My husband and I are a legally married couple; we were married when we lived in MA. People hopefully learned that this amendment not only helps the gay community but ALL couples not able to marry for a variety or reasons.

I tried following the results on the Florida election results page, but I think their server was overloaded. It stopped responding.

ABC (channel 10) is reporting 66% precincts in, MSNBC 87% precincts in. Somewhere between 62-63%voted yes in Florida but 50% in South Florida.

Any idea if Florida Red and Blue is going to continue their lawsuit?

Blame the bigotry of the two major party candidates, Obama and McCain. They lost it for us.

I grew up in Florida and lived there until last year. There's no other way to describe this but to say that my feelings are hurt. Hurt that people I knew growing up voted to codify something that questions the validity of my personhood.

I am going to do my best to take positives from the results of this amendment; but for now, I feel betrayed.

Waymon, my condolences. Since Steve and I still own a house in Florida, this cuts close to the bone for us, too.

Lots of work to do now that there's a national mandate for change, especially in the Southern states that have been so quick to soak up the toxins helpfully provided by the religious right and Republican party in recent years.

Lots of work to educate, repair, and push back hard when the haters continue trying to use LGBT people as political footballs.

Close to the bone indeed. Although I am most certainly not gay (I am not), me and my partner have been together for several years now. I guess I will have to get off my shilly-shallying tail and marry my girlfriend. I'm just so afraid I will divorce her within a year. Help me government! Help me!

In light of how the initiatives we were watching around the country went, I want to send my condolences and best wishes to everyone. Especially those who worked so hard, like Waymon.

I would like to say something more uplifting but this morning I just can't seem to find the words.

In the end we will win, the road just appears to be longer than we were hoping.

My heart is heavy, my friends.

I woke up today in Florida with less rights than I went to bed with.

Waymon,

Unfortunately, losing rights overnight is a common thing in the U.S. the past few years. But if we use our anger and outrage to propel us forward, we can once again gain ground.

For GLBTs that don't believe in Gay Marriage, that is your choice. But by letting the Religious Right and their lackies to take this right away from us... well, to use one of "their" phrases, "it's a slippery slope...". Once we just stand by and LET them take away any of our rights, we embolden them to go further. So we MUST stand up and fight NOW!

Don't despair, Waymon. They might have won THAT battle, but they haven't won the war! :)

Keep the faith!

My heart is breaking in ways I truly can't describe. I thought in a time when change seemed possible across the board, it would trickle into the open mindedness of fellow Americans who last night proved they were ready for a change; that was not the case however with amendment 2.

As I sat with my gf I cried bc I love Florida, yet Florida doesn't apparently love me. I mean I cried bc I literally told everyone I could to vote No. I emailed, forwarded the sayno2.org website to everyone who would and wouldn't listen. This issue is very important for me considering I want to be married or legally partnered with the woman I'm in love with. Yet last night was a blow. It might not happen any time soon in Florida.

My thoughts raced thinking what happens now? What can be done to maybe overturn such an amendment? Is there an appeals process? How can I volunteer? I love the sun and fun, but I'll move to California at this rate cause at least they've got some liberal thinkers over there, lol. What to do?

As long as people make such constitutional choices based on religious beliefs, there will not be equality.

A) I wonder if, in a house of worship, the simple discussion of "Marriage is (or should be) legal or moral only if between a man and a woman" can be viewed as a political statement which disenfranchises a part of the public, through hate and discrimination, thereby putting the religious site in jeopardy of losing its religion-based governmental protections.

B) Realizing that I am discussing some groups' moral statements, I wonder if it is legal for a church to suggest that parishoners support the public adoption of their personal morality, rather than teach that the decision is a strictly personal one.

To allow religious groups to influence the public laws goes against our freedom of religion, for our beliefs are NOT laws, nor should they be interpreted to be so.

C) I imagine that the results of a survey of those who likely voted for the 'definition of marriage' would approximately equal the religious conservative population's locales. This would likely indicate their desire to enforce their religious beliefs on Americans who do not believe as they do. That would be against the law, as it specifically discriminates against other Americans.

How can we make this necessary challenge one that is both clear and legal?

I'm looking for answers.

Thank you.

As long as people make such constitutional choices based on religious beliefs, there will not be equality.

A) I wonder if, in a house of worship, the simple discussion of "Marriage is (or should be) legal or moral only if between a man and a woman" can be viewed as a political statement which disenfranchises a part of the public, through hate and discrimination, thereby putting the religious site in jeopardy of losing its religion-based governmental protections.

B) Realizing that I am discussing some groups' moral statements, I wonder if it is legal for a church to suggest that parishoners support the public adoption of their personal morality, rather than teach that the decision is a strictly personal one.

To allow religious groups to influence the public laws goes against our freedom of religion, for our beliefs are NOT laws, nor should they be interpreted to be so.

C) I imagine that the results of a survey of those who likely voted for the 'definition of marriage' would approximately equal the religious conservative population's locales. This would likely indicate their desire to enforce their religious beliefs on Americans who do not believe as they do. That would be against the law, as it specifically discriminates against other Americans.

How can we make this necessary challenge one that is both clear and legal?

I'm looking for answers.

Thank you.