Yesterday at Winter Pride ended up being a very wet day. We had great volunteers though that braved the rain until the event ended up being canceled around 1:30pm. We did however gather many signatures pledging to vote no on the so-called "Marriage Amendement" and there were many new endorsing organizations and business that signed on to the campaign.
Had the weather cooperated, the event would have gone very well. In spite of the heavy rain, many attendees continued enjoying the day by taking off their shoes, rolling up their pants and wading through the puddles. I wish the day hadn't needed to be cut short but all-in-all it was an enjoyable day in the park.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tallahassee Democrat Benefits Ban Heats Up
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS01/802130375/1010
Monday, February 18, 2008
AG takes swipe at Moscow's domestic partner benefits
Moscow-Pullman Daily News - DNews.com
AG takes swipe at Moscow's domestic partner benefits
Idaho Values Alliance says city should rescind health plan, mayor will meet with city attorney
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer
February 12, 2008
The Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners may not be constitutional, according to an opinion by Deputy Attorney General Mitch Toryanski.
The Idaho Values Alliance issued a press release today reporting that Toryanski's opinion states "an Idaho court would likely find that this policy violates the Idaho Constitution's Marriage Amendment."
The press release stated the opinion was issued Feb. 4 to Idaho Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, who requested it in December on behalf of five other senators.
Attorney general's office spokesman Bob Cooper said he needed Fulcher's permission to release a copy of the opinion. Fulcher could not be contacted by press time.
IVA Executive Director Bryan Fischer said he also could not release the full text of the opinion without Fulcher's permission.
The IVA press release quoted the opinion as stating "the City of Moscow's new policy ... constitutes recognition of a domestic legal union other than marriage."
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 17 that extended health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
The city's decision immediately drew fire from the IVA, the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
Fulcher said in December that he requested the opinion because Moscow's decision presents an "intuitive conflict" with Idaho's marriage amendment.
The amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
Fischer said Toryanski's opinion should lead the City Council to rescind the benefits decision.
"The attorney general's opinion said very clearly that an Idaho court would likely find (Moscow's) policy unconstitutional, so that's what the Moscow City Council has to grapple with," Fischer said. "If they don't revoke this policy then they are placing themselves and the taxpayers of Moscow in jeopardy of an expensive litigation that they are highly likely to lose."
Mayor Nancy Chaney said she was not surprised by the opinion, but it does not change her rationale for approving the benefits.
"I just would reiterate: The city of Moscow is neither creating nor encouraging domestic partnerships," she said. "We are simply offering an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance carrier."
Chaney said she heard of the opinion Monday night when she received an e-mail from Fischer. She had not received a copy of Toryanski's opinion as of this morning.
She said it is too early to say whether the opinion will change the City Council's decision to extend benefits to domestic partners.
In December, Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said an opinion from the office is strictly an opinion, and the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Chaney said she plans to meet with City Attorney Randy Fife to discuss the matter this afternoon. Fife could not be reached for comment.
Tara Rob erts can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 234, or by e-mail at troberts@dnews.com.
AG takes swipe at Moscow's domestic partner benefits
Idaho Values Alliance says city should rescind health plan, mayor will meet with city attorney
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer
February 12, 2008
The Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners may not be constitutional, according to an opinion by Deputy Attorney General Mitch Toryanski.
The Idaho Values Alliance issued a press release today reporting that Toryanski's opinion states "an Idaho court would likely find that this policy violates the Idaho Constitution's Marriage Amendment."
The press release stated the opinion was issued Feb. 4 to Idaho Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, who requested it in December on behalf of five other senators.
Attorney general's office spokesman Bob Cooper said he needed Fulcher's permission to release a copy of the opinion. Fulcher could not be contacted by press time.
IVA Executive Director Bryan Fischer said he also could not release the full text of the opinion without Fulcher's permission.
The IVA press release quoted the opinion as stating "the City of Moscow's new policy ... constitutes recognition of a domestic legal union other than marriage."
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 17 that extended health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
The city's decision immediately drew fire from the IVA, the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
Fulcher said in December that he requested the opinion because Moscow's decision presents an "intuitive conflict" with Idaho's marriage amendment.
The amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
Fischer said Toryanski's opinion should lead the City Council to rescind the benefits decision.
"The attorney general's opinion said very clearly that an Idaho court would likely find (Moscow's) policy unconstitutional, so that's what the Moscow City Council has to grapple with," Fischer said. "If they don't revoke this policy then they are placing themselves and the taxpayers of Moscow in jeopardy of an expensive litigation that they are highly likely to lose."
Mayor Nancy Chaney said she was not surprised by the opinion, but it does not change her rationale for approving the benefits.
"I just would reiterate: The city of Moscow is neither creating nor encouraging domestic partnerships," she said. "We are simply offering an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance carrier."
Chaney said she heard of the opinion Monday night when she received an e-mail from Fischer. She had not received a copy of Toryanski's opinion as of this morning.
She said it is too early to say whether the opinion will change the City Council's decision to extend benefits to domestic partners.
In December, Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said an opinion from the office is strictly an opinion, and the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Chaney said she plans to meet with City Attorney Randy Fife to discuss the matter this afternoon. Fife could not be reached for comment.
Tara Rob erts can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 234, or by e-mail at troberts@dnews.com.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Florida Today: Reject the Bigotry
Our view: Reject the bigotry
Proposed gay marriage ban would harm Florida families and promote discrimination
ADVERTISEMENT
Don't fall for the hoax.
Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.
That's baloney.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, and there is no threat of legislative action in Tallahassee to change that.
If anything threatens traditional marriage it's a high divorce rate and disappearing social taboos against bearing children out of wedlock -- problems a gay-marriage ban won't affect.
Worse, the gay-marriage ban attempts to slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values. But its intent is to harm and punish, solely on the basis of whom an individual chooses to love or live with.
Worse again, it puts at risk all unmarried Floridians' guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Here's why:
The broad language of the amendment says: "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."
Behind the jargon, the proposal wouldn't just prohibit gays from marrying, but also from entering into civil unions that confer certain legal rights -- such as to hospital visitation.
It could also strip them of benefits such as health care coverage many employers offer workers in domestic partnerships, gay or straight, and their dependents.
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And it has already happened in states where constitutional same-sex marriage bans are in place.
In 2007, a Michigan court ruled the state's amendment meant employers such as cities or universities couldn't provide health care benefits to unmarried domestic partners.
Those benefits are also being challenged in Kentucky and Ohio.
Florida's large population of seniors -- some of whom depend on shared benefits from domestic partnerships -- could also see that safety net struck down in court if the gay-marriage ban passes.
That's why former Florida Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past AARP President Bentley Lipscomb opposes the ban.
So do Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze and NAACP national chairman and civil rights leader Julien Bond, who understand the amendment would trample the two great promises upon which the country was founded:
The Declaration of Independence's assurance everyone is created equal and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee all will be treated equally under the law.
Despite those violations of historic American principles, White House advisor Karl Rove successfully used gay-marriage bans as a wedge issue to draw hard-core conservatives to the polls in some states in 2004, helping to give President Bush an edge.
The same low-road strategy is at work behind this ballot amendment. The Florida GOP has supported it to the tune of $300,000.
Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" and see it for what it is:
A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.
StoryChat Post a Comment
Proposed gay marriage ban would harm Florida families and promote discrimination
ADVERTISEMENT
Don't fall for the hoax.
Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.
That's baloney.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, and there is no threat of legislative action in Tallahassee to change that.
If anything threatens traditional marriage it's a high divorce rate and disappearing social taboos against bearing children out of wedlock -- problems a gay-marriage ban won't affect.
Worse, the gay-marriage ban attempts to slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values. But its intent is to harm and punish, solely on the basis of whom an individual chooses to love or live with.
Worse again, it puts at risk all unmarried Floridians' guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Here's why:
The broad language of the amendment says: "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."
Behind the jargon, the proposal wouldn't just prohibit gays from marrying, but also from entering into civil unions that confer certain legal rights -- such as to hospital visitation.
It could also strip them of benefits such as health care coverage many employers offer workers in domestic partnerships, gay or straight, and their dependents.
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And it has already happened in states where constitutional same-sex marriage bans are in place.
In 2007, a Michigan court ruled the state's amendment meant employers such as cities or universities couldn't provide health care benefits to unmarried domestic partners.
Those benefits are also being challenged in Kentucky and Ohio.
Florida's large population of seniors -- some of whom depend on shared benefits from domestic partnerships -- could also see that safety net struck down in court if the gay-marriage ban passes.
That's why former Florida Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past AARP President Bentley Lipscomb opposes the ban.
So do Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze and NAACP national chairman and civil rights leader Julien Bond, who understand the amendment would trample the two great promises upon which the country was founded:
The Declaration of Independence's assurance everyone is created equal and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee all will be treated equally under the law.
Despite those violations of historic American principles, White House advisor Karl Rove successfully used gay-marriage bans as a wedge issue to draw hard-core conservatives to the polls in some states in 2004, helping to give President Bush an edge.
The same low-road strategy is at work behind this ballot amendment. The Florida GOP has supported it to the tune of $300,000.
Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" and see it for what it is:
A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.
StoryChat Post a Comment
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Palm Beach Post: Same ol Same Sex Ban
From Florida Statute 741.212 (1):
"Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign ... or relationships between persons of the same sex, which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction ... or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (2):
"The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (3):
"For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term 'spouse' applies only to a member of such a union."
And just for good measure, Florida Statute 741.04 (1) prohibits any judge or clerk of the court from issuing a marriage license "unless one party is a male and the other party is a female."
All that restrictive language should be enough to reassure even the most skittish Floridian that gays and lesbians won't be exchanging vows or trying to transfer a marriage. But no. Last week, the Department of Elections confirmed that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida will go on the November ballot. To Article I, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment would add: "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."
So there. Same-sex marriage wouldn't just be illegal; it would be unconstitutional, beyond the power of some future namby-pamby Legislature or court that might want to turn parts of Florida into Cape Cod or San Francisco. Of course, it also would be the first part of the constitution to restrict rights, not grant them. It would make the Florida Constitution a document that protects pregnant pigs but not human beings who want to be part of what people who will vote for this amendment describe as the foundation of society. It could make things tougher for Florida companies trying to recruit employees. It won't deal with insurance costs, the tax system or the real-estate market, which are the state's real priorities.
Instead, it will create a noisy, well-financed distraction as Floridians vote for president. The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/02/06/m18a_marriage_edit_0206.html
"Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign ... or relationships between persons of the same sex, which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction ... or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (2):
"The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (3):
"For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term 'spouse' applies only to a member of such a union."
And just for good measure, Florida Statute 741.04 (1) prohibits any judge or clerk of the court from issuing a marriage license "unless one party is a male and the other party is a female."
All that restrictive language should be enough to reassure even the most skittish Floridian that gays and lesbians won't be exchanging vows or trying to transfer a marriage. But no. Last week, the Department of Elections confirmed that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida will go on the November ballot. To Article I, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment would add: "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."
So there. Same-sex marriage wouldn't just be illegal; it would be unconstitutional, beyond the power of some future namby-pamby Legislature or court that might want to turn parts of Florida into Cape Cod or San Francisco. Of course, it also would be the first part of the constitution to restrict rights, not grant them. It would make the Florida Constitution a document that protects pregnant pigs but not human beings who want to be part of what people who will vote for this amendment describe as the foundation of society. It could make things tougher for Florida companies trying to recruit employees. It won't deal with insurance costs, the tax system or the real-estate market, which are the state's real priorities.
Instead, it will create a noisy, well-financed distraction as Floridians vote for president. The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/02/06/m18a_marriage_edit_0206.html
Saturday, February 2, 2008
"So-Called 'Marriage Amendment' Barely Meets Signature Deadline"
Fairness for All Families: "So-Called 'Marriage Amendment' Barely Meets Signature Deadline"
Tallahassee, FL — After four years of signature gathering, backers of a measure to deny family benefits for unmarried Floridians barely met the requirements to place the so-called “Florida Marriage Protection” constitutional amendment on the November ballot, according to state election officials.
Backed by far right political group Florida4Marriage, the measure has met strong opposition from seniors, employee and consumer organizations and civil rights groups alarmed at the far reaching consequences for thousands of Florida families who risk losing essential benefits if the sweeping restrictions of the amendment become law.
Statement of Barbara A. DeVane, Board Member of the Fairness For All Families Coalition and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans:
“After 4 years of signature gathering the only surprise is how narrowly it seems they reached the minimum requirements. As Floridians come to understand that this measure strips away essential family protections, the more they are saying NO to the deceptively named amendment.
As a broad-based coalition of state, local and national organizations, Fairness for All Families will continue to educate voters and mobilize volunteers across the state. Many of our seniors rely on domestic partnership benefits that could be taken away by the so-called “marriage” amendment. Also at stake are other basic employment and health care benefits from local governments and businesses received by thousands of families including police, firefighters and other municipal employees. Why would we take away benefits that Florida families rely on? The law should not make it harder for families to take care of their loved ones. We should strengthen, not take away family protections. It is wrong to single people out and vote on the fundamental rights of others.
They have struggled to place this on the ballot because Floridians are learning just how intrusive and harmful this amendment is for our families. We are confident that fair-minded Florida voters will vote NO at the polls in November.”
About the Fairness For All Families Coalition
Fairness for All Families is a coalition of over 200 groups that includes seniors, business leaders, consumer groups and social justice organizations that are joining together to oppose a constitutional amendment slated for the 2008 ballot that would strip away existing employee benefits and enshrine discrimination in Florida’s constitution. For more information, please visit www.FairnessForAllFamilies.org
February 02, 2008 in Bisexual, Current Affairs, Gay,
Tallahassee, FL — After four years of signature gathering, backers of a measure to deny family benefits for unmarried Floridians barely met the requirements to place the so-called “Florida Marriage Protection” constitutional amendment on the November ballot, according to state election officials.
Backed by far right political group Florida4Marriage, the measure has met strong opposition from seniors, employee and consumer organizations and civil rights groups alarmed at the far reaching consequences for thousands of Florida families who risk losing essential benefits if the sweeping restrictions of the amendment become law.
Statement of Barbara A. DeVane, Board Member of the Fairness For All Families Coalition and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans:
“After 4 years of signature gathering the only surprise is how narrowly it seems they reached the minimum requirements. As Floridians come to understand that this measure strips away essential family protections, the more they are saying NO to the deceptively named amendment.
As a broad-based coalition of state, local and national organizations, Fairness for All Families will continue to educate voters and mobilize volunteers across the state. Many of our seniors rely on domestic partnership benefits that could be taken away by the so-called “marriage” amendment. Also at stake are other basic employment and health care benefits from local governments and businesses received by thousands of families including police, firefighters and other municipal employees. Why would we take away benefits that Florida families rely on? The law should not make it harder for families to take care of their loved ones. We should strengthen, not take away family protections. It is wrong to single people out and vote on the fundamental rights of others.
They have struggled to place this on the ballot because Floridians are learning just how intrusive and harmful this amendment is for our families. We are confident that fair-minded Florida voters will vote NO at the polls in November.”
About the Fairness For All Families Coalition
Fairness for All Families is a coalition of over 200 groups that includes seniors, business leaders, consumer groups and social justice organizations that are joining together to oppose a constitutional amendment slated for the 2008 ballot that would strip away existing employee benefits and enshrine discrimination in Florida’s constitution. For more information, please visit www.FairnessForAllFamilies.org
February 02, 2008 in Bisexual, Current Affairs, Gay,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)