Tallahassee Democrat / tallahassee.com
Back Article published Sep 29, 2007
Editorial: Marriage amendment discriminates
Floridians are currently witness to the time-honored but hardly honorable practice of creating the illusion of a crisis where there isn't one. Don't fall for the ruse.
This time its practitioners want us all to believe that the institution of marriage is under attack. Their straw man is gay marriage, and if it ever becomes recognized as valid and legal, they suggest that the pillars of civilization will crumble.
The best way to protect the sanctity of marriage, they insist, is to enshrine within the Florida Constitution new language that defines marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman," and further says that "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
The Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage is close to collecting the 611,000 signatures that have to be verified by Feb. 1 to get on next year's ballot.
But guess what? Marriage between two members of the same sex is already illegal in this state, and only legislative action - highly unlikely in Florida in the foreseeable future - could change that.
Whatever side of the issue one may be on - and we respect the fact that many decent Floridians oppose gay marriage - the appropriate forum for debate and action is the Legislature, where statutory law is made. It is not the state constitution, which is intentionally much more difficult to change.
This is not simply a technicality of lawmaking. The average Floridian makes little distinction between a statute and a constitutional provision: Both have the force of law. A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage - the current cause celebre of the religious right - could have more far-reaching implications.
Opponents of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment say a constitutional ban could not only keep gay couples from marrying, but also prohibit gay and straight domestic partners from qualifying for health-related and employment benefits. It could have particularly adverse effects on seniors, which is why former Florida Department of Elder Affairs Secretary Bentley Lipscomb opposes the ban.
It is, in effect, a sledgehammer approach to a "problem" that supporters have created in the wake of efforts elsewhere to legalize gay marriage. Enshrine a ban in the constitution and problem solved, they figure. As for collateral damage . . . oh, well.
Make no mistake about who's behind it. Florida4Marriage.org, the organization supporting a gay-marriage ban, posts on its Web site a link called "Arguments for Marriage." Included among several articles are ones by James Dobson, an icon of the religious right, and Glenn Stanton, a policy analyst at Focus on the Family, the organization founded by Mr. Dobson.
More than two dozen states have taken the route that Florida4Marriage.org wants our state to travel, amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Arizona wisely rejected a similar effort last year, and Floridians need only to ask whether that state's failure to jump on the anti-gay bandwagon has resulted in a collapse of everything good and decent there.
You haven't read those headlines because it hasn't happened.
Don't be fooled: Enshrining this proposed amendment in our constitution would discriminate against some Floridians under a thinly veiled disguise that's not needed in the first place.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Our View: Say No To Bigotry
Our View: Say No To Bigotry
September 23, 2007, FloridaToday.com
Florida's proposed same-sex marriage ban threatens everyone's protections.
When misguided religious and political groups attempt to deny gays legal rights under the guise of protecting marriage, you better watch out for your own rights.
That's what is happening in Florida, as supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage try to get the issue on the November 2008 ballot.
Here's what the proposed amendment says:
1. It would write discrimination into the Florida Constitution, stripping gays of protections solely because of whom they choose to love or live with.
That's wrong, and makes it unconscionable that U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic, and state Rep. Ralph Poppell, R-Vero Beach, have endorsed the amendment, according to the Web site of Orlando-based Florida4Marriage.org. which is pushing the issue.
The amendment is also supported by Gov. Charlie Crist, the Florida Republican Party, Florida Baptist Convention, Florida Catholic Conference and fundamentalist Christian groups.
2. It's unneeded, because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, as it is in most states.
Supporters of the amendment say constitutional bans are necessary because anti-gay marriage laws can be reversed.
Or struck down by judges, as happened in one Iowa court in August.
But a Maryland court Tuesday upheld that state's law banning same-sex marriage.
That give and take shows that legislatures are exactly where the issue belongs. And where it should continue to be debated as society strives to make America's great promise of "equality for all" more than a catchphrase.
3. The amendment could have widespread consequences for domestic partners of any stripe, and their dependents.
That includes elderly Floridians of either sex who live together for economic reasons, but are unmarried.
Because the amendment "makes no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, the only people conceivably not left stripped (of protections) are certain married couples," says Merritt Island civil rights attorney Mark Tietig, who opposes the amendment.
For example, domestic partners who receive benefits through some employers could lose them.
That's already happening in other states.
Ohio state Rep. Tom Brinkman has sued Miami University, a public institution, for offering domestic partner benefits, citing that state's constitutional ban.
If his suit is successful, one consequence will be that children of gay couples employed at the school will lose health insurance coverage.
A Michigan court has also ruled public employers can't offer benefits to unmarried couples, because of that state's constitutional ban.
The amendment further jeopardizes basic legal protections like inheritance rights, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for anyone outside its narrow limits.
It is, in short, a vengeful, bigoted proposal flown under the false banner of a religious cause.
September 23, 2007, FloridaToday.com
Florida's proposed same-sex marriage ban threatens everyone's protections.
When misguided religious and political groups attempt to deny gays legal rights under the guise of protecting marriage, you better watch out for your own rights.
That's what is happening in Florida, as supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage try to get the issue on the November 2008 ballot.
Here's what the proposed 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."Here's why -- behind the legalese -- the amendment is dangerous and immoral, and should be rejected by voters.
1. It would write discrimination into the Florida Constitution, stripping gays of protections solely because of whom they choose to love or live with.
That's wrong, and makes it unconscionable that U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic, and state Rep. Ralph Poppell, R-Vero Beach, have endorsed the amendment, according to the Web site of Orlando-based Florida4Marriage.org. which is pushing the issue.
The amendment is also supported by Gov. Charlie Crist, the Florida Republican Party, Florida Baptist Convention, Florida Catholic Conference and fundamentalist Christian groups.
2. It's unneeded, because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, as it is in most states.
Supporters of the amendment say constitutional bans are necessary because anti-gay marriage laws can be reversed.
Or struck down by judges, as happened in one Iowa court in August.
But a Maryland court Tuesday upheld that state's law banning same-sex marriage.
That give and take shows that legislatures are exactly where the issue belongs. And where it should continue to be debated as society strives to make America's great promise of "equality for all" more than a catchphrase.
3. The amendment could have widespread consequences for domestic partners of any stripe, and their dependents.
That includes elderly Floridians of either sex who live together for economic reasons, but are unmarried.
Because the amendment "makes no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, the only people conceivably not left stripped (of protections) are certain married couples," says Merritt Island civil rights attorney Mark Tietig, who opposes the amendment.
For example, domestic partners who receive benefits through some employers could lose them.
That's already happening in other states.
Ohio state Rep. Tom Brinkman has sued Miami University, a public institution, for offering domestic partner benefits, citing that state's constitutional ban.
If his suit is successful, one consequence will be that children of gay couples employed at the school will lose health insurance coverage.
A Michigan court has also ruled public employers can't offer benefits to unmarried couples, because of that state's constitutional ban.
The amendment further jeopardizes basic legal protections like inheritance rights, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for anyone outside its narrow limits.
It is, in short, a vengeful, bigoted proposal flown under the false banner of a religious cause.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Daytona Beach News Journal Editorial: Proposed gay marriage amendment lacks rationale
Daytona Beach News Journal
Editorial
September 13, 2007
Proposed gay marriage amendment lacks rationale
Floridians have had enough of divisive politics over recent years ---- yet that never seems to stop people who have an ax to grind and plenty of money to force discussion.
As of last week, it seems likely that supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will get their issue on next year's ballot. Florida4Marriage.org, the group behind the proposal, has raised more than $500,000 (and spent most of that on direct-mail campaigns) and should have the required signatures by Feb. 1. But the group has yet to make its case for altering Florida's Constitution to defend against something that's already banned by state law. As worded, the amendment could also affect the rights of unmarried, heterosexual couples -- by saying that "no other legal union" can be accorded any of the rights of marriage.
Nor can the group provide rationale for the substance of their proposed amendment. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to form legally recognized bonds poses no threat to society. To the contrary -- it introduces the same stabilizing force that marriage provides for heterosexual marriages, along with the same legal protections. Under current law, homosexual couples lack the most basic rights, including the ability to stay by a sick partner's hospital bedside or negotiate custody of children.
Society is already recognizing the need to change. Many employers now grant insurance benefits to committed same-sex partners, and many states are including sexual orientation in the list of legally prohibited bases for discrimination.
Florida should move forward, though it would take action on the part of state lawmakers to make that forward step reality. This amendment, if approved by voters, would force the state in the other direction -- backwards, to a time when discrimination was not just allowed, but mandatory.
Editorial
September 13, 2007
Proposed gay marriage amendment lacks rationale
Floridians have had enough of divisive politics over recent years ---- yet that never seems to stop people who have an ax to grind and plenty of money to force discussion.
As of last week, it seems likely that supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will get their issue on next year's ballot. Florida4Marriage.org, the group behind the proposal, has raised more than $500,000 (and spent most of that on direct-mail campaigns) and should have the required signatures by Feb. 1. But the group has yet to make its case for altering Florida's Constitution to defend against something that's already banned by state law. As worded, the amendment could also affect the rights of unmarried, heterosexual couples -- by saying that "no other legal union" can be accorded any of the rights of marriage.
Nor can the group provide rationale for the substance of their proposed amendment. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to form legally recognized bonds poses no threat to society. To the contrary -- it introduces the same stabilizing force that marriage provides for heterosexual marriages, along with the same legal protections. Under current law, homosexual couples lack the most basic rights, including the ability to stay by a sick partner's hospital bedside or negotiate custody of children.
Society is already recognizing the need to change. Many employers now grant insurance benefits to committed same-sex partners, and many states are including sexual orientation in the list of legally prohibited bases for discrimination.
Florida should move forward, though it would take action on the part of state lawmakers to make that forward step reality. This amendment, if approved by voters, would force the state in the other direction -- backwards, to a time when discrimination was not just allowed, but mandatory.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Saint Pete Times Editorial: Gay marriage rightly goes on back burner
Gay marriage rightly goes on back burner
Published February 16, 2007
Florida law already prevents people of the same gender from marrying each other, so a constitutional ban is necessary only if the objective is to draw moralists to the polls. To his credit, Gov. Charlie Crist says he wants no part in that.
The state Republican Party under chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan went so far as to dump $300,000 into a campaign to put the issue on the 2006 ballot. But the Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage came up short last year and will have to finish the job without party money. Crist's own protege, Jim Greer, is now party chairman, and the governor says he has other priorities.
Crist is showing his appealing pragmatism, preferring to redirect the debate from divisive social issues to the more pressing daily matters of insurance, taxes and public safety. "I'm convinced those are the kinds of issues that the people of Florida want us to focus on," he told reporters, "and I think it would be appropriate for the party to do the same, and I believe they will."
The supporters of the constitutional ban are miffed by Crist's directive, especially since he signed a petition. But they can't be surprised by either his populist priorities or his sensitivity to gay rights. He has said he supports the legal protections accorded by civil unions, and remarked in his Republican primary debate that: "I guess I have a bit more of a 'live and let live' attitude than my opponent does."
Same-sex marriage is being used as a political weapon by Republicans, but most Floridians are far more interested in safe neighborhoods and good schools. Crist is on the right track.
Published February 16, 2007
Florida law already prevents people of the same gender from marrying each other, so a constitutional ban is necessary only if the objective is to draw moralists to the polls. To his credit, Gov. Charlie Crist says he wants no part in that.
The state Republican Party under chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan went so far as to dump $300,000 into a campaign to put the issue on the 2006 ballot. But the Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage came up short last year and will have to finish the job without party money. Crist's own protege, Jim Greer, is now party chairman, and the governor says he has other priorities.
Crist is showing his appealing pragmatism, preferring to redirect the debate from divisive social issues to the more pressing daily matters of insurance, taxes and public safety. "I'm convinced those are the kinds of issues that the people of Florida want us to focus on," he told reporters, "and I think it would be appropriate for the party to do the same, and I believe they will."
The supporters of the constitutional ban are miffed by Crist's directive, especially since he signed a petition. But they can't be surprised by either his populist priorities or his sensitivity to gay rights. He has said he supports the legal protections accorded by civil unions, and remarked in his Republican primary debate that: "I guess I have a bit more of a 'live and let live' attitude than my opponent does."
Same-sex marriage is being used as a political weapon by Republicans, but most Floridians are far more interested in safe neighborhoods and good schools. Crist is on the right track.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Daytona Beach News Journal Opinion Editorial: Baiting for bigotry
Daytona Beach News Journal
OPINION: Editorial
February 15, 2007
Baiting for bigotry
Gay-marriage issue wrongly used as a vote divider
Gov. Charlie Crist has said he supports civil unions -- but not marriage -- for same-sex couples. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to interpret Crist's recent pronouncement on the subject as a push toward further acceptance.
But when Crist said he doesn't think the GOP should waste any more money fighting the issue, it was a strong rebuke against the leaders of his own party. The anti-gay-marriage issue was more or less manufactured by Florida Republican leaders, who clearly expected to use the question as ballot bait to draw conservative voters to the polls. The numbers don't lie -- the state party ponied up more than half the money reported by Florida4Marriage.org, the advocacy group proposing a constitutional amendment "banning" same-sex marriage.
Florida doesn't need this kind of divisiveness, especially in the form of a question that starts out with an implied lie. Florida's laws already deny marriage to same-sex couples; there's no legal rationale to put the issue in the constitution.
That didn't stop Republican leaders, who also failed to consider -- or disregarded -- the bigotry and potentially vehement backlash that a gay-marriage amendment would be guaranteed to ramp up.
Crist's disapproval should be the finishing nail to this ill-conceived notion. The effort was already hamstrung by voter disinterest: Supporters angled to have it on the 2006 ballot, but fell short of required signatures and might not make it in 2008 either.
Instead, state leaders should start looking for a more rational and fair-minded approach, starting with a cool-headed look at civil unions.
A civil-union statute wouldn't give gay and lesbian couples the justice they deserve, but it would provide protections against many of the problems that beset committed same-sex couples. For example, gay couples would gain legal status to settle property and child-custody matters without lengthy, expensive and often painful court battles. It would be easier for same-sex partners to obtain health coverage -- a benefit some of the state's largest companies already extend to the partners of their employees. And lifelong partners would be able to make health-care decisions for each other, instead of being pushed away from the bedside of the person they love.
The state should also reverse its cruel and illogical ban on gay couples adopting -- a goal that's easily accomplished with legislation that elevates a child's best interests above all other considerations.
Crist could have taken a far bolder stand in favor of human rights for same-sex couples. But his statement still carries a lot of weight. Instead of justice, a cadre of GOP leaders chose division and rancor. Instead of priorities all Floridians share -- property insurance, public safety, education -- this same group is spending party money to exploit same-sex families for political gain. It's time to stop.
OPINION: Editorial
February 15, 2007
Baiting for bigotry
Gay-marriage issue wrongly used as a vote divider
Gov. Charlie Crist has said he supports civil unions -- but not marriage -- for same-sex couples. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to interpret Crist's recent pronouncement on the subject as a push toward further acceptance.
But when Crist said he doesn't think the GOP should waste any more money fighting the issue, it was a strong rebuke against the leaders of his own party. The anti-gay-marriage issue was more or less manufactured by Florida Republican leaders, who clearly expected to use the question as ballot bait to draw conservative voters to the polls. The numbers don't lie -- the state party ponied up more than half the money reported by Florida4Marriage.org, the advocacy group proposing a constitutional amendment "banning" same-sex marriage.
Florida doesn't need this kind of divisiveness, especially in the form of a question that starts out with an implied lie. Florida's laws already deny marriage to same-sex couples; there's no legal rationale to put the issue in the constitution.
That didn't stop Republican leaders, who also failed to consider -- or disregarded -- the bigotry and potentially vehement backlash that a gay-marriage amendment would be guaranteed to ramp up.
Crist's disapproval should be the finishing nail to this ill-conceived notion. The effort was already hamstrung by voter disinterest: Supporters angled to have it on the 2006 ballot, but fell short of required signatures and might not make it in 2008 either.
Instead, state leaders should start looking for a more rational and fair-minded approach, starting with a cool-headed look at civil unions.
A civil-union statute wouldn't give gay and lesbian couples the justice they deserve, but it would provide protections against many of the problems that beset committed same-sex couples. For example, gay couples would gain legal status to settle property and child-custody matters without lengthy, expensive and often painful court battles. It would be easier for same-sex partners to obtain health coverage -- a benefit some of the state's largest companies already extend to the partners of their employees. And lifelong partners would be able to make health-care decisions for each other, instead of being pushed away from the bedside of the person they love.
The state should also reverse its cruel and illogical ban on gay couples adopting -- a goal that's easily accomplished with legislation that elevates a child's best interests above all other considerations.
Crist could have taken a far bolder stand in favor of human rights for same-sex couples. But his statement still carries a lot of weight. Instead of justice, a cadre of GOP leaders chose division and rancor. Instead of priorities all Floridians share -- property insurance, public safety, education -- this same group is spending party money to exploit same-sex families for political gain. It's time to stop.
Gainesville Sun Editorial
Gainesville.com
Article published Feb 15, 2007
Feb 15, 2007
Hot buttons issues
When the Florida Republican Party poured $300,000 into an anti-gay marriage constitutional initiative two years ago, it was less out of a sense of moral conviction than a tactic to put Democrats on the spot over a hot-button issue. Even then-Gov. Jeb Bush said at the time that the initiative was unnecessary.
But the GOP's funding of Florida4Marriage.org had everything to do with politics and very little to do with marriage.
Now comes Gov. Charlie Crist, like his predecessor, a Republican. And to his credit, Crist has spoken out against GOP's funding a gay marriage ban campaign in next year's election. "I think people care about issues like insurance premiums, they care about property taxes, they care about public safety," Crist said this week. "And I think it's important that not only those of us in government but the party focus on those issues too."
Presumably, Crist's opinion carries weight with those who will decide how to spend his party's money. Imagine a political campaign focused on public policy issues "people care about," rather than on polarizing scare tactics that are intended to demonize opponents and divide the electorate.
We commend Gov. Crist for urging his party to "prioritize what we put our energy into."
Article published Feb 15, 2007
Feb 15, 2007
Hot buttons issues
When the Florida Republican Party poured $300,000 into an anti-gay marriage constitutional initiative two years ago, it was less out of a sense of moral conviction than a tactic to put Democrats on the spot over a hot-button issue. Even then-Gov. Jeb Bush said at the time that the initiative was unnecessary.
But the GOP's funding of Florida4Marriage.org had everything to do with politics and very little to do with marriage.
Now comes Gov. Charlie Crist, like his predecessor, a Republican. And to his credit, Crist has spoken out against GOP's funding a gay marriage ban campaign in next year's election. "I think people care about issues like insurance premiums, they care about property taxes, they care about public safety," Crist said this week. "And I think it's important that not only those of us in government but the party focus on those issues too."
Presumably, Crist's opinion carries weight with those who will decide how to spend his party's money. Imagine a political campaign focused on public policy issues "people care about," rather than on polarizing scare tactics that are intended to demonize opponents and divide the electorate.
We commend Gov. Crist for urging his party to "prioritize what we put our energy into."
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Saint Pete Times Editorial
Copyright Times Publishing Co. Mar 25, 2006
With substantial financial backing from the Florida Republican Party, the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage now looks unstoppable. On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court brushed aside objections that the initiative language wasn't clear or that it violated the single-subject rule and approved the measure for the ballot. Now the only thing the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment needs to get on the ballot in 2008 is another 150,000 valid signatures - not much of a hurdle. The state GOP has contributed $300,000 to the signature-gathering effort, which so far has collected 467,000 of the 611,000 certified signatures needed.
The amendment can only help Republicans in their get-out-the- vote efforts in 2008. Initiatives asking voters to bar same-sex couples from marrying have passed in every state where they have been on the ballot. Opinion polls show most Floridians oppose same- sex marriage, and Christian conservatives - a major part of the Republican Party's base - are particularly energized by the prospect of enshrining the ban in the state Constitution.
But the proposed amendment would make a terrible addition to the state Constitution, a document that is supposed to speak for all of Floridians. Although the state high court said the initiative language is clear and unambiguous, in fact it is misleading and would go far beyond just prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
The initiative says that marriage would be limited to "one man and one woman" and bars any "other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." This would undoubtedly apply to civil unions and other domestic partnerships, even though not explicitly stated.
According to polls, a majority of Floridians have indicated that they would support legalizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, an arrangement that would extend the same legal benefits to them that married couples enjoy. But because of the amendment's ambiguous language, it is likely that many voters won't know they are approving a ban on those arrangements as well.
Florida law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but that wasn't enough for the Republican Party, which thinks nothing about diminishing the state Constitution to arouse its base.
With substantial financial backing from the Florida Republican Party, the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage now looks unstoppable. On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court brushed aside objections that the initiative language wasn't clear or that it violated the single-subject rule and approved the measure for the ballot. Now the only thing the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment needs to get on the ballot in 2008 is another 150,000 valid signatures - not much of a hurdle. The state GOP has contributed $300,000 to the signature-gathering effort, which so far has collected 467,000 of the 611,000 certified signatures needed.
The amendment can only help Republicans in their get-out-the- vote efforts in 2008. Initiatives asking voters to bar same-sex couples from marrying have passed in every state where they have been on the ballot. Opinion polls show most Floridians oppose same- sex marriage, and Christian conservatives - a major part of the Republican Party's base - are particularly energized by the prospect of enshrining the ban in the state Constitution.
But the proposed amendment would make a terrible addition to the state Constitution, a document that is supposed to speak for all of Floridians. Although the state high court said the initiative language is clear and unambiguous, in fact it is misleading and would go far beyond just prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
The initiative says that marriage would be limited to "one man and one woman" and bars any "other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." This would undoubtedly apply to civil unions and other domestic partnerships, even though not explicitly stated.
According to polls, a majority of Floridians have indicated that they would support legalizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, an arrangement that would extend the same legal benefits to them that married couples enjoy. But because of the amendment's ambiguous language, it is likely that many voters won't know they are approving a ban on those arrangements as well.
Florida law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but that wasn't enough for the Republican Party, which thinks nothing about diminishing the state Constitution to arouse its base.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
