Desperate Measure to Keep Florida "Red". Down with Sin! (especially the gays!)

[stephendare]

It hasn't even held its potentially irrelevant primary yet, but Florida is already being described as the hot spot in November's general election when a new initiative will be on the ballot - one that it is believed could decide whether the Sunshine State turns blue or remains red. The initiative - being sponsored by the conservative Liberty Council - is being called the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.

It has already sparked the question: Can any presidential candidate ignore Florida and this amendment, in light of Florida's major importance in November with its 27 electoral votes?

The proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution inched its way onto the Nov. 4 ballot when the Liberty Council in Orlando announced it has enough signatures to allow a vote. The proposal - offered by a group under the auspices of the Council - often referred to by detractors as a right-wing organization - defines marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman. " Supporters are organizing under the name Florida4Marriage.org.

The group says it has more than 611,009 signatures - collected over a three-year period - to allow registered voters to decide the issue. The signature requirement is believed to be the last step necessary for posting by the Secretary of State on the November ballot. The Florida Supreme Court has already ruled the proposal meets requirements by focusing only on one subject and "offering voters a clear and accurate summary."

The proposed anti-gay amendment was reportedly drafted by Anita and Matthew Stavor, founder and chairman of the Liberty Council. The organization says it promotes "religious civil liberties", but is often accused of being a pro-Republican interest organization.

The proposal will need a 60 percent majority to become a part of the state Constitution, and that will necessitate a huge turnout, thus possibly affecting Florida's 27 electoral votes.

The amendment seems to go even further than one passed in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election - an issue that helped deliver the state's electoral votes George Bush and thus, the presidency. The Florida proposal, according to its opponents, will affect not only gay couples but also heterosexual domestic partners, legally recognized in some areas of the state, and will mean insurance programs, hospital visitations and death benefits, and other citizens' rights would be terminated. .

Florida Red and Blue, a statewide non-partisan group, has announced that it has been organizing to fight the proposal. "We are sad that Florida today is one step closer to taking away the existing rights and benefits from millions of Floridians," said Stephen Gaskill, spokesperson for the group. He added that his group is certain Floridians don't want government this deeply involved in their personal lives.

Florida Red and Blue - which has been preparing for the ballot battle for weeks - immediately put out a press release citing a Broward County (Fort Lauderdale ) legally registered domestic partnership of 24 years - Helene Milman (a Democrat) and Wayne Rauen (a Republican). "We just want to live our lives together and not have the government telling us our relationship isn't good enough to be recognized in Florida."

Rauen added, "When Helene was in the hospital, they wouldn't let me in to see her until I proved we are domestic partners. I don't understand why the government cares who I can see in the hospital and who I can't."

John Stemberger of Orlando, who heads Florida4Marrriage, said its amendment "will protect the institution of marriage." He added that even though Florida already has a state law banning gay marriages, this new measure - by being part of the Constitution -would prevent judges from overturning the statute.

Stemberger was also quoted in an Associated Press story saying: "Our research shows children do best when raised by a mom and dad. Dads are not optional."

That comment got a quick response from one newspaper, The Orlando Sentinel. It took an early editorial swipe at the proposal and its sponsors under the headline "Don't Drag the Kids Into This." It said the vote on the proposal should probably be based on "spiritual beliefs" adding that it was wrong to bring "the kids" into the arguments. It noted that the measure - "which is being supported by the Florida Catholic Conference and the Florida Baptist Convention . . . will affect unmarried heterosexual couples" as well as gay couples and was an "intrusion in private matters." It said if passed, it would affect insurance coverage and hospital visitations. It called the measure "troubling."

The announcement by the proponents of the amendment received wide play in Florida newspapers, but with different emphasis. In North Florida publications, it usually got front page attention, but in South Florida, it got minor play. In the most Democratic part of Florida, Fort Lauderdale's Sun-Sentinel relegated the story to an inside back page.

The Tampa Tribune quoted a former AARP director, Bentley Lipsconb, who said the measure - as drafted - would have a large impact on elderly couples, many of whom don't marry because it would change their Social Security benefits.

It is widely believed that the amendment may drive social and religious conservatives to the polls in 2008, possibly affecting some races, including the presidency. At the current time, some political pundits, believe, there is little motivation for conservatives to go to the polls unless there is a Republican candidate who measures up to their beliefs. That, of course, could change, depending on the eventual selection of the GOP nominee in September.

Opinions on this most recent "Marriage" amendment are obviously questions which will be asked of presidential candidates, especially during the few days between South Carolina's primary (Jan. 26) and the one in Florida, still scheduled for Jan. 29. But, insiders say it won't have much of an effect until the General Election in November.

[gatorback]

Great blog stephen.  At this point in my life I don't care about the "Marriage Amendment"....I've given up on marriage; however, protecting the rights of partners I care about.  Give them "Marriage" and allow for domestic partner rights.  Is that too much to ask? 

Care to know what your neighbor thinks?

http://www.christchurchofpeace.org/ktnf/

[gradco2004]

Yeah, the whole marriage thing is beyond me?

What the hell are gay rights, and why is anyone voting for them? There should be no such thing as gay rights (just as there are no Black Rights, or Left-handed people rights, etc...) - that is why they are called civil rights. A sperate-but-equal type thing is unconstitutional (in my highly non-politically educated mind). Voting is not fair. The majority should never decide the rights for a minority. It always ends in misery.

[gatorback]

That on August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became law, and women could vote.  I guess we didn't need to do that huh.   

Jim and Bob are best friends and carpool to work everyday.  Jim is on his 3rd. marriage and has had the same Federal Job for 40 years.  Bob is gay, been with his partner for 40 years and is retired Navy now working for the same Federal organization that Jim does for 20 years.  Derick, the drunk city bus driver (2 DUI convictions--his boss was his brother and didn't fire him after the 1st DUI) is blown off his  gord again plows thru a red light on his way back from Puff the Magic Dragon's house killing  both Jim and Bob.  Sally being married to Jim has a processes of going after the Derick, Derick's brother and the City for Derick's madness; however, Rob, Bob's domestic partner, doesn't have that right.  They all paid taxes, yet one doesn't get the same rights as the other.  Rob's also screwed out of Bob's Navy pension and his federal pension, Sally got the pension, plus Sally got insurance from Jim.  This is one shame of the USA. 

Doesn't that sound exactly why we ammended the constitution in 1920?  Women paid taxes and didn't have the same rights as men. 

[gradco2004]

I probably did not make myself clear in the first post ... and that is my fault.

I support gay marriage. My point is that gays (such as myself) do not need to be given any special rights. We need to end the restriction and deniied use of our current rights. And regarding voting... I don't think that citizens need to vote on the issue of gay marriage. When you leave the majority to make decisions on what rights the minority should have, fairness is ofter squandered.

For instance, what if the decision to integrate schools was brought to the voters of the south in the Civil Rights Era? Is there any doubt in your mind that they would have voted against it... be it the fair thing to do or not. And as far as giving us a civil union as opposed to marriage... that is proposterous. If you agree with one, you agree with the other. Its like saying oh, black people, you are equal... just drink from that fountain. Or, "I love bread, but I hate flour." Ultimately I feel that it is about the opposer wanting to feel superior to its opponent. I hope that I made myself plain that time (sorry)


Here is what an argument against gay marriage sounds like to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdH1ZEbnIms

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdH1ZEbnIms

[gatorback]

If you want to legalize bigotry then go for it.  You'd undo what Dr. King brought to the table and that's nothing to be proud of.  It’s repugnant behavior in a country that should be above that IMHO.  We should move forward.  What's in the best interest of this society is to come together.

[gradco2004]

I'm sorry gator, I don't follow??? I thought I made it plain that I do support gay marriage. What would lead you to believe that I am for legalizing bigotry? Maybe you should re-read my post & watch the video (unless your last post was for someone else, then I apologize).

[gatorback]

I'm sorry, I thought I left that a little vague; however, my point was I was speaking to the subject of the thread itself and not you.  I'm sorry you took it that way....I left the house thinking I was a unclear and that I certainly didn't mean to direct that at you at all.  I thought the  vid you posted was halarious!  Thank you for that.   

[RiversideGator]

Interesting to see the "conservative" Stephen Dare advocating for homosexual marriage.  Of course, tearing down thousands of years of tradition is a conservative idea.   

The bottom line is marriage is for members of the opposite sex only.  The vast majority of the public want to keep it this way.  There must be ironclad safeguards in place to prevent liberal judges from making policy without the consent of the people.  This is the reason for the upcoming vote.  Sorry for putting this to a democratic vote fellas, but you are doomed to defeat on this issue. 

BTW, while I do appreciate the armchair lawyering, y'all are totally wrong in attempting to give Constitutional protection to a sexual practice.  Were you to try and use this argument in the 19th or 18th century when the Constitution and its Amendments were drafted, I dont think you would get very far with your specious arguments.

[gatorback]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it illegal for black man to marry a white women?  So, what you're saying the argument is just sexual and not about equal protection for equal taxes?  Or are you saying we never needed to change anything with respect to amending things that were just not right to begin with in your opinion?

In Alabama, for example, a black man went to jail and paid a steep fine for proposing to marry a white woman in 1867. 

This is more about equal protection for equal taxes.  If you kill my partner I want recourse just like you since we both pay the same taxes. 

[heights unknown]

I agree; marriage is for a man and a woman (maybe I'm old fashioned?).  And that's the bottomline with me as well.  

One of the reasons for marriage, and the architecht of marriage is God who made us all, is to form a FAMILY, and if a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry, nothing comes out of it really, except the sexual gratification thing and possibly sharing your lives and property together, no children, no grandchildren, or extension of a real family, and then there's the thing of non-acceptance and possible banning from other family members; in other words, that's the end of the line with no carrying on of the name or the genes, etc.  

I am not pointing a finger because everyone does what they choose, and I will still be anyone's friend and respect their choices (but don't have to agree with them), but I will let it be known that I am against gay, same sex marriage, but will still treat the person(s) with respect but will not personally acknowledge the union.

Again, I love everyone, and respect everyone, but personally I do not agree with same sex unions, am generally against these unions, and am a conservative.

Lastly, I am not portending to be perfect, believe me, I have my skeletons in my closet and there are things about me that people would disagree with, but on this topic, same sex marriage, I do not agree but will respect the choices.  

Heights Unknown

[gatorback]

Let's just say, I went to fight in your war, and I got my nuts blown off protecting your oil.  You're saying in gods eye I can't form a family which is not true. How many people adopt and  become foster parents because they are loving and want to give irrespective of their ability to make babies. 

Denying a family based on Sex (Just how it was with Race) is bigotry.

[gatorback]

I think it's going to get pretty ugly....which is fun to point fingers at.  Here's why. Conservative want to maintain their economic domanance over the left which is great if you're a bigot; however,  for God Given Reasons people are not the same.

[gradco2004]

I don't think there is anything that can be said that hasn't been said already. Marriage has nothing to do with God or love or family or any of that. It is about protecting assets. Your commitment to God is made in the church, not by the state. As long as people pretend that THEY know God's mind and what HE wants, this argument will never end. Can anyone show me an arguement --> not religiously backed <-- to convince me that allowing the same sex to marry is wrong? I am a very open person, I just have not heard a good reason yet.

Found another youtube click I liked gator. This one is better than the last

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc



And a seperate video. Both equally as good.

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPzso1OOTPM

[gatorback]

what we need is this guy for president for real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmN7Q_tUFnA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbdBCAFXNkw&NR=1