This is the first blog posting from Volusia Fairness for All Families. So I thought we may depart from the list of events and what happened where. That will be coming, so check back. Please read on….
It has been two challenging years here in Volusia county. The message is getting out. The spirit in the community has been astonishing. A 74 year old man told me he doesn’t care much about gay marriage. I listened intently to him as he told me he didn’t fight for the freedom of this country to have hate written into the constitution. From the chair in his church he pledged to vote no on 2.
There have been so many events , and groups contacting us here in Volusia to address their organizations. Make no mistake, this amendment issue has become a vital issue to the voters here.
On this very day a volunteer feeling a bit lackluster about Daytona Pride April 13, and our booth said “ We don’t see any politicians or the Mayor, or Police marching in support. I don’t see how handing out stickers in tee shirts is going to make a bit of difference.” I know we all feel this way from time to time. I replied,” Its not a sticker or a tee shirt, it is knowing that every person deserves our time. A mind can be changed in an instant when you shake a hand and tell the truth. That’s the moment that will remain with them at the voting booth.”
So for today I leave this last note. Cut it paste it, print it and put it in your pocket.
Preamble of the Florida Constitution:
We the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
It is just that simple.
David Perreault
Fairness for All Families Organizer
Greater Volusia County
Friday, April 11, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tampa Winter Pride
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.
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.
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,
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Saturday, December 8, 2007
In All Fairness | Floridians Party With A Purpose
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)