Florida overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage


A judge in Florida overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday.

The court is aware that the majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage, but it is our country’s proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and rights of the powerless, even at the cost of offending the majority," Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia wrote in his opinion.


Of course a minority judge would understand minority rights.


Next they will overturn the “ban” on three-sided rectangles.


Not sure if your post is positive minority rights or negative minority rights. Can you elaborate?


Of course a Latino judge, as a member of a racial minority, would understand that gays are a minority whose rights needs to be protected. Yes, the right of marriage. When will Catholics understand that marriage doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone?


Thanks for the clarification. Many Catholics and other anti-SSM groups hold activist judges in disdain now they have minority judges to add their list.

In some ways I can sympathize with anti-SSM groups who have staked their pride, their values, and their sense of meaning and purpose in life on being in the majority. It must be difficult in facing the reality that minority civil rights trumps the majority.


Is there any mathematics that says that there are 3-sided rectangles?


I am curious what effect long term the fact that courts keep striking down homosexual ‘marriage’ bans will have on the opposing sides of marriage. If homosexual ‘marriage’ was legalised through many state ballots etc. it may have made it more difficult for those who believe in one man/one woman marriage, because it would mean homosexual ‘marriage’ legalisation would be legalised through a majority of people who voted, striking down constitutional amendments bans defining marriage as between one man and one woman, for example, and homosexual ‘marriage’ supporters could point to the fact that this was something many American people who voted wanted who voted, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do that now.

One man/one woman marriage supporters will always be able to point to the fact that this was done through majority courts, very few states have legalised it when it was on the ballot.

The case of Roe v. Wade is instructive, because it mirrors the current state of the same-sex marriage movement in many ways. By 1973 when the Roe decision was handed down, the political stars appeared to be aligned in favor of abortion advocates. Abortion enjoyed widespread support in academia and among opinion elites as well as in public opinion polls, and was making headway in state law. The year before the Supreme Court decision was handed down saw nearly 600,000 legal abortions performed.

Despite these trends, taking abortion away from the legislatures galvanized widespread opposition. From hundreds of proposed constitutional amendments and state laws, to a national movement that has slowly but steadily shifted cultural opinion, abortion has become an issue that permeates the political process, particularly respecting judicial nominations, and has morphed into a key divide between the major parties.

The same protracted debate could easily occur in the same-sex marriage arena.


There are differing statistics regarding abortion in the year before Roe v Wade decision and there are people that do not think the backlash will be there of the same like Roe v Wade but for homosexual ‘marriage’ regarding the Supreme court but check out this regarding DOJ and Supreme court:



Nope, but mathematics is a man made construct so a rectangle is whatever we say it is. Rectangles do not even exist in nature, they are an abstraction. We only ever see approximations of rectangles.

Needless to say, I really dislike that analogy (same for the square circle comparison). People can claim that same sex marriage doesn’t or can’t exist all they want, it exists and will exist from now on. It’s just a matter of context.


We realize that we’re quickly becoming the minority as far as our stances on morality are concerned, but gays have always had the right to marry–just not the “right” to pretend to marry each other and to have the government recognize their “union” as being equal to the natural union of man and woman.

It’s not a question of religious belief, it’s a question of what’s natural and good for society. Homosexual behavior doesn’t bring anything good to society and their “unions” are sterile ipso facto.

That judge needs to be permanently disbarred for his shameful decision.


That is a very good question and observation. It is an argument that opposite sex supporters will always have.

Besides the ballot box, thought, public opinion plays a large role. At present acceptance of SSM is trending up at an accelerating rate especially with Millennials. As it continues to do so the value of the argument that the decision was made in the courts diminishes.

Support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, but there are substantial differences in opinions across generations. Currently, 68% of Millennials favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, compared with 55% of Gen Xers, 48% of Boomers and 38% of the Silent generation.



The law firm I work at has 2 Bibles in their library.

Why? Because the Bible was historicly a foundation for the law.

Remove the Bible and Morality and then the meaning behind the laws start to disapear.

If two men are allowed to marry, they why can’t a family stone to death a member of their family who dishonors them? If all the next-of-kin are in agreement, then why not? No one will morn them? Afterall, we allow parents to kill babies?

Also, why can’t a person marry his sister? If we ignore the Bible regarding same sex marriage, then we should ignore the Bible regarding incest. Next we will have incest marriages and same sex incest marriages.

The below logic clearly shows that a family should be allowed to stone family members and that a person should be able to marry his/her sister. It’s unpopular and offends the majority, but it protects the indiviudual’s rights.

The court is aware that the majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage, but it is our country’s proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and rights of the powerless, even at the cost of offending the majority," Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia wrote in his opinion.


May The Lord help this country before it’s too late.


I think you have a valid argument but it is not a legal one so you will need to argue it among mathematicians and not in the courts. Just my opinion.


how did public opinion change to fast? I mean during Obama’s first election, both he and Biden said they were against same sex marriage. So did Hillary.

How did the Democratic Leadership flip-flop so fast? What caused that flip? :confused:


It’s about recognizing that yes, some people do have same sex attraction, and choose to enter into committed same-sex relationships and have families. There have always been gays throughout history.

It’s about recognizing that it’s best for society that gays have the same privileges and opportunities in life that straights do, and that gays are not made into a persecuted subclass.

It’s about recognizing that creation of a permanent, persecuted subclass is hate, and that Jesus’ second commandment is to love one another as yourself.


Simple. Activists raising awareness. More people being acquainted with a gay person. Gays being more loving and welcoming than many Christians! An understanding that opposition to SSM is hate. And an understanding that it is possible to support SSM and still be Christian.


Math is actually the purest science. The idea of a rectangle as a 4-sided object is quite sound. You could say anything in reality is man-made with that perception.

And no, same sex marriage will not ever exist because a politician’s pen said it did or if a chunk of the population says it’s so. Truth is impervious to cultural and political words.

Sorry you don’t like the analogy. :o


Regarding polls:

Is support for gay marriage over-sold?

Commentators have noted instances where polling data has understated voter support for referendums banning same-sex marriage;66] some have suggested that there may be a variation of the “Bradley Effect” in which individuals opposed to same-sex marriage are reluctant to express their true views to pollsters.66] In 2010, a study by an assistant professor at New York University analyzed the previous 10 years of polling data and election results. He concluded that “Polls on gay marriage ballot initiatives generally under-estimate the opposition to gay marriage by about seven percentage points” and that the “Bradley Effect” was not a factor in the difference between the polls and the election outcomes.


Article may cite an article regarding Maine:

October 27th 2009:

As Maine’s referendum on gay marriage approaches, the polls are giving supporters of same-sex nuptials reason to cheer. Most surveys indicate that the effort to block gay marriage in the state will fail.


The result of that referendum was:

Maine voters overturn state’s new same-sex marriage law

Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls

Social Desirability Bias in Polling on Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures


I don’t believe so.


I wouldn’t call forcing people out of their jobs because they don’t support same sex marriage loving…
And opposition to SSM is most certainly not hate. There are gays who are against SSM. Portraying it as hate is one of the ways they have gained momentum because people don’t want to be seen as hateful. But anti-gay marriage is not necessarily anti-gay.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.