Dear Fairness For All Families Coalition Partners,
As you may have read, a miscount opens a glimmer of hope that the so-called Marriage Protection amendment will not reach the ballot. That hope must be tempered by the reality that they have time and the access to resources to get this on the ballot.
We expect this to get on the ballot. The far right backers are already launching an all out push, tapping national funders and activating their conservative church networks. We have to continue organizing with the expectation that they will deliver the signatures on Feb 1.
According to the latest info, they plan to mail petitions to more than 50,000 voters, staff the early voting precincts and be out en masse on election day. That is why it is vital that we have as many volunteers out at the precincts on Jan 29th.
Below is an action alert from the Fairness for All Families Campaign. Please forward it to your email lists and ask your members to take all or part of the day Jan 29th to help educate voters on the harm this amendment would inflict on our families. Here's the link to RSVP for the Fairness Campaign's Primary Day of Action.
Feel free to add your organization's banner and a personalized intro paragraph. The Jan 29th Presidential Primary is a golden opportunity to reach and educate voters and take a giant step toward defeating this discriminatory, mean-spirited marriage amendment.
If you have any questions about the Primary Day Action or want to involve your staff directly as coalition partners on the 29th, please end an email to voteno@fairnessforallfamilies.org or call 727-490-0963
Thanks,
Fairness for All Families Team
January 14, 2007
Breaking News: Marriage Amendment Now Vulnerable
Help Us Stop the Deceptive Marriage Amendment On Primary Day, January 29th!
A "glitch" at the Division of Elections has caused an over count of 22,000 signatures for the deceptively named "marriage protection amendment." Instead of submitting the 611.009 petitions required, the actual number is 589,020 as of Jan 10th.
HOWEVER, those supporting this discriminatory amendment have until Feb 1st to turn in signatures and that means they will certainly use the January 29th Primary Election to gather those signatures.
Some early news reports may give the impression that the amendment is now off the ballot. This is not the case!
We must keep up our campaign to oppose this harmful and dangerous amendment.
Remember, those backing this deceptive measure still have time and we should expect after four years of signature gathering that they will make the ballot.
Other states that put all their hopes in a measure failing to reach the ballot ended up ill-prepared when an 11th hour ruling placed it before voters.
We Need You!
We need hundreds of volunteers to staff precincts on Jan 29th. Take the day off. Get to work a little late or leave a bit early to help.
Click here to volunteer on Primary Day and help ID our supporters.
Read about our "Primary Day of Action" plan below and spread the word to friends and family. With today's news, it's more important than ever for you to get involved.
Sincerely,
Barbara DeVane
Fairness for All Families
Step Up On Primary Day, January 29th!
Volunteer at the polls and help defeat the so-called "Marriage Amendment."
Join Fairness for All Families volunteers from across the state as we work the polls on Primary Day to defeat the deceptively named "marriage protection amendment." Register Here
Primary Day is January 29th and offers one of the best opportunities we'll have to educate voters. With widespread participation by you, your friends and family, we will take full advantage of this chance to talk to voters face-to-face about the harmful consequences of the deceptively named "marriage protection amendment."
Of course this amendment doesn't protect anyone's marriage. However, it does take away protections and benefits like healthcare from all unmarried couples - gay and straight. This amendment goes far beyond marriage by banning civil unions and dismantling domestic partner benefits that seniors, teachers, police officers and firefighters rely on in more than 17 communities across the state.
On January 29th, Fairness needs your help filling a morning (6:45-9:30 am) or afternoon (4:00-7:00 pm) shift, or both! We'll provide you with training and the materials to work wherever you are. Defeating this amendment will require action from Key West to Pensacola and everywhere in between. Sign up and spread the word to your friends. Click here to register today and we'll follow up with you to schedule a shift and give you all the information you need.
We can win this tremendous challenge, but only with your help. Register today .
*If the above link is not working, cut and paste the following URL into your browser: http://ga4.org/Equalityflorida/events/primarydayvols2008/details.tcl
Can't Volunteer? Make a Contribution
Fairness for All Families is running full-speed this election season, with a Primary Day Volunteer campaign that will educate voters at polling locations across the state. We know that not everyone can take a day away from work to volunteer. But you can still help. Make a generous contribution to the Fairness for All Families campaign today. Click here: https://secure.ga3.org/01/ballotinitiativec4
SPREAD THE WORD. GET FRIENDS TO JOIN YOU.
Paid Political Advertisement paid for and approved by Fairness for All Families, Inc Political Committee.
Anything the ACLU is backing, you can count me out.
So you're not for families? wow
Quote from: stephenc on January 17, 2008, 09:51:32 AM
Anything the ACLU is backing, you can count me out.
I agree.
When I think it makes my head hurt. OW!
Yeah, civil liberties are for babies.
Quote from: gatorback on January 17, 2008, 11:00:51 AM
So you're not for families? wow
Wow, indeed...that comment was a huge straw man and total BS. I think he can definitively say he's for
natural, functional families. But in today's world where we have so many people twisting the English language around, the term "family" is kind of ambiguous, isn't it?
Please, civil liberties are not in question.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 17, 2008, 01:43:36 PM
Please, civil liberties are not in question.
The government dictating whom you can marry. For or against the amendment the question is civil liberties.
Republicans we say we are conservative except we want big government in every aspect of your life.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 17, 2008, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: gatorback on January 17, 2008, 11:00:51 AM
So you're not for families? wow
Wow, indeed...that comment was a huge straw man and total BS. I think he can definitively say he's for natural, functional families. But in today's world where we have so many people twisting the English language around, the term "family" is kind of ambiguous, isn't it?
Please, civil liberties are not in question.
Yes thats right, the civil liberties of heterosexual couples are not in question at all.
Things certainly have gotten twisted around in today's world. I long for the straightforwardness of 500 AD. A person's life was defined in very simple and easy to understand terms then, with absolutely no ambiguities. Ah, the good old days, if only we could bring our society back to those founding principles of humanity.
Maybe its just me but it seems that this amendment states that you have to be actually married to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If I'm wrong then please enlighten me.
I think that the core issue addressed in this amendment is the definition of marriage, that it is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not two men nor two women.
This dovetails nicely with Mike Huckabee's goal of bringing mans law into agreement with God's word by changing the United States constitution so as to agree with the Bible.
Quote from: stephenc on January 17, 2008, 03:35:27 PM
Maybe its just me but it seems that this amendment states that you have to be actually married to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If I'm wrong then please enlighten me.
Ah, but what determines marriage? Like I said before, the true meanings of words continue to be manipulated and twisted by advocates that basically wish to alter an institution of the basic foundations of human society. As long as this continues to be done, whack job organizations like the ACLU will continue trying to eliminate the core institutions and culture of this country.
Not "like I said before".
As I said before, please.
^ You must be a teacher. ;) I'll have to be careful with my grammar now! :P
Thank you.
Quote from: Midway on January 17, 2008, 02:36:02 PM
Quote from: Charleston native on January 17, 2008, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: gatorback on January 17, 2008, 11:00:51 AM
So you're not for families? wow
Wow, indeed...that comment was a huge straw man and total BS. I think he can definitively say he's for natural, functional families. But in today's world where we have so many people twisting the English language around, the term "family" is kind of ambiguous, isn't it?
Please, civil liberties are not in question.
Yes thats right, the civil liberties of heterosexual couples are not in question at all.
Things certainly have gotten twisted around in today's world. I long for the straightforwardness of 500 AD. A person's life was defined in very simple and easy to understand terms then, with absolutely no ambiguities. Ah, the good old days, if only we could bring our society back to those founding principles of humanity.
What/when? When only White Men could vote, and Women couldn't own property. I'd fit in there, being I'm a white man and a republican to boot. But, I'm also not a bigot. Thanks.
2 for 2 on straw man arguments, gator, keep them coming. That is hardly what Midway meant and you know it.
I have nothing productive to say... interesting thread, though.
It wasn't all that long ago that inter-racial marriage (esp. black/white) was considered by law and many Americans, as being "against God and the natural order of things".
Or is this another "straw man"?
Your intolerance is not going to be my burdon. I feel if one pays equal taxes they should be afforded equal protections it's that simple. It's quintessential America. If you love America, then you are for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it's in our Premable? You thinking my family is less moral then yours, or his, or theirs is completely and without qualification the most asinine rant ever to waste bits in this space.
Ah, the personal attacks for having a different point of view...such tolerance. No wonder the Repubs are shifting left. I didn't say your family is less moral, but the term "family" has already been changed and manipulated by our condoning culture. So I guess we're at an empasse because we view family differently.
And yes, Charles, that is another straw man. You guys are on a roll! Inter-racial marriage needed to be allowed because race does not distort the natural order of a marriage, which is predicated on pro-creation. Marriage of different races still preserves the institutional fabric of what marriage has been through the ages of time: between one man and one woman. Regardless of what the Bible says about it (yes, even outside Judeo-Christian principles that many of you seem to despise), that has been the order of things throughout the existence of man...in countless different cultures.
I am having a difficult time trying to understand exactly the point that you are trying to make. Remember clarity and brevity are everything. Also, I think you may mean Impasse, as opposed to the Italian word empasse?
Charleston, is your problem with the term "marriage" for granting "partner rights"? Or do you also oppose "civil unions" that grant rights to homosexual couples? This would not "change the definition of marriage", but would grant legal rights (survivorship, medical decision and information, insurance, taxes, and so on).
The proposed Florida amendment would ban this arrangement, also. Which makes me think it is more about being anti-homosexual then it is about "preserving [heterosexual] marriage". And, yes, I know that many in the gay community (at least officially) oppose anything short of the term marriage, even though other constructs may have the same legal provisions.
And, Midway, be a little less pedantic - typos, spelling and grammar errors are common in forums like this. As long as we can understand each other ... cut us a little slack?
Those are not grammatical errors. They are usage errors that simply add to the sense of confusion within the post. Important social issues are being discussed here. The participants should comport themselves with a modicum of intelligence. If they are incapable of doing so, there opinions become suspect as well.
In other words, maybe their thoughts are as slapdash as their writing?
The typo is for y'all
Quote from: Midway on January 18, 2008, 12:04:18 AM
I am having a difficult time trying to understand exactly the point that you are trying to make. Remember clarity and brevity are everything. Also, I think you may mean Impasse, as opposed to the Italian word empasse?
I have a newborn baby...I don't have time for spell check, and it was late at night. :P
Quote from: Midway on January 18, 2008, 07:16:34 AM
...If they are incapable of doing so, there opinions become suspect as well.
In other words, maybe their thoughts are as slapdash as their writing?
Well, Midway, thanks for the divisive comments and hijacking the thread. If you weren't so anal, maybe you could look past the slight grammatical or spelling errors and actually stick with the subject at hand. Usually, people who attack errors like this do so because they are inept at making points in the debate.
If there is one thing I despise, it's condescending tripe that you have just written. If you can't make a valid point that's even relevant to the subject at hand, stay the hell out of the conversation.
Quote from: gatorback on January 17, 2008, 09:58:37 PM
Your intolerance is not going to be my burdon. I feel if one pays equal taxes they should be afforded equal protections it's that simple. It's quintessential America. If you love America, then you are for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it's in our Premable? You thinking my family is less moral then yours, or his, or theirs is completely and without qualification the most asinine rant ever to waste bits in this space.
Amen.
As for some other folks on here (you know who you are), regardless of how many times someone disagreed with your viewpoints or the manner in which they WROTE they disagreed with it, at no time did anyone make a demand for you to concede and step out of the forum. I think that same respect needs to be offered to others as well. So, if you want to wish someone to "hell", please do so in your place of worship, not in this forum.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 18, 2008, 01:46:52 PM
Amen.
As for some other folks on here (you know who you are), regardless of how many times someone disagreed with your viewpoints or the manner in which they WROTE they disagreed with it, at no time did anyone make a demand for you to concede and step out of the forum. I think that same respect needs to be offered to others as well. So, if you want to wish someone to "hell", please do so in your place of worship, not in this forum.
Pancake, like a complete liberal, you twist and manipulate my words to make yourself look morally superior, which is something I cannot stand. At no time did I tell Midway to get off the forum...I merely said (out of my frustration at his condescension towards me because of one misspelled word and one grammatical error in my previous posts) that if he couldn't make posts that actually pertained to the subject at hand, he basically needed to not post. My "request" had nothing to do with whether or not I disagreed with him on the issue of the marriage amendment.
As for gatorback, he is entitled to his opinion as I am mine. At no point in my post did I direct my frustration at him specifically due to our disagreement; however, it is apparent that he was upset at my comments, calling them asinine.
And you wonder why I don't like to debate issues with you? Good grief.
QuotePancake, like a complete liberal, you twist and manipulate my words to make yourself look morally superior
1) I am not, nor have I ever professed to be, a liberal. If you must know, I'm a registered independent
2) I never "twisted" any of your words. I believe I simply used your own words against you, "If you can't make a valid point that's even relevant to the subject at hand, stay the hell out of the conversation."
QuoteAnd you wonder why I don't like to debate issues with you?[
Uh...no, I don't "wonder". In fact, you might be surprised at how very little I wonder or think about you at all.
It doesn't matter if you've professed to be a liberal or not. Your words and actions on this forum alone define what you really stand for, and I have yet to see an "independent" thought come from you. You toe the liberal agenda on almost everything, from what I've read.
Using my words against me is considered manipulation. You also twisted the context of my posts, which were directed to Midway with his ostentatious concerns on my spelling and grammar, and somehow directed them to gatorback and his opinions. And I DIDN'T tell somebody to go to hell. YOU took my statement of frustration and twisted it in your own warped logic. It's pretty sad that you would do that, but I shouldn't expect anything less from you.
I notice you said nothing of Midway basically questioning my intelligence, which was the sole reason I got upset. Picking and choosing, aren't we?
I am sorry to have interfered with your mission. Perhaps I am off topic. But I seem to have changed just as many hearts and minds as you have. Looks like we are both 0 for 0 on that one.
So it would appear that both of our accomplishments with regard to effecting change are on an equal footing then.
I am not sure if you are just editorializing, or if as you say, this is a discussion. A discussion is an interchange of intelligent thought and verifiable facts, conducted in a civil fashion.
I am just trying to get you to understand that if you would present a coherent and well reasoned argument, you actually could change some hearts and minds, that's all, instead of talking about straw men, liberals, having your words twisted, being a victim and so forth.
Stay with your argument. Present facts. play to win. Otherwise, this is just worthless blather.
Ok, for one, can we get back on the freckin topic at hand, this is turning into a 3rd grade type "fight" ANY FRECKIN WAYS, I am totally against a marriage amendment. This is just such a stupid thing our government is having to deal with. I'm sorry, I believe in God and all, but the Bible is more the less, a book, this coming from a raised Southern Baptist! The WORD has been interpreted so many different ways, its useless now, hell look how many different types of Protestant there is! I do not approve of restricting gays at all, this is a violation of civil rights, of wait, guess my people got left out in the cold, and to think OUR GOVERNOR is a closet case, there is much evidence to back this, I mean MUCH!, ask alot of people in Orlando. I just don;t see why we have to define marriage, I mean, its practically stupid now anyways, just a reson to change your last name nowadays. Love is what it is, love, I dunno why the government has to say who we can marry. >:(
I agree.
It's just commonsensical.
I don't understand why this is supported by most Republicans? Aren't Republicans for smaller government and less government intervention in everyday lives? It seems to me that most Republicans complain about too much government regulation, but when an issue like this comes up, the very same people turn to the government to solve this problem. It seems to be going against what they tand for.
Personally, if gay marriage/civil unions aren't putting our nation in danger or hurting our economy, then why the hell not? I don't support homosexuality, but I don't really care what everyone else does as long as their actions are not putting our nation in mortal danger...
Quote from: Charleston native on January 18, 2008, 06:14:36 PM
It doesn't matter if you've professed to be a liberal or not. Your words and actions on this forum alone define what you really stand for, and I have yet to see an "independent" thought come from you. You toe the liberal agenda on almost everything, from what I've read.
Using my words against me is considered manipulation. You also twisted the context of my posts, which were directed to Midway with his ostentatious concerns on my spelling and grammar, and somehow directed them to gatorback and his opinions. And I DIDN'T tell somebody to go to hell. YOU took my statement of frustration and twisted it in your own warped logic. It's pretty sad that you would do that, but I shouldn't expect anything less from you.
I notice you said nothing of Midway basically questioning my intelligence, which was the sole reason I got upset. Picking and choosing, aren't we?
Wow. Somebody needs to take the pink pill not the blue pill before blogging.
I don't like your choice of words as they are hostile in nature. Allow me:
Quote from: Charleston native on January 18, 2008, 06:14:36 PM
It doesn't matter if you've professed to be a liberal or not. Your words and actions on this forum alone define what you really stand for, and I have yet to see an "independent" thought come from you. You toe the liberal agenda on almost everything, from what I've read.
I respect your opinion; however, I'm not completely sure where you're coming from. Reading your post you appear to toe the line of the liberal agenda which is okay. Although I do not agree with it.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 18, 2008, 06:14:36 PM
Using my words against me is considered manipulation. You also twisted the context of my posts, which were directed to Midway with his ostentatious concerns on my spelling and grammar, and somehow directed them to gatorback and his opinions. And I DIDN'T tell somebody to go to hell. YOU took my statement of frustration and twisted it in your own warped logic. It's pretty sad that you would do that, but I shouldn't expect anything less from you.
Perhaps I did not articulate the point I was trying to make. My comments were to Midway in particular. I'm sorry if I offended him with my numerous typographical and gramatic errors. In the future I will reread my post and put them through a spell checker to catch errors in an effort to convey my thoughts clearly.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 18, 2008, 06:14:36 PM
notice you said nothing of Midway basically questioning my intelligence, which was the sole reason I got upset. Picking and choosing, aren't we?
You hurt my feelings by not validating my intelligence. After a good night sleep, I am feeling better now. In church the other day I asked for and was forgiven. Please forgive me, I don't know what i was thinking.
Okay? Can we get past all that people? Equal protection for equal taxes. Do not support the so-called marriage protection amendment. It's not right.
I believe in equal rights across the board. Which means that if a man and a woman can get married, so can homos. We do not need another law to further define the what constitutes relationship between two consenting adults. I know mine is not a popular stance, but gays are no different than straight people and should be respected the same as everyone else.
Other than liking techno music there aren't any differences between gays and straights. I never did understand that stuff :-\
Quote from: gatorback on January 19, 2008, 05:38:38 PM
Wow. Somebody needs to take the pink pill not the blue pill before blogging.
I don't like your choice of words as they are hostile in nature. Allow me:
Well, yeah, I guess the truth can be hostile in nature. Oh well.
QuoteYou hurt my feelings by not validating my intelligence. After a good night sleep, I am feeling better now. In church the other day I asked for and was forgiven. Please forgive me, I don't know what i was thinking.
Nice. Interesting way of mocking me in addition to taking jabs at my religious practices. Such tolerance...I feel it.
Anyway, I think the marriage protection goes far beyond religious beliefs. It is an institution that has carried on in the same manner for thousands of years, throughout mankind's existence on this planet. Changing the definition of marriage, which is what many of you appear to want, will have numerous ramifications, IMO. I guess the one thing that we could all agree on is that government shouldn't give benefits of ANY type in order to avoid issues like this.
I'm not "mocking" you. As evident by your post, I lack the mental capacity to mock somebody like you.
At best I'm making light of your points for the MPA. ;)
Humans have been sacrificing animals to the gods for over 12,000 years. Want to keep that up too?
Quote from: gatorback on January 20, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
Humans have been sacrificing animals to the gods for over 12,000 years. Want to keep that up too?
Well, that was a practice that did not necessarily affect the procreation of mankind, now did it? It is a red herring argument, but I do understand the parallel you're trying make with it. However, did you ever hear of the old-saying that still is truthful to this day: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" This amendment isn't trying to "fix" anything, but it is attempting to prohibit other groups with different agendas to "fix" the institution of marriage.
I know we'll never agree on this, but I do want to make it clear that my support for this amendment goes beyond my religious beliefs. Even if I didn't have any faith in God, I don't think it would be right to change marriage.
Do you mean change marriage again? As the U.S. and other societies have done many times.
Maybe. How did US and other societies change marriage equaling a union between one man and one woman? By changing marriage, I mean changing the gender makeup of that union.
Well many societies have and do allow multiple women in the marriage. A different principle than our one man one woman. The Netherlands started allowing same sex marriages in 2001.( a western cultural example) Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, this was not the will of the population but it is an example of the U.S. once again redefining marriage.(an argument could be made that this is still the current issue and does not merit precedence) I do think a person wanting to define marriage by his own or his groups traditions is as valid as any other view. The government just shouldn't have any role in defining or redefining marriage.
I agree 120% wid ya JS; however, allowing equal protection for equal taxes is what I'm saying this is about.
Jeffrey, the Massachusetts decision is what indeed provoked the Amendment. In other instances, the US made polygamy illegal, so I do see your point. But the Amendment exists due to other decisions being made against the will of the people.
Gator, I think your last point is where we can all agree: government defining marriage and giving tax benefits should not be done. I'm all for not receiving tax benefits as a married person...leave government out of it.
And we did it in only three pages--they said it couldn't be done ;)
Common ground can be found...luckily, it didn't take 10 pages. ;D
Dear Jacksonville Resident,
I am emailing you to encourage you to join the Fairness for All Families Coalition.
The Fairness for All Families Coalition is hosting a community forum Jan 30 at the UNF Auditorium at 7pm.
Come learn about the so-called "Marriage Amendment" at Florida's First Fairness for ALL Families Forum which will be held here in Jacksonville Florida!
Here is the proposed Amendment Language:
"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."
This dangerous amendment will be voted on in November of 2008 and it threatens to take away family protections, eliminate access to health care, and make it harder to protect loved ones in Florida. We need to defeat this harmful amendment!
I hope you will join us in opposing this amendment that threatens Florida's families.
Contact alainr@fairnessforallfamilies.org for more information.
Jessica McCaffrey
President
Florida National Organization for Women