Wednesday, May 14, 2008
You've heard Florida and Michigan mentioned together when the issue is Democratic presidential delegates. They are being mentioned again when the issue is bans on same-sex marriage.
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's 2004 man/woman-only marriage amendment means that counties and cities cannot offer domestic partner benefits. Opponents of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which goes before Florida voters in November, have argued that by placing in the constitution what state law already forbids, the amendment also would jeopardize those benefits for Floridians.
What are these?
Obviously, a Michigan court ruling has no power in Florida. Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment also note the differences between the two proposals.
The Michigan amendment read this way: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The Florida amendment reads this way: "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."
In Michigan, the key phrase for the court was "similar union for any purpose," which is not in the Florida amendment. By a vote of 5-2, the Michigan high court ruled that the amendment linked marriage and domestic partnerships. Backers of the Florida amendment point to a 2006 Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion that their proposal does not intend to eliminate domestic partner benefits along with same-sex marriage, and thus would not violate the state constitution.
Still, like the Michigan amendment, Florida's same-sex ban contains the word "recognized." In the Michigan case, a key portion of the majority opinion stated, "When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership."
The Florida advisory opinion was unanimous, but it's still just advisory. The court always notes that allowing an amendment on the ballot doesn't indicate an opinion about the amendment. In Michigan, a trial court judge ruled that the same-sex marriage ban did not apply to domestic partnerships, but was overturned. And, of course, there was disagreement among members of the supreme court.
As all lawyers know, there's no certainty with any jury or any court. There's also no certainty about the possible reach of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Florida Today: Don't fall for the hoax
Our view: Reject the bigotry
Florida Today, 2/10/2008
View article on Florida Today
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.
Florida Today, 2/10/2008
View article on Florida Today
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Palm Beach Post Editorial: Same ol' same-sex ban
Same ol' same-sex ban
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
THE NEWS-PRESS Editorial: Marriage amendment breeds bias
THE NEWS-PRESS
Editorial
Marriage amendment breeds bias
Originally posted on January 31, 2008
We need stronger families, including traditional married couples and other kinds of families, in our state and nation.
But the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment will do nothing to further that goal.
The News-Press Editorial Board opposes the amendment. If the measure receives enough signatures by Friday, it will be on the November ballot. It will need 60 percent of the vote to pass.
This gay marriage ban employs the blunt instrument of a constitutional amendment to deal crudely with an issue that should be left to our elected lawmakers - who have already limited legal marriage to heterosexual couples.
Here's the ballot language:
"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
So, it not only denies gays and lesbians the right to legal marriage, but bans even civil unions, which could allow same-sex couples the legal rights of married couples. It could even limit the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples.
If this amendment should pass, our constitution will be used to discriminate against a whole class of innocent citizens, to diminish human rights rather than expand them.
Family is more important than ever, but it takes many different forms today.
People of good faith may oppose gay marriage, but they are being used by this campaign to punish gays and lesbians in the false belief that this somehow strengthens traditional marriage.
Editorial
Marriage amendment breeds bias
Originally posted on January 31, 2008
We need stronger families, including traditional married couples and other kinds of families, in our state and nation.
But the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment will do nothing to further that goal.
The News-Press Editorial Board opposes the amendment. If the measure receives enough signatures by Friday, it will be on the November ballot. It will need 60 percent of the vote to pass.
This gay marriage ban employs the blunt instrument of a constitutional amendment to deal crudely with an issue that should be left to our elected lawmakers - who have already limited legal marriage to heterosexual couples.
Here's the ballot language:
"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
So, it not only denies gays and lesbians the right to legal marriage, but bans even civil unions, which could allow same-sex couples the legal rights of married couples. It could even limit the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples.
If this amendment should pass, our constitution will be used to discriminate against a whole class of innocent citizens, to diminish human rights rather than expand them.
Family is more important than ever, but it takes many different forms today.
People of good faith may oppose gay marriage, but they are being used by this campaign to punish gays and lesbians in the false belief that this somehow strengthens traditional marriage.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Saint Pete Times Editorial: Crist wisely ignores the extremists
Crist wisely ignores the extremists
A Times Editorial
Published January 7, 2008
Our sensible "live and let live" Republican governor has done it again, governing from the middle rather than allowing himself to be dragged into the ideological extremes of his party. Gov. Charlie Crist is telling those who are intent on pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that he isn't interested in their cause. He has the serious business of the state to attend to.
Florida is facing skyrocketing property insurance costs, a housing market meltdown, reduced state revenues and educational challenges as far as one can see. These are issues commanding the time and attention of the governor and the public. A mean-spirited constitutional amendment that essentially repeats what is in state law is about the last thing this state needs. A campaign to ban same-sex marriage will only serve to polarize Floridians, distracting the state from the serious challenges ahead.
The so-called Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is ill-advised beyond the intolerance it communicates to gay and lesbian Floridians. The language does not just outlaw same-sex marriage; it prevents the recognition of any "substantial equivalent" to marriage as well, meaning civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships.
Under the amendment, Florida's cities and counties that maintain domestic partnership registries may have to shut them down, with those couples possibly losing health and other partner benefits. The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research says that terminating these registries could mean additional costs to county-run hospitals when patients no longer enjoy the insurance coverage once provided by their domestic partners.
Registered partners also typically have rights to visit each other in the hospital and make health care decisions for one another. Elderly heterosexual couples could be particularly impacted if they aren't married in order to protect their Social Security payments.
Supporters of the amendment claim to have enough valid signatures for it to get on the November ballot. Passage would require at least 60 percent of total votes cast.
Yet, since 2004, when anti-same-sex marriage fervor gripped this nation and initiatives passed in 11 states, opinion polls indicate that the public cares little about the issue relative to other national concerns such as the Iraq war and health care. Maybe the governor's refusal to play along will marginalize the demagogues. And maybe the governor's leadership will encourage Floridians to follow their better instincts and grant their fellow citizens the freedom to "live and let live."
© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
A Times Editorial
Published January 7, 2008
Our sensible "live and let live" Republican governor has done it again, governing from the middle rather than allowing himself to be dragged into the ideological extremes of his party. Gov. Charlie Crist is telling those who are intent on pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that he isn't interested in their cause. He has the serious business of the state to attend to.
Florida is facing skyrocketing property insurance costs, a housing market meltdown, reduced state revenues and educational challenges as far as one can see. These are issues commanding the time and attention of the governor and the public. A mean-spirited constitutional amendment that essentially repeats what is in state law is about the last thing this state needs. A campaign to ban same-sex marriage will only serve to polarize Floridians, distracting the state from the serious challenges ahead.
The so-called Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is ill-advised beyond the intolerance it communicates to gay and lesbian Floridians. The language does not just outlaw same-sex marriage; it prevents the recognition of any "substantial equivalent" to marriage as well, meaning civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships.
Under the amendment, Florida's cities and counties that maintain domestic partnership registries may have to shut them down, with those couples possibly losing health and other partner benefits. The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research says that terminating these registries could mean additional costs to county-run hospitals when patients no longer enjoy the insurance coverage once provided by their domestic partners.
Registered partners also typically have rights to visit each other in the hospital and make health care decisions for one another. Elderly heterosexual couples could be particularly impacted if they aren't married in order to protect their Social Security payments.
Supporters of the amendment claim to have enough valid signatures for it to get on the November ballot. Passage would require at least 60 percent of total votes cast.
Yet, since 2004, when anti-same-sex marriage fervor gripped this nation and initiatives passed in 11 states, opinion polls indicate that the public cares little about the issue relative to other national concerns such as the Iraq war and health care. Maybe the governor's refusal to play along will marginalize the demagogues. And maybe the governor's leadership will encourage Floridians to follow their better instincts and grant their fellow citizens the freedom to "live and let live."
© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sun Sentinel Editorial: Amendment may change way you live
December 2007
Amendment may change way you live
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Are you a heterosexual Floridian who is, as some might describe it, "living in sin"? Are you and your significant other retirees who registered as domestic partners to ensure you wouldn't be denied the right to visit each other in the hospital? Or, are you younger or middle-aged, and have health insurance or other benefits through your partner's employer?
If you and your other half are a gay or non-married straight couple and receive domestic partnership benefits either through a local registry or through your employer, those benefits might disappear if the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is placed on the ballot this November and enough Floridians vote for it.
The constitutional amendment is supposedly designed to prevent any of Florida's non-existent, pro-gay marriage activist judges from ruling against state law that already prohibits same-sex marriages or legal recognition of same-sex relationships "treated as marriage."
However, the amendment goes much further than state law, since it was also designed to prohibit any relationship Florida courts may decide in the future is "the substantial equivalent" of marriage. Of course this phrase was added specifically to challenge the only "substantial equivalent" of marriage offered by a few cities and counties in Florida - domestic partnership registries.
The amendment's backers claim they aren't interested in challenging domestic partnerships, and they even used a Stetson University family law professor to opine that civil unions and domestic partnerships are not substantially equivalent to marriage. But then, what "substantial equivalent" of marriage are they trying to prohibit?
When Broward County's domestic partnership registry was challenged several years ago, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals determined that domestic partnerships didn't violate state law because they aren't "relationships treated as marriages," a ruling the Florida Supreme Court let stand.
But if the amendment passes, could Florida courts determine that domestic partnerships are the "substantial equivalent" of marriage? That's certainly the hope of the amendment's designers, who'd like to kill two birds with one amendment that reinforces Florida's ban on same-sex marriages and can also be used to challenge domestic partnership registries, to prevent those "living in sin" from receiving any benefit for it.
What they'd like to see happen here is a reoccurrence of what happened in Michigan, which passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 banning same-sex marriages and "similar unions."
Earlier this year, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that recognizing domestic partnerships "give same-sex domestic couples similar status to that of married couples," so such couples were not entitled to health benefits from local and state governments or universities. Since the ruling, several public employers in Michigan have rescinded their domestic partner benefits.
Currently, conservatives are seeking signatures to challenge California's domestic partnership law that gives all unmarried couples basic rights such as hospital visitation and making health care decisions. They got a judge to halt Oregon's domestic partnership law from taking effect Jan. 1, which offers hospital visitation and inheritance rights. They oppose Arizona's governor's plan to provide domestic partnership benefits for state employees and retirees. And they're pushing a bill in Kentucky that would prevent state agencies from offering unmarried couples domestic partnership benefits.
So, if the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment passes, will conservatives challenge domestic partnership registries and employer domestic partner benefits here in the Sunshine State? You can count on it.
If you're "living in sin," Florida's moralists hope to place an amendment on November's ballot that will challenge your rights. Don't let them. Reject the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
Amendment may change way you live
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Are you a heterosexual Floridian who is, as some might describe it, "living in sin"? Are you and your significant other retirees who registered as domestic partners to ensure you wouldn't be denied the right to visit each other in the hospital? Or, are you younger or middle-aged, and have health insurance or other benefits through your partner's employer?
If you and your other half are a gay or non-married straight couple and receive domestic partnership benefits either through a local registry or through your employer, those benefits might disappear if the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is placed on the ballot this November and enough Floridians vote for it.
The constitutional amendment is supposedly designed to prevent any of Florida's non-existent, pro-gay marriage activist judges from ruling against state law that already prohibits same-sex marriages or legal recognition of same-sex relationships "treated as marriage."
However, the amendment goes much further than state law, since it was also designed to prohibit any relationship Florida courts may decide in the future is "the substantial equivalent" of marriage. Of course this phrase was added specifically to challenge the only "substantial equivalent" of marriage offered by a few cities and counties in Florida - domestic partnership registries.
The amendment's backers claim they aren't interested in challenging domestic partnerships, and they even used a Stetson University family law professor to opine that civil unions and domestic partnerships are not substantially equivalent to marriage. But then, what "substantial equivalent" of marriage are they trying to prohibit?
When Broward County's domestic partnership registry was challenged several years ago, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals determined that domestic partnerships didn't violate state law because they aren't "relationships treated as marriages," a ruling the Florida Supreme Court let stand.
But if the amendment passes, could Florida courts determine that domestic partnerships are the "substantial equivalent" of marriage? That's certainly the hope of the amendment's designers, who'd like to kill two birds with one amendment that reinforces Florida's ban on same-sex marriages and can also be used to challenge domestic partnership registries, to prevent those "living in sin" from receiving any benefit for it.
What they'd like to see happen here is a reoccurrence of what happened in Michigan, which passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 banning same-sex marriages and "similar unions."
Earlier this year, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that recognizing domestic partnerships "give same-sex domestic couples similar status to that of married couples," so such couples were not entitled to health benefits from local and state governments or universities. Since the ruling, several public employers in Michigan have rescinded their domestic partner benefits.
Currently, conservatives are seeking signatures to challenge California's domestic partnership law that gives all unmarried couples basic rights such as hospital visitation and making health care decisions. They got a judge to halt Oregon's domestic partnership law from taking effect Jan. 1, which offers hospital visitation and inheritance rights. They oppose Arizona's governor's plan to provide domestic partnership benefits for state employees and retirees. And they're pushing a bill in Kentucky that would prevent state agencies from offering unmarried couples domestic partnership benefits.
So, if the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment passes, will conservatives challenge domestic partnership registries and employer domestic partner benefits here in the Sunshine State? You can count on it.
If you're "living in sin," Florida's moralists hope to place an amendment on November's ballot that will challenge your rights. Don't let them. Reject the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Ocala Star Banner: Solving a nonexistant problem
Ocala Star-Banner
Solving a nonexistent problem
December 29, 2007
Ban opponents maintain that the wording of the amendment could be used to deny couples, including heterosexual ones, and among them senior citizens who choose not to marry in order to keep their individual perks, of domestic partner benefits now protected by law. Gainesville is just one Florida city that allows couples, either heterosexual or gay, to register for that.
John Stemberger, who heads up Florida4Marriage, has blasted such arguments as "scare tactics." He even told the Tallahassee Democrat recently that his group wouldn't challenge laws protecting domestic-partner benefits. That's an odd stance for a group dedicated to saving so called traditional marriage: They're fighting tooth and nail to keep same-sex couples from sharing in the benefits - and trials - of marriage, but they are OK with heterosexual couples who openly choose to "live in sin." That speaks volumes about their real motives.
On Wednesday, Stemberger told the Northwest Florida Daily News, "Same-sex marriage inflicts a vast untested social experiment on children, and that's an experiment that we're not willing to take," adding that, "(c)hildren flourish better when there's a mother and father in the home."
If Florida4Marriage truly believed that, perhaps they should put as much energy and resources into slowing our state's outrageous rates of divorce, single parenthood and teen pregnancy - and not just target homosexuals. If so, we might find their efforts to rescue our state and culture, which now are focused on demolishing straw men in the form of gay couples, more palatable and worthwhile.
Solving a nonexistent problem
December 29, 2007
Ban opponents maintain that the wording of the amendment could be used to deny couples, including heterosexual ones, and among them senior citizens who choose not to marry in order to keep their individual perks, of domestic partner benefits now protected by law. Gainesville is just one Florida city that allows couples, either heterosexual or gay, to register for that.
John Stemberger, who heads up Florida4Marriage, has blasted such arguments as "scare tactics." He even told the Tallahassee Democrat recently that his group wouldn't challenge laws protecting domestic-partner benefits. That's an odd stance for a group dedicated to saving so called traditional marriage: They're fighting tooth and nail to keep same-sex couples from sharing in the benefits - and trials - of marriage, but they are OK with heterosexual couples who openly choose to "live in sin." That speaks volumes about their real motives.
On Wednesday, Stemberger told the Northwest Florida Daily News, "Same-sex marriage inflicts a vast untested social experiment on children, and that's an experiment that we're not willing to take," adding that, "(c)hildren flourish better when there's a mother and father in the home."
If Florida4Marriage truly believed that, perhaps they should put as much energy and resources into slowing our state's outrageous rates of divorce, single parenthood and teen pregnancy - and not just target homosexuals. If so, we might find their efforts to rescue our state and culture, which now are focused on demolishing straw men in the form of gay couples, more palatable and worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
