A second Florida newspaper has come out condemning the proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that will be on the ballot in November, 2008, just in time to try to bring out the wingnut sheeple to the polls. Here are some highlights of what the Tampa Tribune had to say about the amendment proposal (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/26/na-gay-marriage-not-the-biggest-threat-to-cherishe/):
Gay marriage is last season's politics. Besides, Florida already has a law outlawing marriage between people of the same sex, so formalizing a ban in the state constitution hardly merits front-burner status. Florida law says a marriage made somewhere else between persons of the same sex is "not recognized for any purpose in this state." The language is clear. Plus, there's the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that says states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. That law protects Florida, if the state needs protection, just as it does the other 49.
Yet Florida4Marriage, the sponsor of the proposal, has collected the 611,000 signatures needed to put the amendment, already cleared by the Florida Supreme Court, on the ballot in 2008. We're sympathetic to those who would protect traditional marriage as a sacred trust. These are people who fear for our culture and lament the loss of respect for the institution. But changing the constitution, when it hasn't proven necessary, is not the way to do it. Americans have grown more tolerant of their gay and lesbian neighbors and are appalled by the violence and discrimination some have faced.
[M]ake no mistake. Gay marriage is not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. Bigger assaults are exposed by divorce rates and the growing number of out-of-wedlock births. Almost half of marriages today end in divorce. In Florida, one in four babies is born to an unwed mother. To best defend the institution of marriage, we should quit looking for bogeymen where there are none.
1 comment:
Yes! I've been saying this for a while now. It is a monumental waste of resources to pursue a change in any state's constitution to ban gay marriage. This is completely aside from any argument on the validity or propriety of gay marriage. Amending the constitution of any state or the nation is a huge gesture, and completely unnecessary. There is no point, except possibly to *make* a point, which brings me back to my original point that the whole charade is a waste of resources. There are already laws banning gay marriage in every state but one, I believe. Can gays still marry in Massachusetts? I'm losing track here. Also every other state will not legally recognize a gay marriage that has been performed anywhere else. So why mess with the constitutions? It is stoopid!
And for the record, in case anyone has any doubt, I HEARTILY endorse gay marriage. I think marriage and all the legal and social benefits thereunto should be allowed to those who want to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race or a bunch of other conditions the state wants to impose on couples. Close relatives? Not a good idea. More than 2 people in the marriage? Probably not. Same sex? Sure.
Post a Comment