Tallahassee federal judge throws out Florida's ban on same-sex marriage
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle is the fifth judge in six weeks to make the same finding
A Tallahassee federal judge ruled Thursday that Florida's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, the fifth judge in the past six weeks to do so.
This time, however, the ruling has a wider scope: It covers all 67 Florida counties.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle handed down the wide-ranging decision but also issued a stay, meaning no same-sex couples can get married in Florida anytime soon.
Still, his ruling - in the federal and not the state court system - also moves the issue closer to what many think will be its final arbiter: the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hinkle handed same-sex couples victories on two fronts: His ruling clears the way for gays statewide to marry. He also prohibited the state from denying benefits to same-sex couples who got married in other states.
It is a victory for two sets of plaintiffs.
The first is two couples who filed suit Feb. 28. One couple wanted him to throw out Florida's ban so they could get married in Washington County, in Florida's Panhandle. The other wanted him to recognize their out-of-state marriage.
The second set is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit on behalf of eight same-sex couples and a widow, all of whom had married elsewhere.
James Brenner, a Florida Forest Service employee for three decades and the lead plaintiff in the case, was excited by the ruling but admitted he had grown weary waiting for a decision.
"My phone is ringing off the hook," he said in midafternoon, shortly after getting word from his attorney about the ruling but before he called his husband, Chuck Jones, with the news of the victory.
They were married in Canada in 2009 and filed suit, arguing they needed the state to recognize their marriage so Jones would be in a position to collect Brenner's survivor death benefits.
Although he issued a stay halting immediate implementation of his ruling, Hinkle ordered the state to revise the death certificate of Carol Goldwasser, who died earlier this year. It must now include the name of her wife, Arlene Goldberg, whom she married in 2011 in New York.
The women had been a couple for 47 years. Goldberg had sued, hoping to obtain Goldwasser's Social Security survivor benefits. Goldwasser's elderly parents live with her, and without those federal benefits, according to pleadings, she will likely have to sell her house.
In a 2008 election, 62 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thursday's ruling overturns that.
Five other state judges in the past six weeks - in Monroe, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - came to the same conclusion and struck down the ban.
source
****
i think the only word that can accurately sum up my feelings is "gobsmacked". i expected to be much, much further on in my years before i saw florida do ANYTHING like this. also, if SCOTUS has already ruled on this, can someone explain to me what the holdup is? is there a different issue they're presenting from the one they already decided on? ETA: thanks to squidger for explaining this so concisely.
oh, and heed the "avoid the comments" tag. they're pretty obnoxious.
A Tallahassee federal judge ruled Thursday that Florida's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, the fifth judge in the past six weeks to do so.
This time, however, the ruling has a wider scope: It covers all 67 Florida counties.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle handed down the wide-ranging decision but also issued a stay, meaning no same-sex couples can get married in Florida anytime soon.
Still, his ruling - in the federal and not the state court system - also moves the issue closer to what many think will be its final arbiter: the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hinkle handed same-sex couples victories on two fronts: His ruling clears the way for gays statewide to marry. He also prohibited the state from denying benefits to same-sex couples who got married in other states.
It is a victory for two sets of plaintiffs.
The first is two couples who filed suit Feb. 28. One couple wanted him to throw out Florida's ban so they could get married in Washington County, in Florida's Panhandle. The other wanted him to recognize their out-of-state marriage.
The second set is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit on behalf of eight same-sex couples and a widow, all of whom had married elsewhere.
James Brenner, a Florida Forest Service employee for three decades and the lead plaintiff in the case, was excited by the ruling but admitted he had grown weary waiting for a decision.
"My phone is ringing off the hook," he said in midafternoon, shortly after getting word from his attorney about the ruling but before he called his husband, Chuck Jones, with the news of the victory.
They were married in Canada in 2009 and filed suit, arguing they needed the state to recognize their marriage so Jones would be in a position to collect Brenner's survivor death benefits.
Although he issued a stay halting immediate implementation of his ruling, Hinkle ordered the state to revise the death certificate of Carol Goldwasser, who died earlier this year. It must now include the name of her wife, Arlene Goldberg, whom she married in 2011 in New York.
The women had been a couple for 47 years. Goldberg had sued, hoping to obtain Goldwasser's Social Security survivor benefits. Goldwasser's elderly parents live with her, and without those federal benefits, according to pleadings, she will likely have to sell her house.
In a 2008 election, 62 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thursday's ruling overturns that.
Five other state judges in the past six weeks - in Monroe, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - came to the same conclusion and struck down the ban.
source
****
i think the only word that can accurately sum up my feelings is "gobsmacked". i expected to be much, much further on in my years before i saw florida do ANYTHING like this. also, if SCOTUS has already ruled on this, can someone explain to me what the holdup is? is there a different issue they're presenting from the one they already decided on? ETA: thanks to squidger for explaining this so concisely.
oh, and heed the "avoid the comments" tag. they're pretty obnoxious.