from Creative Loafing:
If the holiday season is about generosity and families and blessings to all, then here's a gift idea that should fit right into the spirit of things:
Turn your holiday party into a "fairness" party.
Don't worry, this isn't about political correctness. A fairness party can be as sanctified, Santa-fied or unabashedly Grinch-y as the hosts want it to be. (You don't even have to have it during the holidays!) The only requirement is that guests make a donation in the name of a common cause: equality.
http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A346530
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
FL Today: Amendment Debate Heats Up
FL Today: Amendment Debate Heats Up
Proposed constitutional amendment that would make gay marriage or civil unions illegal in Florida divides teens and adults down the aisle
BY ASHLEY CARNIFAX
As the political climate heats up and 2008 elections loom closer, teens and adults are beginning to take notice of the big issues, one of which is gay marriage.
One of the items that will be on the ballot is the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment," a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would make gay marriage or civil unions illegal in Florida.
John Stemberger, president and general counsel for the Florida Family Policy Council, said the amendment is necessary to prevent the state courts from allowing gay marriage. It protects marriage by preserving the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he said.
However, some teens feel as though this is not necessary.
Tom Krewson, a Titusville High graduate, said there are more important things to deal with than banning gay marriage.
"Marriage has become something so different, something so less meaningful than it used to be," he said. "Men and women marry, divorce, remarry and divorce so frequently, that the perception of 'marriage' shouldn't be protected from the same-sex individuals wanting to participate in it, but from the gross amount of men and women dancing in and out of it every year."
Stemberger agreed divorce is a major problem in our society and said his organization is working on reforming all aspects of marriage.
According to Fairness for All Families, an organization opposing this amendment, the broad wording of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment could mean some heterosexual couples, like those who are part of a domestic partnership, could be affected by the Marriage Protection Amendment.
"People from across the state are stepping forward to say 'no' to this attempt to put discrimination in our constitution and take away protections from seniors, police, firefighters and thousands of unmarried Floridians," said Barbara DeVane, the secretary of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and a founding member of Fairness for All Families, in a statement.
Stemberger emphatically denied these claims.
"The amendment was specifically drafted to not prevent existing domestic partnerships," he said.
While other issues surround this controversial amendment, some teens in Brevard recognize gay marriage is the underlying issue.
Dianna Petyk, a senior at Titusville High, said she supports the amendment.
"Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, and any union under God is not only against my beliefs but also my morals," she said.
Tom disagreed.
"Who are we to judge what love is? Marriage is a union between two individuals who are in love. The sex of those individuals should not play any importance, besides the love they have for each other," he said
Jessica Campbell, a sophomore at Brevard Community College, agreed.
"If we can be tolerant of many other things in this country, such as different religions, different cultures and interracial relationships, then why can't we learn to tolerate gay marriage?" she said. "If America really is home of the free, then why aren't gay people free to be married to one another?"
Sept 2007
Proposed constitutional amendment that would make gay marriage or civil unions illegal in Florida divides teens and adults down the aisle
BY ASHLEY CARNIFAX
As the political climate heats up and 2008 elections loom closer, teens and adults are beginning to take notice of the big issues, one of which is gay marriage.
One of the items that will be on the ballot is the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment," a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would make gay marriage or civil unions illegal in Florida.
John Stemberger, president and general counsel for the Florida Family Policy Council, said the amendment is necessary to prevent the state courts from allowing gay marriage. It protects marriage by preserving the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he said.
However, some teens feel as though this is not necessary.
Tom Krewson, a Titusville High graduate, said there are more important things to deal with than banning gay marriage.
"Marriage has become something so different, something so less meaningful than it used to be," he said. "Men and women marry, divorce, remarry and divorce so frequently, that the perception of 'marriage' shouldn't be protected from the same-sex individuals wanting to participate in it, but from the gross amount of men and women dancing in and out of it every year."
Stemberger agreed divorce is a major problem in our society and said his organization is working on reforming all aspects of marriage.
According to Fairness for All Families, an organization opposing this amendment, the broad wording of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment could mean some heterosexual couples, like those who are part of a domestic partnership, could be affected by the Marriage Protection Amendment.
"People from across the state are stepping forward to say 'no' to this attempt to put discrimination in our constitution and take away protections from seniors, police, firefighters and thousands of unmarried Floridians," said Barbara DeVane, the secretary of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and a founding member of Fairness for All Families, in a statement.
Stemberger emphatically denied these claims.
"The amendment was specifically drafted to not prevent existing domestic partnerships," he said.
While other issues surround this controversial amendment, some teens in Brevard recognize gay marriage is the underlying issue.
Dianna Petyk, a senior at Titusville High, said she supports the amendment.
"Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, and any union under God is not only against my beliefs but also my morals," she said.
Tom disagreed.
"Who are we to judge what love is? Marriage is a union between two individuals who are in love. The sex of those individuals should not play any importance, besides the love they have for each other," he said
Jessica Campbell, a sophomore at Brevard Community College, agreed.
"If we can be tolerant of many other things in this country, such as different religions, different cultures and interracial relationships, then why can't we learn to tolerate gay marriage?" she said. "If America really is home of the free, then why aren't gay people free to be married to one another?"
Sept 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Poll shows drop in support for "Marriage Amendment"
INDIANAPOLIS -- Public support appears to be waning for and opposition growing to a proposed amendment to the Indiana constitution banning same-sex marriage, according to a statewide survey.
The Indianapolis Star-WTHR poll found 49 percent supported such a constitutional amendment, down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey, while those opposing one rose to 44 percent from 40 percent in the earlier survey.
The Indianapolis Star-WTHR poll found 49 percent supported such a constitutional amendment, down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey, while those opposing one rose to 44 percent from 40 percent in the earlier survey.
Thompson Backs Dangerous Amendment
HOLLYWOOD — Cautioning against a federal solution to the controversy over gay marriage, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson on Friday applauded a Florida group for "taking care of business at home" by seeking a statewide ban on same-sex marriages.
Thompson, who along with other GOP hopefuls has aggressively courted social conservatives before Florida's Jan. 29 primary, spoke to a Florida Family Policy Council audience of more than 300.
Thompson, who along with other GOP hopefuls has aggressively courted social conservatives before Florida's Jan. 29 primary, spoke to a Florida Family Policy Council audience of more than 300.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rabbi Opposes So-Called Marriage Amendment
Guest Opinion: Bruce Diamond
Florida marriage amendment intrudes in private matters
Originally posted on November 19, 2007
Ft. Myers News Press
If the proposed state constitutional amendment regarding marriage appears on the November 2008 ballot, it will represent another blatant act of political mischief.
It is the handiwork of those very same cynical forces that brought us the Terri Schiavo state and national tragic legislative debacles. It reflects a heartless indecency and indifference to real people and their lives for the sake of a perceived short-term electoral advantage. It is a Trojan horse that only pretends to protect marriage, but, if ratified, will do it irreparable harm.
What is more, a constitution amendment regulating marriage would mark an unparalleled state intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and an abrogation of the bedrock ideal of liberty that is at the foundation of the American vision of a just society.
If there is any good that might come from it, even circumstantially, it will be from a re-evaluation of the government’s proper role in the regulation of interpersonal relationships in general, and of marriage in particular.
In our secular form of government, marriage has always been regarded by the states as civil matter and an expression of contract law. State statutes define the lawful parameters of marriage contract, indicating that the parties to the contract must be of lawful age, of sound mind, and not bound by another pre-existing lawful marriage contract. The state’s sole legitimate interest is to safeguard a number of important property and probate matters, rather than establish and enforce any particular religious definitions of marriage, which is constitutionally beyond its reach.
The time has come for the government to completely bow out of the regulation of marriage, among the most significant interpersonal relationships. It would be far preferable for individuals to enter into lawful marriage contracts, and, if they desired, to register those contracts with their local clerk of courts as is done now with deeds.
As long as the contract is properly drawn and executed, it can be entered into the public record without prejudice. When contested, challenges and dissolutions of these marriages contracts will be heard by local courts, as is the case with any contract. Of course, they would also be free to participate in any religious marriage rituals of their choosing, without government intrusion and interference.
Our constitution and its amendments express some very powerful ideals over two centuries of evolving legal and social consciousness. These ideals, such as the universal right of all citizens to vote, the abolition of slavery and torture, and the solely secular role of government, have required time and careful deliberation to be made more explicit.
Now the time has come to “unpack” yet another important ideal implied by our form of government. It must be the right of otherwise unencumbered residents of these United States who are of lawful age and sound mind to freely enter into interpersonal contracts of their own choice and design. Individuals must be free to follow their own conscience, faith tradition and best judgement in interpersonal relationships without undue interference by the state.
—Bruce Diamond is rabbi at The Community Free Synagogue.
Florida marriage amendment intrudes in private matters
Originally posted on November 19, 2007
Ft. Myers News Press
If the proposed state constitutional amendment regarding marriage appears on the November 2008 ballot, it will represent another blatant act of political mischief.
It is the handiwork of those very same cynical forces that brought us the Terri Schiavo state and national tragic legislative debacles. It reflects a heartless indecency and indifference to real people and their lives for the sake of a perceived short-term electoral advantage. It is a Trojan horse that only pretends to protect marriage, but, if ratified, will do it irreparable harm.
What is more, a constitution amendment regulating marriage would mark an unparalleled state intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and an abrogation of the bedrock ideal of liberty that is at the foundation of the American vision of a just society.
If there is any good that might come from it, even circumstantially, it will be from a re-evaluation of the government’s proper role in the regulation of interpersonal relationships in general, and of marriage in particular.
In our secular form of government, marriage has always been regarded by the states as civil matter and an expression of contract law. State statutes define the lawful parameters of marriage contract, indicating that the parties to the contract must be of lawful age, of sound mind, and not bound by another pre-existing lawful marriage contract. The state’s sole legitimate interest is to safeguard a number of important property and probate matters, rather than establish and enforce any particular religious definitions of marriage, which is constitutionally beyond its reach.
The time has come for the government to completely bow out of the regulation of marriage, among the most significant interpersonal relationships. It would be far preferable for individuals to enter into lawful marriage contracts, and, if they desired, to register those contracts with their local clerk of courts as is done now with deeds.
As long as the contract is properly drawn and executed, it can be entered into the public record without prejudice. When contested, challenges and dissolutions of these marriages contracts will be heard by local courts, as is the case with any contract. Of course, they would also be free to participate in any religious marriage rituals of their choosing, without government intrusion and interference.
Our constitution and its amendments express some very powerful ideals over two centuries of evolving legal and social consciousness. These ideals, such as the universal right of all citizens to vote, the abolition of slavery and torture, and the solely secular role of government, have required time and careful deliberation to be made more explicit.
Now the time has come to “unpack” yet another important ideal implied by our form of government. It must be the right of otherwise unencumbered residents of these United States who are of lawful age and sound mind to freely enter into interpersonal contracts of their own choice and design. Individuals must be free to follow their own conscience, faith tradition and best judgement in interpersonal relationships without undue interference by the state.
—Bruce Diamond is rabbi at The Community Free Synagogue.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Janet Reno Joins Fairness for All Families Campaign
US Attorney General Janet Reno Joins Fairness for All Families Campaign
((Miami) Janet Reno, the former US Attorney General and the only woman to ever hold that post, has joined the Fairness for All Families Campaign.
Reno, a longtime advocate for children and families, will serve on the Honorary Board for the Fairness campaign to defeat a proposed amendment to Florida Constitution that could strip away employee benefits for unmarried Floridians and their loved ones. The measure is slated for the November 2008 ballot.
Existing members of the campaign’s Honorary Board of Directors include: U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz; former Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past FL AARP Director Bentley Lipscomb; Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze; Howard Simon, Executive Director, Florida ACLU; Rev. Nancy Wilson, Worldwide Moderator, Metropolitan Community Churches; Mitch Cesar, Chairman, Broward Democratic Party; Joe Garcia, Chairman, Miami-Dade Democratic Party; Karl Dickey, Florida Libertarian Party Chair.
“We are extremely excited not only to have Attorney General Reno join the Fairness for All Families Campaign, but to also have her take on a leadership position as a member of our Honorary Board of Directors,” said Barbara A. DeVane of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and a founding member of the campaign. “This amendment will hurt all unmarried couples and every Floridian who cares about their future, and that of their loved ones, must stand up and oppose this discrimination.”
The Fairness for All Families Campaign has amassed a coalition of 140 state and local organizations and community leaders representing seniors, business leaders, consumer groups and social justice organizations working together to oppose the effort to take away benefits and enshrine discrimination in Florida’s constitution.
The addition of Janet Reno to the Fairness for All Families Campaign comes at a time when editorial boards across the state are taking a strong stand against the amendment as “unnecessary” and ‘harmful” to all unmarried Floridians including seniors, public employees and others who rely on domestic partnership benefits to protect their loved ones.
For more information on how to join the campaign, visit www.fairnessforallfamilies.org
Fairness for All Families is a growing statewide coalition that includes seniors, business leaders, consumer groups, labor and social justice organizations who are joining together to oppose stripping away existing employee benefits while barring the passage of future measures to help Florida families.
Paid Political Advertisement paid for and approved by Fairness for All Families, Inc Political Committee.
P.O. Box 13184, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
((Miami) Janet Reno, the former US Attorney General and the only woman to ever hold that post, has joined the Fairness for All Families Campaign.
Reno, a longtime advocate for children and families, will serve on the Honorary Board for the Fairness campaign to defeat a proposed amendment to Florida Constitution that could strip away employee benefits for unmarried Floridians and their loved ones. The measure is slated for the November 2008 ballot.
Existing members of the campaign’s Honorary Board of Directors include: U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz; former Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past FL AARP Director Bentley Lipscomb; Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze; Howard Simon, Executive Director, Florida ACLU; Rev. Nancy Wilson, Worldwide Moderator, Metropolitan Community Churches; Mitch Cesar, Chairman, Broward Democratic Party; Joe Garcia, Chairman, Miami-Dade Democratic Party; Karl Dickey, Florida Libertarian Party Chair.
“We are extremely excited not only to have Attorney General Reno join the Fairness for All Families Campaign, but to also have her take on a leadership position as a member of our Honorary Board of Directors,” said Barbara A. DeVane of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and a founding member of the campaign. “This amendment will hurt all unmarried couples and every Floridian who cares about their future, and that of their loved ones, must stand up and oppose this discrimination.”
The Fairness for All Families Campaign has amassed a coalition of 140 state and local organizations and community leaders representing seniors, business leaders, consumer groups and social justice organizations working together to oppose the effort to take away benefits and enshrine discrimination in Florida’s constitution.
The addition of Janet Reno to the Fairness for All Families Campaign comes at a time when editorial boards across the state are taking a strong stand against the amendment as “unnecessary” and ‘harmful” to all unmarried Floridians including seniors, public employees and others who rely on domestic partnership benefits to protect their loved ones.
For more information on how to join the campaign, visit www.fairnessforallfamilies.org
Fairness for All Families is a growing statewide coalition that includes seniors, business leaders, consumer groups, labor and social justice organizations who are joining together to oppose stripping away existing employee benefits while barring the passage of future measures to help Florida families.
Paid Political Advertisement paid for and approved by Fairness for All Families, Inc Political Committee.
P.O. Box 13184, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
First United Church Joins Fairness for All Families Coalition
FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF TAMPA (UCC) RESOLUTION AGAINST WRITING DISCRIMINATION INTO THE FLORIDA STATE CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27);
WHEREAS the words, examples and life of Jesus the Christ, as reported in the Gospels, teach us how to live lives of inclusive love and abundant welcome for all of God?s children, especially those who have been legally, spiritually or by culture and tradition marginalized and oppressed in society;
WHEREAS we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (The Declaration of Independence, 1776);
WHEREAS the Eleventh General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 1977 called for full civil rights for, and the full spiritual inclusion of, all people without regard to sexual orientation;
WHEREAS the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2005 recognized the importance of fidelity and integrity for all covenanted relationships;
WHEREAS a significant and ever increasing number of congregations in the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ have voted to become ?Open and Affirming? congregations and almost 70 UCC churches in Florida have voluntarily and enthusiastically joined the ?Still Speaking? identity campaign aimed at proudly proclaiming God?s extravagant welcome to ALL people;
WHEREAS the proposed ?Marriage Protection Amendment?, which states:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
will likely appear on Florida?s ballot in November 2008 and, if passed, will write discrimination against law abiding Florida residents into Florida?s State Constitution;
WHEREAS the title ?Marriage Protection Amendment? is inaccurate and misleading since no current or future marriage will be threatened or endangered by the civil recognition of loving and committed same-sex couples; just as no same-race marriage was threatened when mixed-race couples fought for and won the legal right to participate in civil marriage by way of the United States Supreme Court ruling on Loving vs. Virginia in 1969;
WHEREAS the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? is broadly worded so as to ensure that all forms of legal recognition for unmarried couples, whether gay or straight, could be subjected to constitutional challenges;
WHEREAS the proposed amendment, if approved, will lead to a loss of existing domestic-partner recognition and benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples (including elderly and retired couples) by governments and municipalities in Florida that currently offer them; including, but not limited to, the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or to make important medical decisions when a partner is incapacitated;
WHEREAS religious organizations and faith leaders cannot be required or pressured by law to perform any marriage that contradicts their beliefs and/or traditions, even when a couple is legally eligible to be wed (i.e. mixed faith couples, divorced individuals, etc.);
AND WHEREAS the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2005 urged congregations and individuals of the United Church of Christ to work against legislation, including constitutional amendments, which aim to deny equal marriage and partnership rights to couples based on gender;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) states its strong opposition to the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment?.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) strongly supports any lawful and peaceful action aimed at keeping the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? from becoming enshrined into the Florida State Constitution; including endorsing and assisting the Fairness for All Families campaign to defeat the amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) welcomes and encourages any and all Florida congregations of the United Church of Christ to join us as co-signers of this resolution.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) encourages the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ to pass a resolution opposing the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? and to support the efforts of Fairness for All Families in their lawful and peaceful campaign to bring about its defeat.
This Resolution is prominently displayed on our church website at www.ucctampabay.org.
WHEREAS all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27);
WHEREAS the words, examples and life of Jesus the Christ, as reported in the Gospels, teach us how to live lives of inclusive love and abundant welcome for all of God?s children, especially those who have been legally, spiritually or by culture and tradition marginalized and oppressed in society;
WHEREAS we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (The Declaration of Independence, 1776);
WHEREAS the Eleventh General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 1977 called for full civil rights for, and the full spiritual inclusion of, all people without regard to sexual orientation;
WHEREAS the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2005 recognized the importance of fidelity and integrity for all covenanted relationships;
WHEREAS a significant and ever increasing number of congregations in the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ have voted to become ?Open and Affirming? congregations and almost 70 UCC churches in Florida have voluntarily and enthusiastically joined the ?Still Speaking? identity campaign aimed at proudly proclaiming God?s extravagant welcome to ALL people;
WHEREAS the proposed ?Marriage Protection Amendment?, which states:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
will likely appear on Florida?s ballot in November 2008 and, if passed, will write discrimination against law abiding Florida residents into Florida?s State Constitution;
WHEREAS the title ?Marriage Protection Amendment? is inaccurate and misleading since no current or future marriage will be threatened or endangered by the civil recognition of loving and committed same-sex couples; just as no same-race marriage was threatened when mixed-race couples fought for and won the legal right to participate in civil marriage by way of the United States Supreme Court ruling on Loving vs. Virginia in 1969;
WHEREAS the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? is broadly worded so as to ensure that all forms of legal recognition for unmarried couples, whether gay or straight, could be subjected to constitutional challenges;
WHEREAS the proposed amendment, if approved, will lead to a loss of existing domestic-partner recognition and benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples (including elderly and retired couples) by governments and municipalities in Florida that currently offer them; including, but not limited to, the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or to make important medical decisions when a partner is incapacitated;
WHEREAS religious organizations and faith leaders cannot be required or pressured by law to perform any marriage that contradicts their beliefs and/or traditions, even when a couple is legally eligible to be wed (i.e. mixed faith couples, divorced individuals, etc.);
AND WHEREAS the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2005 urged congregations and individuals of the United Church of Christ to work against legislation, including constitutional amendments, which aim to deny equal marriage and partnership rights to couples based on gender;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) states its strong opposition to the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment?.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) strongly supports any lawful and peaceful action aimed at keeping the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? from becoming enshrined into the Florida State Constitution; including endorsing and assisting the Fairness for All Families campaign to defeat the amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) welcomes and encourages any and all Florida congregations of the United Church of Christ to join us as co-signers of this resolution.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that First United Church of Tampa (UCC) encourages the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ to pass a resolution opposing the so-called ?Marriage Protection Amendment? and to support the efforts of Fairness for All Families in their lawful and peaceful campaign to bring about its defeat.
This Resolution is prominently displayed on our church website at www.ucctampabay.org.
The Brevard Young Democrats support Fairness for ALL Families
The Brevard Young Democrats support Fairness for ALL Families
Last month, the Brevard Count Young Democrats membership unanimously endorsed the Fairness for All Families campaign, a coalition of organizations opposing the discriminatory "marriage" amendment that will be on the Florida ballot in November 2008. If passed, this constitutional amendment would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and it would threaten domestic partnerships for unmarried gay and straight couples.The Brevard Young Democrats believe discrimination is wrong. We are willing to fight for all families to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law.
Please read more about Fairness for All Families and consider joining the organization as an individual.
Sure-fire ways to help out the independents
OrlandoSentinel.com
COMMENTARY TAKING NAMES
Sure-fire ways to help out the independents
Scott Maxwell
TAKING NAMES
November 27, 2007
More and more people seem to dislike politics nowadays -- or just tune it all out. And both major parties seem to be doing their best to make sure that trend continues.
GOP and the gay-marriage fight
We start with the Republicans, who are feverishly fighting to ban something that's already banned: gay marriage.
At first, this would seem silly. But if you start to think about how Republican lawmakers have failed at fixing big things like insurance and taxes, it makes more sense. Fighting to outlaw something that's already outlawed is harder to screw up.
What they really want is a constitutional ban, which requires an amendment.
But for some politicos, this issue is more of a devious trick than it is a genuine concern. It's about hyping up a spectacularly divisive issue so that the most conservative voters will come to the polls and theoretically boost the chances of conservative candidates everywhere.
Now technically, this isn't an official GOP issue. It's a petition effort. But the group pushing this constitutional amendment, The Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage, says it has snagged endorsements from everyone from the Republican governor of the state, Charlie Crist, to GOP state legislators aplenty, including locals such as Orlando's Andy Gardiner, Eustis' Carey Baker and Kissimmee's Frank Attkisson.
And don't forget the chairman of the whole state party, Jim Greer, who had barely gotten acclimated to his new office before he started talking about how eager he was to make sure gays can't get hitched.
Compare all this hubbub among Republican muckety mucks -- who sometimes seem more obsessed with gay issues than gay people themselves are -- to real Floridians, few of whom would list this as one of the state's most pressing issues.
Don't get me wrong. There may be legitimate debates among thinking people about their beliefs when it comes to issues like homosexuality and the institution of marriage.
Supporters of the ban talk of the "sanctity of marriage" and wanting to ensure that more children have both mothers and fathers for role models. And opponents argue that it's legally unnecessary and simply unfair to deny people things such as health insurance just because of their sexual orientation. They also question how one person's marriage is threatened by another's.
Somewhere in the middle are the many Americans who don't think much of gay marriage, but who also don't think much of politicians wasting their time, money or constitutional ink trying to fight it.
But if you're looking for a thinking-man's debate, don't bother trying to find it with this amendment.
Constitutional Ban Will Affect Heterosexuals
Should state ban same-sex marriage?
Some people say yes, others say a constitutional ban will affect heterosexuals, too.By J. Taylor Rushing, Capital Bureau Chief
Stemberger is an Orlando attorney leading Florida4Marriage, the group working to send voters a proposed constitutional amendment on the subject on the November 2008 ballot.
"There are boxes and boxes of petitions piled as high as the ceiling in the hallway outside my office," said Stemberger, also head of the Orlando-based Florida Family Policy Council Inc. "We're definitely going to have way more than we need."
Sometime in the coming weeks, Stemberger said his group intends to submit the petitions - a total of 611,009 signatures are required, but Stemberger estimates he has 750,000. The Florida Supreme Court has already approved the amendment's language.
Launched in February 2005, the proposed amendment "protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." To pass, it must receive 60 percent of the vote.
The proposal appears to have galvanized an unlikely coalition of opponents. They include the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, the Florida chapter of the NAACP and the Florida Consumer Action Network, in addition to gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida and First Coast Pride, which represents Jacksonville's gay community.
Their concern: Banning same-sex marriagecould cause courts to strip away other rights, such as domestic partnership benefits for heterosexual couples like elderly Floridians who may live together outside of marriage for convenience, economic or security reasons.
Their proof: A decision earlier this year by a Michigan appeals court that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, adopted in the November 2004 election, may bar cities from offering health care for same-sex partners of public employees. That has quickly prompted legal battles in other states as well.
On the defensive
Opponents of the amendment concede that it will make the November 2008 ballot, and have already shifted their attack to an "awareness campaign" highlighting the recent court decisions and the potential legal impact beyond the gay community.
"It's been a wake-up call," says Nadine Smith, executive director of Tampa-based Equality Florida. "Our challenge is to peel back the math and make sure people understand the harmful effects this could have."
The coalition opposing the amendment calls itself Fairness for All Families, and has raised about $75,000 in direct and in-kind contributions, according to state records. But it is not the only opposition coalition: Florida Red & Blue Inc., a South Florida-based group, has raised $984,000 toward the same effort.
The Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage has raised $438,000, with $300,000 coming from the Republican Party of Florida and another $90,000 from such groups as the Florida Baptist Convention, Florida Catholic Conference and Focus on the Family.
Considering future impact
Republican leaders have mostly stayed out of the campaign since a public flap in February, when Gov. Charlie Crist suggested the party should be focused on other issues. Crist repeated that stance Tuesday but also said he supported the amendment itself.
"I haven't changed my mind," Crist said. "I probably would vote for it, but I don't think we need to spend money on it."
Stemberger said his opponents are using "scare tactics" and that Florida courts have already established that the state's laws against same-sex marriage do not threaten domestic partnership benefits.
"If Disney or Palm Beach County wants to give medical benefits to domestic partners, those rights are still available," Stemberger said. "The other side is using deception, and they know it."
But Gregory Wilson, a St. Petersburg political consultant and founding member of the Fairness for All Families coalition, said the group is simply noting the danger.
"How does anyone presume to know how the Florida Supreme Court could rule on this?" he said. "We're not presuming that. But there is now precedent for domestic partner benefits in another state being taken away, so why do you want to take that risk?"
jt.rushing@jacksonville.comTuesday, November 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)