My First Experience as a Volunteer at a Gay Pride Festival, by Lee Brockman

I'm a 76 year old woman who happens to be heterosexual, and I have a handsome, talented, charismatic, and loving twenty-two year old grandson who happens to be gay. So when someone from Fairness for All Families phoned to see if I would help man the booth at the Sarasota Gay Pride Fest, I went. And I want to tell you that I had a fabulous time! I was there for nearly four hours, and my job, as I understood it, was to make sure that everyone at the Festival understood how the so-called "Marriage Amendment" would affect them. I decided to stand in the aisle in front of the booth, instead of sitting behind our table. This way I could get up close and personal in order to speak directly to individuals who came our way. (There was a noise factor, with hundreds of people crowding the large room where the booths were set up.) My question to each person was "Are you familiar with the proposed Marriage Amendment?" Usually the answer was, "Not really!" Then I'd hand them one of our fliers with the exact wording of the amendment. They'd read it and register shock. (Because it is shocking!) And I'd then "suggest" that they might want to vote NO on number two in November. "Good suggestion!" they'd say, and they'd be grateful for the information I'd given them.

What a "high" you can get when you've spent some time helping others! Put me down for next year! I'll be there if you need me!

A Blog from David P in Sarasota!

This past Saturday I spent the day as a volunteer at the Equality Booth for Sarasota Pride. Educating people on the #2 Amendment and what the consequences would be if passed. It was exciting and made me realize how many in our very own community don't understand and some weren't even aware of the amendment. We had hundreds of Vote No on #2 Amendment pins and could have used more. Met lots of great people.Very successful Pride event.


It's was very rewarding for me to be there and do my part.

David G Phillips
Sarasota, Florida

Group Targets Domestic Partnership Protections

Group Targets Domestic Partnership Protections By ELLEN GEDALIUS The Tampa Tribune Published: April 9, 2008 TAMPA - A group that bills itself as trying to "improve and protect our moral environment" is taking aim at the city's policy extending benefits to domestic partners. David Caton, executive director of Florida Family Association, said he and some sister organizations are looking for a domestic partnership benefit program to challenge, either politically or legally. He wouldn't name the other organizations or governments whose policies the group is reviewing. The group has been peppering the city of Tampa with public records requests about the domestic partnership policy. Caton says domestic partnership benefits violate the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriage. "We're looking at the total cost to the actual taxpayers," Caton said. "We want to challenge the one that costs taxpayers the most and is most violative of the Defense of Marriage Act." In 2004, Mayor Pam Iorio signed an executive order that extends city insurance benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. Applicants must show they have lived with their partners for more than six months and intend to remain partners. The policy went into effect Jan. 1, 2005. Homosexual and heterosexual couples are eligible for the benefits. The city has 63 employees signed up for domestic partner benefits, but pays additional costs for only 27 of them, amounting to just more than $70,000 a year. Caton said he might file a challenge in court, though he hasn't ruled out taking the issue to the city council. "Now's the time to challenge that budget item," Caton said. On Tuesday, Iorio said she stands by the program and is certain it will withstand any challenges. "It's always been an issue of fairness," Iorio said. "Not everyone is married, yet the world is changing and people have different partnerships." Nadine Smith, director of Equality Florida, said she worries about the erosion of domestic partner benefits programs. "It's sadly predictable that they're willing to invest time, energy and money in taking benefits away from families," Smith said. "It is the hidden agenda of Amendment 2." Amendment 2, which goes to voters in November, would ban gay marriage in Florida. Information from Tribune archives was used in this story. Reporter Ellen Gedalius can be reached at (813) 259-7679 or egedalius@tampatrib.com.

Daytona Pride - David Perreault's blog from Daytona

Volusia County
Daytona Pride festival

On April 13th and under threatening skies, Daytona Pridefest took off with enthusiasm. Vendors from around Volusia County set up in a square surrounding the performance stage.

For the fist time we were joined by Embry Riddle University G.S.A (gay straight alliance). and the Deland High school G.S.A. The Deland crew did face painting and took a brave step to be out and proud. They set a standard for all high schools to stand up and embrace diversity. With the help of the Pride fest Committee, the Embry Riddle booth was set up next to them. Friendships were forged, and those high school students now know that as they graduate they can continue on to Universities with the support of G.S.A. clubs and moreover, know that they are not alone.

Three years ago I volunteered for Equality Florida with nothing but old beach umbrella and a folding chair. We set out on foot into the crowd with clip boards to gather signatures to defeat the so called “Marriage Protection Act” . Very few of the hundreds in attendance had ever heard of Equality Florida or the looming threat to their civil rights.

Now three years later, the tide is turning. It was remarkable to see everyone collecting signatures to pledge a vote of NO on #2 . Clip boards were filled with names and buttons and pamphlets were distributed by: Equality Florida/ Fairness for All Families, the A.C.L.U. , Florida Red & Blue and Embry Riddle G.S.A.

As the afternoon sun found its way though the clouds, we watched the University and High school G.S.A’s. playing tackle Frisbee in the grass of the quad. It would seem to be such a simple thing. But they send a message of inspiration. They are a generation of change.

David P. Perreault
Volusia County Facilitator, Equality Florida

A Blog from our Volusia Volunteer Organizer

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

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.

Tallahassee Democrat Benefits Ban Heats Up

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS01/802130375/1010

Tallahassee Forum on "Marriage" Amendment

http://www.wtxl.tv/global/story.asp?s=7863469

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.

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

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

"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,

Fairness Primary Day of Action

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

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