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.

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) 

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.