Gay Marriage Not The Biggest Threat To Cherished Institution

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.

Proposed Florida Gay Marriage Ban Unneeded, Insulting

That's the conclusion of the Florida Sun-Sentinel in a recent editorial addressing the fact that a proposed constitutional amendment will be on the ballot in November, 2008 - just in time to try to sway the presidential election results (.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-editgsmarriagesbdec20,0,798399.story?coll=sfla-opinion-utility). Perhaps the Florida Republicans who pushed this issue should have learned something from the fate of former Virginia U.S. Senator George Allen who may have LOST to Jim Webb in part because enough opponents to Virginia's "Marriage Amendment" came out to vote who might not have otherwise voted. While the amendment passed - not by a huge majority - Allen went down to defeat. Bringing out voters can cut both ways. Here are highlights from the editorial:

Let's call this proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage exactly what it is: unneeded, divisive, and a transparent attempt to get out the ultra-conservative vote.And it's also one gigantic example of overkill. Florida law already forbids gay marriage, but that's not nearly enough for the folks at Florida4Marriage.org, which claims it has enough signatures to put the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the November ballot. According to the group, there must be a constitutional amendment to guarantee a permanent prohibition.Who are they kidding?

This is one of the oldest political ploys going — get a good red meat issue on the ballot to bring out ultra conservatives who might otherwise sit at home on election day. Maybe scare some people and get a little fear out there. The only thing surprising about this is there isn't a group — yet — that's trying to get an amendment banning flag burning onto the November ballot in Florida.

The Florida Constitution should not be the place for zealots to turn to when they want to advance their cause. The folks promoting the constitutional gay marriage ban are insulting not only gays, but voters of all political ilk who can tell a real issue from a ruse.Unfortunately, it will take up valuable time, and space on a ballot. It never should have gotten that far.

BOTTOM LINE: Amendment isn't needed, and looks like a political play.