Fix it now

No big name in the grand marshall’s seat for the annual St. Pete Pride as parade organizers have chosen to make a political statement instead. This from the organization today:

St. Pete Pride is please to announce that Janice Langbehn has agreed to be our Grand Marshall this year. Janice is not a house hold name yet but her story is compelling especially in light of the current attempt to deny gay partners any rights.

A year ago Janice Langbehn’s partner of nearly 18 years was pronounced brain dead after being stricken with a brain aneurysm. While at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida, she was met with prejudice and apathy. Janice and her family were consistently denied visitation and didn’t see Lisa until many hours after she was admitted.

Langbehn, a social worker, said officials Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami did not recognize her or their jointly adopted children as part of Pond’s family. They were not allowed to be with her . . . and Langbehn’s authority to make decisions for Pond was not recognized.

Even after a friend in Olympia faxed the legal documents that showed that Pond had authorized Langbehn to make medical decisions for her, Langbehn said she wasn’t invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition. She said she wasn’t allowed to see Pond again until a priest arrived to give “Last Rites.”

It was only after passionate pleas that a doctor finally spoke to the family about Pond’s condition, informing them that there was zero chance for recovery. With the help of a Catholic priest assigned to perform last the family was granted a five-minute visit, eight long hours after Pond was first admitted.

The Board of St. Pete Pride believes that this story and ones like it are necessary to put a personal face on the consequences of Amendment 2. Please come out and support St. Pete Pride on Saturday June 28, 2008 at 10AM.

Gay marriages can commence in Cali in 30 days after that state’s highest court strikes down two laws limiting marriage to being the union of one man and one woman. NYT coverage here.

The opponents of Amendment 2, aimed at discriminating against gay couples who want to share the same marrriage/partnership benefits as straight couples, have been saying it for a long time, and now the Michigan Supreme Court agrees: a law there aimed at gay marriage has been applied to strip domestic partnership benefits already granted to same-sex couples.

This from Florida Red and Blue, one of two main groups fighting the November ballot initiative:

Dear SayNo2 Supporter:

It’s not often acceptable to say, “We told you so.”
But on occasion, nothing quite says it better.
Just hours ago, the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that that state’s amendment banning ‘gay marriage’ also prohibits offering benefits to unmarried employees.
This is the exact scenario we’ve been talking about from the start – Amendment 2 could be used to strip existing benefits from Floridians.
We’ve said it, the Florida Legislature’s independent analysis says it and, today, the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed it – broadly worded amendments sold to ban ‘gay-marriage’ will actually take away benefits from everyone.
When we’ve talked about what Amendment 2 can do, the sponsors have been quick to deny it.
In fact, right now, their website says: “our amendment will not invalidate benefits granted from domestic partnerships or any other source.”
Sure. Tell us another one.
Want to hear the kicker?
According to today’s Michigan ruling the Justices on the losing side, wrote, “circumstances surrounding the election suggest Michigan voters didn’t intend to take away people’s benefits.”
And the Associated Press reported today that legal arguments were made in which, “…the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 “consistently and repeatedly” assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.”
Remember, our opponents – the sponsors of Amendment 2 – claim that their amendment “will not invalidate benefits granted from domestic partnerships or any other source.”
But there’s just no argument any more.

The court’s opinion came in National Pride at Work Inc. v. Governor of Michigan.

(An important aside: A reading of the opinion in the case finds the decision narrowly tailored to prohibit granting same-sex domestic partnership benefits for public employees. It is not clear from the case whether private company benefits would similarly be prohibited, or if domestic partnership benefits for straight non-married couples would similarly be banned, and, of course, the ruling is not binding on Florida courts.)

Florida Red and Blue is dead on point about the “reassurance” that Florida’s Amendment 2 supporters make about their amendment not taking away partnership benefits. Here is what the Michigan court said about that:

Plaintiffs and the dissent argue that Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, an organization responsible for placing the marriage amendment on the 2004 ballot and a primary supporter of this initiative during the ensuing campaign, published a brochure that indicated that the proposal would not preclude public employers from offering health-insurance benefits to their employees’ domestic partners. However, such extrinsic evidence can hardly be used to contradict the unambiguous language of the constitution.

In fact, the Yes2Marriage group’s language and tack is eerily similar to that used in Michigan anti-gay marriage brochures:

Marriage is a union between a husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is—for families today and future generations.

When it comes to the law, it is about what the people vote on, not what supporters promise, as the Michigan court reinforced in a footnote to its decision:

 … [I]t should bear little repeating that the people ultimately did not cast their votes to approve or disapprove counsel’s, or any other person’s, statements concerning the amendment; they voted to approve or disapprove the language of the amendment itself.

(photo from 2007 St. Pete Pride Parade by Tom Stovall) 

The Florida Legislature might have a long way to go in protecting gay rights, but recent legislative decisions indicate that they might be taking a step in the right direction.

Last Tuesday, the Florida Senate Commerce Committee approved a Civil Rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment and housing statewide by 7-1. The bill will now be reviewed by the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

The Civil Rights bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Deutch, is similar to a bill sponsored by Rep. Kelly Skidmore, which is currently making its way through the House. While both bills would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, the House bill bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as well.

Gov. Charlie Crist has yet to comment on whether or not he would approve the bill.

Currently, Florida protects residents from employment and housing discrimination via the Florida Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, which both ban discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status, but omit protections based on sexual orientation.

Also under legislative review is the Safe Schools anti-bullying bill, sponsored by Rep. Nick Thompson, which was heard on Tuesday by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. It would protect all students from sexual, racial, and religious harassment, but makes no mention of bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Despite this omission, local activists view the bill as a step in the right direction.

“You don’t want to kill the bill. It may not pass as is, but it is a start. You don’t want to push too hard to kill what is the start of a good bill,” said Florida ACLU legislative director of Larry Spalding.

From Pushing Rope:

 Hillsborough County commissioner Brian Blair has picked up Ronda Storm’s gay-bashing mantle. The The Former Bubble Bee is venting mock outrage that Tampa high school students will protest violence against LGBT.

The April 25th Day of Silence was started in tribute to Lawrence King, whom was gay and murdered at age 15. Students will not speak and hand out cards explaining their silence. All this sounds rather harmless and hardly a disruption to schools. Blair is running for re-election against Kevin Beckner. The latter is openly gay and heavily-backed by the Democratic establishment. Blair is also being investigation for a possible ethics violation. Time for Blair to play the religious card.

This tactic is no surprise. The leading candidate against him, Kevin Beckner, is openly gay and running a tough campaign about Blair’s poor stewardship of the Environmental Protection Commission.

From Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell’s blog:

If I had to make a prediction, the folks pushing for a gay-marriage ban will either change their techniques or simply stop trying to make their case in person before this campaign is over — because their effort to do so today in Orlando fell pretty darn flat.

The affair was a lunch debate at Tiger Bay of Orlando between John Stemberger, who’s leading the “marriage protection amendment,” and Nadine Smith with Fairness for All Families, which is opposing the ban.

Stemberger can be personable and affable. But in today’s performance, he sounded more angry and ineffective. Rather than staying focused on the amendment he’s championing, he called Smith’s arguments “pathetic.” He tried to scare the crowd with the potential of gay-friendly decisions by “activist judges” and “Governor Live-and-let-live” (his name for Charlie Crist). And when looking for an anecdote of a gay person, Stemberger threw out comments from Rosie O’Donnell as a rationale for why Floridians should rally behind him.

Smith, on the other hand, kept her cool and focused on two things: 1) that gay marriage is already illegal in this state. (”The day before this election, same sex couples can’t marry,” she said. “The day after this election, same sex couples can’t marry.) 2) And the fact that this amendment could actually take away rights from unmarried couples (straight and gay) when it comes to things like healthcare and end-of-life decisions. (”You do not protect your marriage in any way by taking away other people’s rights.”)

Debating Florida’s November referendum that would ban gay marriages (and other civil union benefits, including possibly some for unmarried straight couples) seems a cottage industry these days. Two more debates are scheduled, and both should be good ones.

First, the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club also has a gay marriage debate on the books:

Friday, April 4, 2008 • 12:00 Noon - 1:15 p.m.
St. Petersburg Yacht Club • 11 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg

What’s at stake for all Floridians?
The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is the subject of our debate. Speaking in favor of the amendment is John Stemberger, Orlando lawyer and head of the Florida Family Council, which spearheaded the amendment. Speaking against Amendment #2 is Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality Florida and member of the Fairness for All Families campaign. Florida law already bans gay marriage, so what will this amendment actually do? Do Florida marriages need protection from “activist judges?” Is this an effort by social conservatives to stimulate the vote and help conservative candidates? Will this measure really harm Florida’s senior citizens? The sparks will fly at this debate; you won’t want to miss it. We’re hosting the Florida Association of Tiger Bay Clubs, so space will be limited.

RSVP deadline: Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Second, there is a gay marriage debate planned for USF St. Petersburg:

7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8 in the Campus Activities Center (corner of 2nd St. S and 6th Ave S.), John Corvino and Glenn T. Stanton, two of the nation’s leading and opposing voices on same-sex marriage, will debate each other and then take questions. The debate is free and open to the public. Complimentary parking is available in the campus parking garage.

Corvino (pictured at left) is a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Mich. and the editor of Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science and Culture of Homosexuality. His writing has appeared in national and regional print media, in scholarly anthologies and on the Web site Independent Gay Forum.

Stanton works with Focus on the Family as the Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality and the Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs. He has authored or contributed to nine books, including Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society and Marriage on Trial: The Case against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting.

Stanton (pictured at right) argues that same-sex marriages would erode our understanding of humanity by treating male or female as optional for the family. Corvino argues that recognizing same-sex unions would be good not only for gay people, but also for society at large, since society has an interest in promoting happy, stable and loving relationships.

It’s SayNo2. It’s referring to Amendment 2, the November referendum that would place a prohibition against same-sex marriages and possibly even civil union benefits for heterosexual partners into the Florida Constitution. From announcement to supporters:

We hope SayNo2 will be easy to remember and reinforce how dangerous Amendment 2 is to all Floridians. With SayNo2, our message will be simple:

Say No 2 taking away existing benefits and legal protections.

Say No 2 hurting Florida’s seniors who are unmarried by choice.

Say No 2 eliminating shared health care and pension benefits.

Say No 2 someone else deciding who can visit you in the hospital.

Say No 2 more government intrusion into our private lives.

With a new name comes a new Internet home: www.SayNo2.com.

Visitors to www.SayNo2.com will find an expanding and welcoming resource on the “marriage protection” amendment, including facts and stats on the amendment and the campaign, the experience of other states, how to get involved, how to contribute, and media resources – including the nine major newspapers in Florida that have already opposed the amendment.

SayNo2’s strategy mirrors the strategy of the only effort that turned back the anti-gay marriage forces, in a Nov. 2006 vote in Arizona, by appealing to straights and gays alike with the dangers of a constitutional provision such as Amendment 2.

Florida Red and Blue is one of two major groups fighting against Amendment 2, with Fairness for All Families being the other. Its current logo is below.

The student-produced newspaper The Minaret is reporting a possible showdown looming between the University of Tampa faculty and UT President Ron Vaughn over domestic partner benefits:

In the strongest statement to date, the faculty senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution Monday in support of domestic partner benefits, threatening to take their grievances to UT’s board of trustees and writing that “any further delay is without warrant.”

The resolution, which was confrontational in tone, was delivered sometime Wednesday to President Ronald Vaughn and Provost Janet McNew.

…  The faculty, which voted 19 in favor of the resolution with one abstention and no one opposed, attached a DPB fact sheet to the resolution for the president and provost.

The fact sheet contained statistics and research findings in support of extending DPB. It said studies have shown that same-sex DPB coverage costs less on average than provisions for opposite sex couples.

It also said that a Human Rights Campaign study found not a single reported case of a DPB package being fraudulently used, that 88 percent of the top 50 ranked American universities offer DPB, and that the other three Tier One Regional Universities-UT being the fourth-all offer DPB.

The National Gay News in December reported that among state employees in Florida, “[c]urrently, the University of Florida, Florida International University, Broward Community College, Florida Keys Community College, Hillsborough Community College and Miami-Dade College are the only state employers offering the full range of domestic partner benefits. Those benefits include health insurance, as well as sick leave and bereavement leave.” According to its website, USF in 2005 considered offering domestic partnership benefits but there is no evidence it was ever adopted, and the status of USF’s same-sex benefits could not immediately be determined.

(UT President Ron Vaughn/credit: University of Tampa) 

A first step: Two organizations — Fairness for All Families and Florida Red & Blue — are leading the fight against Amendment 2 in Florida. Learn more at fairnessforallfamilies.org and floridaredandblue.com, both of which offer ample opportunities to donate and volunteer.

Resources

Equality Florida addresses issues of concern to the GLBT community, eqfl.org