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

[seafan]

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.

[CT_Progressive]

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!

[goddess40]

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.

[BOSSHOG]

3. But I guess divorce for spouse abusing christians is still okay!!

Zealot christians are a domestic enemy of our constitution.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Are you suggesting people should be required to

remain with an abusive spouse? That makes no sense.

[BOSSHOG]

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.

[Not Me]

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.

[jody]

6. Does the proposal ban civil-contracts between two people are just the word "marriage"?

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.

[seafan]

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.