the state were officially licensed, wed and are now officially sanctioned as married.  Florida has become the 36th American state to allow same-sex marriage, which given the state's very conservative history and political leanings, is remarkable.  Many commentators have said they thought that Florida would be one of the last bastions against same-sex marriage, and there were political groups lining up to put legal objections to marriage equality into the court system for the foreseeable future.

 

Sometimes, the fight takes a long time.  Sometimes, you come up lucky.  And sometimes, common sense and the truth of the inevitability of expanding civil rights versus opposing such wins the day. 

 

My father was a Republican.  Staunchly so.  Marriage equality would have been unthinkable to him until I came out.  Until he saw how happy I was with my partner.  Until he realized that marriage as a civil contract isn't a threat to marriage as a religious bond.  Or that even if he didn't understand the attraction between Ben and myself, he could see that our being together was a good thing.  I believe, before his death, that he'd not only accepted our relationship, that he blessed it.

 

In my heart, Ben and I are already married.  We've been together about 8 years now, talking and dating for 2 years before that.  We do plan on tying the knot one day, once we get a few bills settled and find a suitable house to move into.  I'm just glad that gay and lesbian people in my state can finally enjoy the pursuit of happiness that other couples take for granted.

 

14 states to go!

[Zach Caldwell]

I would add, that about 15 counties in Florida, have decided to cease performing all wedding ceremonies so that they do not have to issue same sex marriage licenses. So Florida is still dragging its feet on the issue. Those counties will cave at some point, probably when slapped with a lawsuit(s) by both same sex and opposite sex couples. Though I do not live in Florida anymore, I did grow up there and went to school in Walton County, which is one of the counties not issuing licenses to anyone.

[D'Artagnon]

I live in Santa Rosa county, a short hop from Walton county.  Santa Rosa, and a few other counties are issuing licenses but have stopped performing marriages of any kind at the same site as the licensing.  This is being spoken of as a money and/or time saving function.  With the numbers of people who registered and got licenses on the first day, I can sort of see that.  Still, while it may be an "obstruction" it's such a minor one.  Escambia county (Pensacola area) is still performing marriages at the time of licensing. 

 

I will look for the stories from the local newpaper later.  If anyone wants to get a jump on it, the links will likely go through http://pnj.com   I can say that the front page of the paper this morning showed a gay couple, one of them a minister, being married by another minister.  So even faith based marriages among same-sex couples is happening in Florida.

 

Also, check here!  http://www.pnj.com/longform/news/2015/01/06/marriage-equality-florida-we-did-it/21365233/

 

The fight's not over, but we're gaining ground.

[Mark C.]

D'Artagnon, congrats on your and Ben's relationship and may you both see your 75th wedding anniversary! In July, it will be 40 years for us. We already had everything joint, wills, trusts, medical will, etc but still decided to get married in WA state. That gave us some federal rights. I'm glad FL came to its senses, even if counties are making it harder. We are in AZ currently for two months and when we lived here, despaired of AZ having gay marriage, it is such a Republican and conservative state. (Tucson and the south is a bit more liberal but rest of state outvotes us) But late last year, AZ did not contest a judge's ruling and so let gay marriage go forward.

[Guest]

As much as I agree with both of you, and as much as it seems rather silly, we have to go through due process.  Once all appeals, arguments, and arrogant self-absorbed attempts to make the issue something other than the real point of it all are exhausted, then the law can be solidified.  We forget that SCOTUS isn't about fast tracking legislation or legalization, but about making sure it's all proper, slowing down the process to make informed decisions; to test and poke legal issues to make sure things are understood.  Congress sometimes acts like spoiled children, they make rash decisions that sometimes need cooler heads to prevail.  Just because a law is popular, doesn't make it right, necessary or just.

 

And in the end, gay marriage needs to be exactly as equal, right, necessary and just - the same way that traditional marriage is.  And protected under federal law in the same ways.

 

Opinions?  Discussions?

I hate to say it but I agree with you 100% the biggest stone wall in the whole thing is the damn fundies (if you don't know what a fundie is google it)  I mean even here in mich it's still going through the courts and thats because the churches got involved, and I thought we lived in a country where the church was separate from the state or something like that.  we also live in the semi dark ages being the only country to practice the barbarism of circumcisions  Lucky some of us escaped the doctor before he could reach for the damned knife LOL but anyways it can't be rushed it was here and now it's a huge court battle and hard to say when they will decide, it's just like the wolf hunts we passed legislation to allow the NRC to allow them meanwhile the HSUS snuck in from behind bribed a judge to put the great lake wolves back on the endangered species list, so now another battle will start on that issue. Course the HSUS's only agenda is tostop all forms oh hunting they have nothing t do with shelters or any real help of animals at all. but I am off track now. 

 

Yes we need to take it slow, to fast  and you piss everyone off to slow and same thing but let the cooler head prevail but always someone is going to be pissed off about it regardless of what changes it's sad really i mean all men where created equal so why can't we all have equal rights I can understand why the Blacks coloured folk or whatever the "politicaly correct term is"  are so frustrated! 

[D'Artagnon]

I think we tend to forget two key things about human nature, when viewed in the group sense.  I should say in advance of this that an individual person can be smart, thoughtful, emotive, and see the other side of an argument at the one-to-one basis, with logic, respect and empathy, but when you take people as a group, they become one unruly, reactionary, thoughtless mob easily swayed by things we later completely disagree with.

 

First, politicians long ago discovered that there is power in division.  When you can keep two groups opposed concerning a given point of view, and then inflame that opposition into hatred, mistrust and outright fear, you can control things.  Those that want to control, who want power for power's sake, make very good use of keeping people divided, even when such division makes us as a country, society and culture weaker.  To them, it's not about what's the good of all, it's what's the good for "me" as opposed to what's good for "the other."  If you examine things over the last 20 years, you'll probably see that in stark contrast.

 

Secondly, we humans tend to forget the lessons of the past.  We live in the now, sure, but we don't remember the idiotic things we did that slowed us down, completely screwed us up or in general made good situations worse.  You can argue politics with confirmed partisans until you are blue in the face, with neither side budging a centimeter.  But the one thing you cannot argue with is results.

 

I would point out that there are times when someone will take credit for things they didn't do.  Look for congress in it's current session to take credit for the lower gas prices, improving job market, soaring economy and better situations all around, despite how much they claimed doom and gloom if Obama was re-elected.  Those that do not study history, even recent history, WILL be ensnared by those looking to control you.  Be very aware of anyone trying to enforce division and warp history upon you. These people do not have your best interests in mind.

 

And this will anger people, but I'll say it anyways.  Anyone seeking to use the Bible to prove things in modern life, in a country that was not even known about in biblical times, where they didn't understand aircraft, motorized vehicles, atomic and chemical theory, electronics, biology, medicine, or even metallurgy beyond bronze, that person is trying to trick you.  The lessons of Jesus (Yeshua if you want to use his real name, not the Romanized version) were about acceptance, respect, helping each other and love.  How many of our leaders are pushing that message in the other direction entirely and getting away with it?  And how many of us are allowing it?

 

A person is the building block of "people" as a whole.  You want to do things right, and fix our people problems, got to start it one person at a time.

 

Thoughts, comments?

[Guest]

I think we tend to forget two key things about human nature, when viewed in the group sense.  I should say in advance of this that an individual person can be smart, thoughtful, emotive, and see the other side of an argument at the one-to-one basis, with logic, respect and empathy, but when you take people as a group, they become one unruly, reactionary, thoughtless mob easily swayed by things we later completely disagree with.

 

First, politicians long ago discovered that there is power in division.  When you can keep two groups opposed concerning a given point of view, and then inflame that opposition into hatred, mistrust and outright fear, you can control things.  Those that want to control, who want power for power's sake, make very good use of keeping people divided, even when such division makes us as a country, society and culture weaker.  To them, it's not about what's the good of all, it's what's the good for "me" as opposed to what's good for "the other."  If you examine things over the last 20 years, you'll probably see that in stark contrast.

 

Secondly, we humans tend to forget the lessons of the past.  We live in the now, sure, but we don't remember the idiotic things we did that slowed us down, completely screwed us up or in general made good situations worse.  You can argue politics with confirmed partisans until you are blue in the face, with neither side budging a centimeter.  But the one thing you cannot argue with is results.

 

I would point out that there are times when someone will take credit for things they didn't do.  Look for congress in it's current session to take credit for the lower gas prices, improving job market, soaring economy and better situations all around, despite how much they claimed doom and gloom if Obama was re-elected.  Those that do not study history, even recent history, WILL be ensnared by those looking to control you.  Be very aware of anyone trying to enforce division and warp history upon you. These people do not have your best interests in mind.

 

And this will anger people, but I'll say it anyways.  Anyone seeking to use the Bible to prove things in modern life, in a country that was not even known about in biblical times, where they didn't understand aircraft, motorized vehicles, atomic and chemical theory, electronics, biology, medicine, or even metallurgy beyond bronze, that person is trying to trick you.  The lessons of Jesus (Yeshua if you want to use his real name, not the Romanized version) were about acceptance, respect, helping each other and love.  How many of our leaders are pushing that message in the other direction entirely and getting away with it?  And how many of us are allowing it?

 

A person is the building block of "people" as a whole.  You want to do things right, and fix our people problems, got to start it one person at a time.

 

Thoughts, comments?

Man you sound like me and Tigerpaw we have these very same conversations, it's like we can't move forward we just keep repeating everything. the only difference in the game is the names of the players change in WW2 it was hitler and his croneys and now we got about the same thing media is the propaganda machine that feeds the same thing as they did during and pre WW2  we all run to the flag and start yelling Hurah and doing the chest thumping like a bunch of gorrillas saying we are the best, when really we are no better then the rest. as far as gas prices don't count on it to last much longer it's being done by the saudi's to apologize for ISIS and also we start making waves with the ukraine and suddnely we are producing more oil and not letting them sell theirs at a higher price. it's all one huge scam. and soon the bubble will burst, and everything will go sky high yeah gas came down but did you notice grocery prices have not adjusted to the lower fuel costs for shipping?  and when that bubble pops it's going to be the same thing again. I mean lets face it people think that just because russia tore down the wall that they are decent people now it's not true they have long memories and if people think they have no army they still do.  We are all just fooling ourselves  and we are all hooked on mainstream media and to blind to see that it's all just shock and awe  the world is a mess and sorry to say but I don't think t'll be fixed.  damn imagine me being philisophical LOL 

[Zach Caldwell]

Here is an update. The Couple got their new driver licenses, no doubt because of marriage equality coming to the state on Jan. 6th. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-gay-marriage-drivers-license-20150113-story.html

[Mark C.]

D'Atagnon, I agree with you 100% percent. Hitler was a genius at how he divided Germany into Jew and non-Jew and if you were against his policies even if non-Jew, you were outcast in the "other group". And the ancient Romans were masters of pacifying their populace with games and free grain. The Patricians feared the mob and grew adept at pacifying them. Diogenes had a great quote with, "The mob is the mother of tyrants." You are right, an individual is rational and thinking. But put him in a mob and his higher mental processes are subsumed by mob mentality. And as for not learning from history, it is amazing to me how often through the course of history, people repeat mistakes . We are today. I like the way you think, D'Artgagnon. Wish you were a neighbor.

[D'Artagnon]

BREAKING NEWS - SCOTUS decided to take up two cases about same sex marriage.

 

Case one is about if same sex marriage is a federal right or one that must be decided on at a state by state basis.

 

Case two is about if states that do not have same sex marriage must acknowledge such unions as official marriage.

 

Keep an eye on this space for future news reports and updates.

[Guest]

Michigan just made it legal! Following federal case law course the state has 21 days to appeal it which knowing how religious the repuklicans are they will want it fought.