Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anti-gay extremists push marriage amendment onto Florida '08 ballot, after 3-year campaign

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 12:52 PM
Original message
Anti-gay extremists push marriage amendment onto Florida '08 ballot, after 3-year campaign
They just never quit.



By JACOB H. FRIES
December 14, 2007


Floridians will almost certainly vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in November, just don't expect the state's top Republican to stump for it.
"It's not an issue that moves me," Gov. Charlie Crist told reporters Thursday after sponsors of the initiative announced they had enough signatures to get it on the ballot. ..... in February, he asked the GOP to stop donating money to the effort and, Thursday, he said he'd rather focus on raising teacher pay, reducing property taxes and combatting climate change.

"I'm just a live and let live kind of guy," the governor said.

.....

The campaign to put a same-sex marriage ban in Florida's Constitution began nearly three years ago. ..... Florida already has a law banning same-sex marriage, but (John Stemberger, an Orlando lawyer who leads a coalition of sponsoring groups) said a constitutional amendment was needed to prevent legal challenges in the future. Currently, 27 other states have passed constitutional bans on gay marriage.
"An activist judge, with one stroke of a pen, can shut down a fundamental human institution," he said. "We're here for the long run. ... We're doing this to protect this institution literally for centuries to come in Florida."


Opponents of the measure, however, fervently attacked it, saying that it not only threatens the rights of gay and lesbian people, but all unmarried couples in Florida.
Bentley Lipscomb, former state director of Florida AARP, said the measure could have a large, unintended impact on elderly couples, many of whom don't marry because it would change their Social Security benefits.

"The way they drafted it, it will cause a problem," he said. "Nonmarried couples would not be able to enjoy the same ability to take care of each other. ... Even visiting them in the hospital when they are terminal would be problematic. Then there's the whole question of making decisions about the end of life."



Similar constitutional bans in other states ultimately led to even greater infringement of people's rights, said Stephen Gaskill, a spokesman for Florida Red and Blue, an organization created to oppose the proposal.
"If there's a possibility at all that one Floridian would lose a right they have or a benefit they receive, why would we open the door to that?" Gaskill said. "It's a massive government intrusion into people's personal lives. We don't believe that is where Florida voters want the government to be."

.....




Here is the actual text of the amendment:


The amendment would add a new section to Article I: "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."



See where these extremists are going with this language? Their intent is to outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Nicole Sandler on WINZ 940 AM Miami interviewed John Stemberger this morning in Hour 3 of the show.


One of his choice quotes in the interview:

"Gay marriage is an aberrant expression of sexuality."----John Stemberger, December 14, 2007


Desperate and pathetic, indeed.



They will never, never stop their bigotry and hatred.


Now, Florida voters must defeat this amendment next November.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CT_Progressive Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Dems should challenge it. 3 years to gather signatures=some people are dead
or no longer live in FLA, or no longer support it, etc.

Tie it up in a challenge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. They never grow up either
How immature and irrational do you have to be to put up barriers to two consenting adults who just want to get married.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. But I guess divorce for spouse abusing christians is still okay!!
Zealot christians are a domestic enemy of our constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Are you suggesting people should be required to

remain with an abusive spouse? That makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I would "suggest"
that if zealots in this country want to keep a segment of our population from getting married because they hate them for religious reasons, and if they so incredibly value marriage that it should be reserved for heterosexuals then it should be for life and illegal to break the bounds of holy matrimony. I can be as much a lunatic as them. Zealots truly love THEIR constitutional liberties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. It needs 60% to pass...
due to a change in the law regarding amending the constitution.

Our "live and let live kind of guy" Governor's (GOP)party kicked in $300,000 to the organization pushing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Does the proposal ban civil-contracts between two people are just the word "marriage"?
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:05 PM by jody
ON EDIT ADD:

I did not read the fast facts

"The amendment would add a new section to Article I: '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.'"

Looks like it bans civil contracts between same-sex couples whether called marriage or not.

That should bring on a challenge under the 14th Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Weasel language.
The amendment would add a new section to Article I: "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."



That sounds suspiciously like civil unions/domestic partnerships are also in the crosshairs.


And keep in mind that there are MANY Jeb Bush judicial appointees lying in wait to rule on these cases.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC