Anti-gay 'marriage' plan should go down in defeat
By RON LITTLEPAGE, The Times-Union
Amendment 2 is the most controversial of the six proposed constitutional amendments on the general election ballot.
The ballot title reads: "In as much as a 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."
Those supporting the amendment argue its purpose is to protect the institution of marriage and provide a healthy home environment for children.
That's a smoke screen. The amendment is clearly anti-gay and yet another example of the Christian right trying to use government to push its values and intrude into people's private lives.
Those are two reasons I'm voting no. Another is the amendment isn't needed.
Florida Statute 741.212 already defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman "for the purpose of interpreting any state statute or rule."
It also says Florida won't recognize any same-sex union recognized by other states or countries.
Amendment proponents say they fear an activist judge will override that law, and that's why they want to insert the prohibition against same-sex unions into the state constitution.
In my view, the statute is bad enough, but the amendment would go even further.
The clause "or substantial equivalent thereof" opens the door for the same anti-gay activists to challenge domestic partnerships that are recognized by some local governments and governmental institutions.
As stated above, the government should keep its nose out of people's private lives.
If churches only want to recognize marriages between one man and one woman, that's understandable and their right.
Those are the only marriages they should bless.
But the state shouldn't discriminate against one domestic partnership while recognizing another.
If the amendment passes, it could open a can of worms that could affect the legal rights of all Floridans, not just same sex couples, involving such issues as estate planning, hospital visitation, even alimony.
There's a lot of money being poured into this campaign, both for and against the amendment.
If you have access to the Internet, you can see what both sides are saying by going to their Web sites.
The proponents' site is at www.yes2-marriage.org; the opponents' is at www.say-no2.com.
Of course, if you Google "Florida Amendment 2," you will find numerous other sites with plenty of pros and cons.
For the amendment to become part of the state constitution, 60 percent of the voters will have to approve.
A Quinnipiac University poll found support among Florida voters was just shy of that threshold.
The general election ballot is long. Make sure your voice is heard on Amendment 2.
ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4284
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Tale of Two States
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Tale of Two States
Florida and California. Both are big. Both have sunshine and beaches and “beautiful people” and lots and lots of transplants from other parts of the country.And both states have a proposed Constitutional amendment on their ballot to define marriage. Or, more accurately, to exclude a group of people (namely LGBT people) from the institution of marriage and prevent them from receiving the piece of paper from the state that recognizes their union to their beloved.
You may remember that California’s ballot initiative became a reality after the state Supreme Court found no grounds for denying marriage licenses to LGBT couples.
In Florida, Amendment Two has been a long brewing scheme of collecting signatures to place this question before the voters. Initially, we thought it would be on the ballot in 2006, but then the proponents decided to take their time…and made sure it was ready in time for the 2008 election. Funny how it happens to also be a presidential election year. What a coincidence!
And what a scary proposition for its potential passage!
If you follow blogs such as SisterFriends-Together or An Inch At A Time, you will see how active the campaign is in California to defeat their Proposition Eight. Why in California, not just individual churches, but the Bishops of several dioceses of the Episcopal Church have been on the forefront speaking out against this amendment and noting its bigotry toward LGBT people. There are those in the Episcopal Church who have countered that the “institution” of marriage is one that comes through the state, and the role of the church is a “blessing” of that union. Proponents of “one-man, one-woman” marriage cite Genesis and the creation of Adam and Eve to promote their ideology as being given to us directly from God. I counter that in that creation story in Genesis, there is no altar, no priest, no paperwork, no bridesmaids, no groomsmen….in other words…Adam and Eve weren’t “married”.
But back to the tale of the two states. As noted, churches in California from the accounts that I am reading have taken an active role in opposing marital bigotry. In Florida, the church remains silent. In fact, lots of groups have remained silent. And when they do speak up, as is the case of the League of Women Voters, they oppose Amendment Two not on the grounds that it will put into the constitution language that currently exists in statute defining marriage and denying it to gay people, but they look for the “how this hurts straight people like the elderly” as their argument. And I can only presume they are attacking Amendment Two on this premise because they figure that’s an easier sell then telling the public it’s wrong to discriminate against gay people.
How sad. How very sad that we can’t acknowledge who is really the target because if we did, it might-what-backfire?
Worse yet, there is a serious chance this amendment will pass in Florida because of the presidential election. There’s the obvious vote of McCain-Palin gun-toting, NASCAR-watching, Joe Six-Packs who supported those in the legislature that voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the late 90s. And there is an additional issue with Barack Obama, an African-American, on the ballot. In Florida, predominantly black churches are very homophobic. And the black church is one of the biggest political machines in their community. So it appears the proponents of Amendment Two really were smart to hold-off and place the question on the ballot this year.
Obama has also enthused the college-aged voting block, and younger generations appear to be less-inclined to see marriage as something just for straight couples. But will enough of them go to vote to cancel out their parents and grandparents?
In California, the straight Republican Governor has said he doesn’t support Proposition Eight. In Florida, our Republican Governor Charlie Crist has kept a low profile on Amendment Two.
Can we count on Democrats to oppose bigotry? Well, the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lauderdale recently announced his support for Amendment Two. Supposedly, there is Florida Red and Blue, a bipartisan effort to fight the constitutional amendment, but besides one lame mail-out which again kept the “why you should vote NO” message very vague, I have not seen nor heard anything from this group. Fairness for All Families has called our house hundreds of times to ask for money, but not to mobilize against the amendment.
The only glimmer of hope we seem to have in Florida is that Amendment Two will need at least 60-percent approval to pass. Right now, they’re polling at about 55-58 percent in favor.
Perhaps we need a little California chutzpah in the Sunshine State. Or at least the courage to name the bigotry inherent in Amendment Two, and appeal to people’s better selves when they go to vote on November 4th.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Lawyer Group Opposes Same-Gender Marriage Amendment 2
Lawyer Group Opposes Same-Gender Marriage Amendment 2
BY JENNIFER MOONEY jmooney@MiamiHerald.com
October 9, 2008
Members of the legal community are joining forces in opposition to a statewide ballot measure that would ban gay marriage by specifying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
More than 150 lawyers from across the state signed a letter against Amendment 2, claiming that its wording is vague and could lead to the revocation of domestic partnership rights and fewer domestic violence convictions.
Supporters of Amendment 2 say that's a scare tactic.
The letter was released Wednesday by Florida Red & Blue, a bipartisan campaign fighting the ``Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.''
The attorneys are encouraging voters on Nov. 4 to say ''no'' to the proposal, which opponents say will have consequences on all unmarried couples in Florida, gay and straight.
If the amendment is approved by 60 percent of voters, it will be added to the Constitution.
Those against the amendment say it could lead to the potential loss of existing legal protection and benefits, including alimony, estate planning and domestic partnership registries.
Among the lawyers who signed the letter: former Florida House speakers Peter Wallace and Richard Pettigrew, and Talbot ''Sandy'' D'Alemberte, former president of the American Bar Association and former president of Florida State University.
BY JENNIFER MOONEY jmooney@MiamiHerald.com
October 9, 2008
Members of the legal community are joining forces in opposition to a statewide ballot measure that would ban gay marriage by specifying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
More than 150 lawyers from across the state signed a letter against Amendment 2, claiming that its wording is vague and could lead to the revocation of domestic partnership rights and fewer domestic violence convictions.
Supporters of Amendment 2 say that's a scare tactic.
The letter was released Wednesday by Florida Red & Blue, a bipartisan campaign fighting the ``Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.''
The attorneys are encouraging voters on Nov. 4 to say ''no'' to the proposal, which opponents say will have consequences on all unmarried couples in Florida, gay and straight.
If the amendment is approved by 60 percent of voters, it will be added to the Constitution.
Those against the amendment say it could lead to the potential loss of existing legal protection and benefits, including alimony, estate planning and domestic partnership registries.
Among the lawyers who signed the letter: former Florida House speakers Peter Wallace and Richard Pettigrew, and Talbot ''Sandy'' D'Alemberte, former president of the American Bar Association and former president of Florida State University.
Amendent 2 Battle Heating Up
Amendment 2 Battle Heating Up
October 9th, 2008 by Whitney Ray
A coalition of groups representing retirees, educators, and others is
launching a million dollars TV campaign to fight Amendment 2. The
amendment is titled The Protection of Marriage Act, but opponents say
the amendment has grave consequences for couples who live together, gay
or not. Pastor Brent Copeland said he is a firm believer in Marriage.
“I think marriage should be held in honor among all people just as the letter to the Hebrews says. But I am opposed to amendment 2 because it would do real harm to people who are not married. The elderly couples that feel they cannot marry for economic reasons, and to people with domestic partnerships whose health and pension benefits could be taken away if this amendment should pass,” Copeland.
In one TV spot, an older couple describes the problems that could hit
seniors who are living together, but not married, it the amendment were
to pass. Say No to 2 says it will spend as much as it can raise to
defeat the amendment.
October 9th, 2008 by Whitney Ray
A coalition of groups representing retirees, educators, and others is
launching a million dollars TV campaign to fight Amendment 2. The
amendment is titled The Protection of Marriage Act, but opponents say
the amendment has grave consequences for couples who live together, gay
or not. Pastor Brent Copeland said he is a firm believer in Marriage.
“I think marriage should be held in honor among all people just as the letter to the Hebrews says. But I am opposed to amendment 2 because it would do real harm to people who are not married. The elderly couples that feel they cannot marry for economic reasons, and to people with domestic partnerships whose health and pension benefits could be taken away if this amendment should pass,” Copeland.
In one TV spot, an older couple describes the problems that could hit
seniors who are living together, but not married, it the amendment were
to pass. Say No to 2 says it will spend as much as it can raise to
defeat the amendment.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Gainesville Sun Op Ed: Looking For Trouble
Gainesville Sun Op Ed
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20081008/OPINION01/810090292/1076/OPINION?Title=Looking_for_trouble
Looking for trouble
Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 12:20 a.m.
These are uncertain times. The crash on Wall Street has Americans worried about their financial futures. Can we weather this storm and still be able to pass something on to our loved ones and children?
With all this uncertainty, why in the world would Floridians take an action that could even further undermine their financial arrangements? All for the sake of resolving an issue that has already been resolved in this state.
Under Florida law same sex marriages are prohibited. But on the Nov. 4 general election ballot will appear proposed Amendment 2 to the Florida Constitution. It states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one women as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
This is a classic wedge issue, a cynical ploy to divide Floridians against one another in a hotly contested election year.
Beyond that, Amendment 2 is a legal time bomb, ticking with unpredictable and unintended consequences. This thanks to the portion of the amendment that states "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
What does that mean? Nobody really knows.
This week arrived a cautionary letter signed by 154 Florida attorneys, including former state House Speakers Peter Wallace and Richard Pettigrew and former American Bar Association President Talbot D'Alemberte.
"Adding such vague, untested and undefined language is likely to deliver unanticipated repercussions and could substantially alter our state both economically and legally," the letter warns. "While no one can know the full impact of the proposed amendment, litigation will result as vested interests challenge shared health plans, defend domestic abusers or governments seek clarity in the undefined language in the proposal."
The language could have negative impacts on alimony payments, property and estate planning, domestic partnership financial arrangements and domestic violence protections, the letter states. All this for the sake of banning what is already banned by state law.
This is a very bad amendment intended to divide us one against the other. It is sloppily written at best and malicious in intent at worst. In either case, to vote for Amendment 2 is to go looking for trouble.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20081008/OPINION01/810090292/1076/OPINION?Title=Looking_for_trouble
Looking for trouble
Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 12:20 a.m.
These are uncertain times. The crash on Wall Street has Americans worried about their financial futures. Can we weather this storm and still be able to pass something on to our loved ones and children?
With all this uncertainty, why in the world would Floridians take an action that could even further undermine their financial arrangements? All for the sake of resolving an issue that has already been resolved in this state.
Under Florida law same sex marriages are prohibited. But on the Nov. 4 general election ballot will appear proposed Amendment 2 to the Florida Constitution. It states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one women as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
This is a classic wedge issue, a cynical ploy to divide Floridians against one another in a hotly contested election year.
Beyond that, Amendment 2 is a legal time bomb, ticking with unpredictable and unintended consequences. This thanks to the portion of the amendment that states "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
What does that mean? Nobody really knows.
This week arrived a cautionary letter signed by 154 Florida attorneys, including former state House Speakers Peter Wallace and Richard Pettigrew and former American Bar Association President Talbot D'Alemberte.
"Adding such vague, untested and undefined language is likely to deliver unanticipated repercussions and could substantially alter our state both economically and legally," the letter warns. "While no one can know the full impact of the proposed amendment, litigation will result as vested interests challenge shared health plans, defend domestic abusers or governments seek clarity in the undefined language in the proposal."
The language could have negative impacts on alimony payments, property and estate planning, domestic partnership financial arrangements and domestic violence protections, the letter states. All this for the sake of banning what is already banned by state law.
This is a very bad amendment intended to divide us one against the other. It is sloppily written at best and malicious in intent at worst. In either case, to vote for Amendment 2 is to go looking for trouble.
Florida Today: Polls Show Florida Amendment 2 In Danger
Florida Today
Polls Show Florida Amendment 2 In Danger
BY PAUL FLEMMING • FLORIDA TODAY
October 8, 2008
TALLAHASSEE — The marriage amendment Floridians will decide in November has a chance to pass even though it now polls below the 60 percent required for approval.
A poll out today shows that of the six proposed constitutional amendments Floridians will decide in November, none now have the three-fifths support necessary for passage.
Amendment 2, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman only, remains below the approval threshold, but the director of Mason-Dixon polling said similar proposals in other states have shown that a big chunk of the undecided vote will cast ballots in favor of Amendment 2.
The survey showed 55 percent in favor, 34 percent opposed and 11 percent undecided on Amendment 2.
"In other ballot amendment and initiative votes on gay rights issues taken in other states, 'undecided' voters have generally broken strongly in the direction of the 'politically incorrect/anti-gay' position," said Brad Coker, .managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research in Florida.
Mason-Dixon surveyed 625 likely voters earlier this week. Its poll has a 4-point margin of error.
Florida's Supreme Court made it easier on voters last month when they rejected three proposed amendments from the ballot and removed some of the most controversial ideas. Today's Mason-Dixon poll showed that in most cases voters remain on the fence about these relatively obscure proposals. For half of the amendments, more than 40 percent of respondents remain undecided.
But three of the amendments, the pollster said, could pull out enough support for approval if currently undecided voters break toward passage at the same rate as those who've already made up their mind.
Here's what the poll showed.
Amendment 2 Lacks Votes For Passage, Poll Shows
Tampa Tribune
Amendment 2 Lacks Votes For Passage, Poll Shows
October 8, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - Support for the "marriage protection" amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot continues to fall short of the 60 percent needed for passage, a new poll shows today.
Support for Amendment 2, which defines the legal union of marriage as being between one man and one woman only, dropped from 57 percent in August to 55 percent in early October, according to Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
But the difference falls within the 4 percentage point margin of error for the poll; meanwhile, the number of voters who remain undecided on Amendment 2 rose from 7 percent to 11 percent. All told, the results remain comparable to the outcome of Mason-Dixon's August survey, the pollsters concluded.
Mason-Dixon conducted its latest Florida poll of 625 likely voters by telephone from Saturday through Monday.
Large numbers of voters remained undecided on the other questions appearing on the presidential election ballot. All proposals will require 60 percent approval to become law.
Amendment 1 repeals a law permitting Florida to stop people ineligible for U.S. citizenship from owning property. The anti-alien law targeted Asian immigrants when passed in 1926; it has never been used. For: 37 percent. Against: 33 percent. Undecided: 30 percent.
Amendment 3 bars property appraisers from increasing home assessments based on improvements designed to harden against wind damage. For: 29 percent. Against: 26 percent. Undecided: 45 percent.
Amendment 4 exempts property dedicated for conservation purposes from taxation. For: 37 percent. Against: 19 percent. Undecided: 44 percent.
Amendment 6 requires property appraisers to assess land used for commercial fishing purposes based on that use, rather than its potential for other uses. For: 33 percent. Against: 20 percent. Undecided: 47 percent.
Amendment 8 permits counties to levy sales tax to support community colleges for up to five years. For: 37 percent. Against: 40 percent. Undecided 23 percent.
The state Supreme Court struck amendments 5, 7 and 9 from the ballot this summer.
Reporter Catherine Dolinski can be reached at 
(850) 222-8382
or cdolinski@tampatrib.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
