I urge the voters of Florida to support Amendment 2 which would place a ban on same sex marriage in the Florida Consitution. While it is important to treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fairly, the traditional family must be recognized as a source of strength. The vast majority of Floridians across party lines oppose gay marriage and do not want to redefine the institution of marriage.
As a labor Democrat who has spent his whole life fighting for the fair treatment of the poor and minorities, I see no inconsistency with my endorsement of Amendment 2. We should certainly consider some form of statewide domestic partnership legislation for same sex couples. Matters like inheritance rights and hospital visitation can be addressed without tampering with the institution of marriage. Gay bashing and employment discrimination against gays must be vigorously opposed but we must also recognize that the traditional family unit is the basic building block of our society.
As explained in the video link, Amendment 2 will not invalidate local domestic partnership laws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6cT2Fxo-7s The recent California Supreme Court ruling shows the importance of Florida putting a ban on same sex marriage into the state constitution.
Full Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no otherlegal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
As a labor Democrat who has spent his whole life fighting for the fair treatment of the poor and minorities, I see no inconsistency with my endorsement of Amendment 2. We should certainly consider some form of statewide domestic partnership legislation for same sex couples. Matters like inheritance rights and hospital visitation can be addressed without tampering with the institution of marriage. Gay bashing and employment discrimination against gays must be vigorously opposed but we must also recognize that the traditional family unit is the basic building block of our society.
As explained in the video link, Amendment 2 will not invalidate local domestic partnership laws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6cT2Fxo-7s The recent California Supreme Court ruling shows the importance of Florida putting a ban on same sex marriage into the state constitution.
Full Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no otherlegal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Florida?
* Natural Marriage is Under Attack
Gay and lesbian political groups and activist judges nationwide are trying to overturnstate Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) laws which define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is what happened in California and Massachusetts to legalize “gay” marriages. It is only a matter of time before an activist judge will take a case that challenges Florida’s DOMA and rules that our state law is “unconstitutional.” This is why Florida is following the lead of 27 other states who have expressly defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their state constitution.
* Marriage is Beneficial to Florida
The institution of marriage provides the foundation for every humancivilization. Florida has a fundamental and compelling interest in protecting and preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Our communities flourish socially, economically and in many other ways due to the stability and strength that marriage provides to children, families, communities and our state as a whole. Marriage benefits the common good of society in unique and lasting ways that same sex coupling does not.
* Same Sex Marriage Subjects Children to a Vast, Untested, Social Experiment
When you create a same sex marriage, you are simultaneously creating a same sex family. Our responsibility is to always ask, “What is in the best interest of children?” When it comes to marriage, children always do better when they grow up with a married mother and father. A massive body of social science literature over the past three decades, has empirically demonstrated this fact. Children raised with a married mom and a dad are protected from a host of social maladies.
* Opponents of the marriage amendment are waging a campaign of pure deception and deliberate misrepresentation
Our opponents know they will loose if they try and argue the policy merits of so called “gay” marriage. So they have resorted to a pathetic and dastardly tactic, namely trying to scare senior citizens into thinking that their “benefits” will be taken away. Amendment 2 is about one thing, and one thing only-- it defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and does not interfere with anyone’s benefits. Detailed legal documentation proving this point is available at at http://www.florida4marriage.org/, under “Opponent’s Arguments.
Amendment 2 deserves the support of all Floridians who are concerned about the well-being of families. This is not a partisan issue and Amendment 2 needs the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
10 comments:
I think you have this wrong.
There is no empirical evidence that says gay families are somehow 'worse' than straight. The studies you refer to (as best I can know, based on my own reading) do not study gay families - they study single parents and straight families. Even if such research looked at gay families, I think one would have to very fairly recognize that growing up in a gay family would carry a special challenge because of the discriminatory way in which society views such a family.
Also, gay marriage doesn't somehow threaten straight marriage. And so, setting down a law to outlaw something this other guy wants to do is somehow supposed to improve my own marriage (which has a 52% chance of failing, I might add...). Outlawing gay marriage, in fact, isn't going to 'save the children' (from the supposed evils of gay marriage), unless you want to then pass a law that makes it illegal for two same-sexed people to inhabit a house with a child. For example.
To be clear, I'm not advocating gay marriage per se - equal rights, first and foremost, and then I'll take my cues from the GLBT community. But I don't think that separate but equal (or not equal) is going to fly.
I'm advocating not creating laws to solve non-existent problems, and that do nothing other than to belittle, disenfranchise, and marginalize members of our society. You talk about 'treating our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fairly' - yet you argue that this treatment requires quarantining them from everyone else?
Long comment, whooo [wipes brow]. Sorry for be-noveling you :)
Research has shown that children raised by married opposite sex couples tend to fare better in a number of measurements than those raised in other environments. That is not to say that all single moms (or dads) or even same sex couples are terrible parents but as a general rule, a traditional mother and father do a better job of rasing kids.
To create a form of marriage that guarantees a child will go without a mother or father in the household is simply not in the best interest of children. The primary purpose for having a state-regulated institution of marriage is to protect the best interests of children.
What research? What measurements?
For example:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
In a nutshell, children in same-sex parented families do better when the parents are able to marry of form a civil union.
Hmm.
shame on you for not doing your homework. These are talking points right out of the religous right playbook. Did you look at the other side of the argument?n A democrat should have a better respect for the constitution. A democrat might do their homework and find out what the future will hold for Florida seniors who rely on domestic partner benefits.
And look at BOTH sides of the argument.
Strongly disagree with you, but this will probably pass in Florida regardless.
It's ironic that you take this position when some of the libertarian/right gun blogs that link to you (how I found you) are starting to concede that anti-gay homophobia is something the GOP needs to get away from.
Yeah, I once had an African American co-worker who is a self-described Democrat and very religious and ended up voting for Bush instead of Kerry because of the whole "Gay marriage" thing. My response is that my ex co-worker is a bigot voting against his own economic interests out of his own narrow minded (in this case religious-based) prejudices. Not wholly unlike poor whites who vote GOP.
Quote:
"While it is important to treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fairly, the traditional family must be recognized as a source of strength."
Why? What is this 'source of strength' you speak you? And how would homosexual marriages mitigate this 'source of strength' in your marriage, for example.
I have yet to hear a single compelling argument that defends the assumption you are making. An assumption that when reasonably considered amounts to nothing more than a declaration by fiat, which of course doesn't count as rational discourse.
Fellow Democrats:
We have to start speaking up for traditonal marriage, while still supporting civil unions.
Democrats have listened long enough to Ellen Degeneres, the Media Corporate Complex and the
tiny, but intensly vocal cultists screaming for gay marriage.
Do you want George Bush to win a third term?? No?
Then maybe we need to start tuning in people in our own party, including non-gay minorities
and Unionists who support traditional marriage.
And when the cultists start whining their mantras about the the 'unfairness' of banning gay marriage, what about the fact that so many workers, including LGBTI workers, are banned from unionizing, or a national health care policy? And if McCain gets into the White House, the chances that women, including LBTI women, will lose the right to Choice.
I am a Democrat. These are the important causes, and not the petit bourgeois cause celeb known as gay marriage. Which is used by the Media-Corporate Complex to divert people from the real issues.
And yes, we should, we must, turn a deaf ear to the media-centric cult who could care less
about our party regaining the White House. Let them start their own party
It is appaling to me that this amendment passed. Also appaling is your professed party alliance coupled with a blatant desire for discrimination. A gay couple in love deserves all of the same rights as a straight couple in love. This amendment has crushed my hopes that this country may some day soon move away from its intense, irrational fear of the unknown. I am a straight woman who does not believe that this amendment is wrong based on my own sexuality, but rather based on my belief that as people, we all deserve to be treated equally. We have made great strides in this country, but the passage of this amendment is a major setback. Giving the gay community the right to marry is not going to harm the straight community in any way.
You said that we should "think of the children". What about the thousands of children in the care of the state right now who no one in the straight community wants to care for. These abandoned children would have a much better life in the car of a gay couple who is eager to provide for a child than they would in an underfunded orphanage or an abusive foster home, wouldn't you agree?
As far as the research that I have done suggests, children raised in a gay home have no more of a chance of suffering than those in a traditional home. They aren't going to be turned gay or any other such nonsense.
The real issue here is that you, sir, do not believe in the equality of all people. You may say that you are a defender of the ideals that are paramount to this country's success, but you are a hypocrite. This country was founded on the belief that all men are created equally and should be treated as such. Gay, straight, black, female, asian...we're all the same. You wouldn't deny me the right to marry simply because I was asian, right? Then why take away the right from someone who has a different type of sexuality than you yourself practice?
Morality is not an issue here either. You would never suggest that people who are fond proponents of S&M should be barred the right to marry. This may be a foreign sexual idea to you, and the people who perform such acts may live a lifestyle that is quite bizarre. But they still have the right to marry as long as they are heterosexual.
Let's get real here. Gays are just the same as everyone else. They are not a threat to the moral fabric of our state or country.
Post a Comment