Posted by David Warner on May. 27, 2009, at 5:01 pm
A small but vocal group of protestors, both gay and straight, stood at the busy corner of 66th St. and 49th Ave. N. in Pinellas Tuesday night, armed with handmade signs and the passionate conviction that the California Supreme Court decision upholding the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage was a slap in the face to gays and lesbians everywhere. With storm clouds gathering above, they stood their ground and talked to CL.
Beth Fountain, a writer and former lawyer, questioned the dense language of the decision, in which the court essentially contradicted its position from a year before.
Like Fountain, musician Lisa Noe of the band Karmic Tattoo wondered why gay marriage could be “OK one minute, then it’s not OK the next.” And Rick Boylan, president of the Pinellas chapter of Stonewall Democrats and the secretary of the state Democratic party, pointed out that, even with the setback in California, the state is still years ahead of Florida in its recognition of gay rights: “We’re still dealing with issues that are left over from Anita Bryant days.”
Actually, I could’ve titled this post “Are Republicans afraid of homosexuals?” But I’m going to pick on the conservatives for now. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Apr. 20, 2009, at 6:19 am
No softballs for Carrie Prejean, the Christian college student who is Miss California competing in the Miss USA pageant. (She didn’t win, by the way.) She drew something more than the normal “Why do you want world peace” fluff query during the show last night, a question from Perez Hilton about gay rights:
Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Apr. 4, 2009, at 4:16 pm
Iowa becomes the fourth state in the nation and the first in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriages after that state’s Supreme Court struck down a ban against gay marriage.
Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.
The unanimous, 69-page decision maintains a church’s right to decide who can be married under its roof, but it runs counter to the expressed opinion of a majority of Iowans who believe marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.
The landmark ruling is guaranteed to send shock waves through politics in Iowa and beyond. With no appeal as an option, opponents say their only hope to overturn Friday’s decision is an almost-certain bid to amend the state constitution. But that path, which would eventually require a public vote, would not yield results until 2012 at the earliest.
Already, political writers are saying this will be the impetus for gay marriage and a nationwide constitutional amendment against it as key issues in the 2012 presidential elections.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Mar. 23, 2009, at 8:08 am
John Stemberger, the Orlando lawyer who is generally behind every bad social movement in this state, is ready to move on from his victory against the threat of gay marriage. His next target? Straight marriage.
The latest from Stemberger and his Florida Family Policy Council calls for more government intrusion into our lives: higher marriage fees, state involvement in premarital counseling and possibly more obstacles for divorce.
Now, there are all kinds of problems with making it tougher for people to end their marriages – not the least of which is that it makes things even more dangerous for victims of domestic violence.
But as for starting a marriage, who exactly do these people think they are?
Stemberger’s plan would double the amount of time Floridians must spend in pre-marital counseling and quadruple the cost (to $100) if they don’t undergo the therapy.
Stemberger has already lined up plenty of sponsors for his bill. Of course.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jan. 6, 2009, at 5:18 pm
A study released today (.pdf here) finds that while African American voters in California did support the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in higher percentages than other ethnic groups, they did not do so in “overwhelming numbers.”
The study by two professors found:
That after taking into account the effect of religious service attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups. Through a precinct-by-precinct analysis and review of multiple other sources of data, the study also puts African-American support for Proposition 8 at no more than 59 percent, nowhere close to the 70 percent reported the night of the election. Finally, the study shows how support for marriage equality has grown substantially across almost all California demographic groups — except Republicans.
What drove the vote? Party ID, religious attendance rates and ideology, not race or ethnicity:
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Dec. 24, 2008, at 7:00 am
Writing in HuffPo recently, Bob Ostertag insists it is:
It’s just plain sad what the gay and lesbian movement has come to. November 4 was so extraordinary, so magical. The whole world seemed to come together. Except for gays and lesbians in California. We were supposed to feel crushed over Proposition 8. And now the whole scenario is gearing up to repeat itself on January 20: the whole world will celebrate the inauguration of the first black American president and the end of the George Bush insanity – the whole world except gays and lesbians who will be protesting Rick Warren’s presence at the inaugural.
How is it that queers became the odd ones out at such a momentous turning point in history? By pushing an agenda of stupid issues like gay marriage.
“Gay marriage” turns the real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities upside down and paints us into a reactionary little corner of our own making.
Given the setback of Amendment 2 in Florida that is fresh in everyone’s minds here, it is a reasonable question to ask if the GLBT community has made a tactical or political mistake in pushing for the right to marry just as heterosexuals can. So I asked a few well-known Tampa Bay gay activists or politicos their thoughts and here is what I have received back so far:
Here’s an interesting clip of Thomas Friedman talking about the green revolution. (Oh, and hardcore pushing his new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded.) Interesting how he castigates the right for the language they used to demonize “green,” but then segues into thoughts on how to better talk to those same folks. I’m wondering, if someone thinks that not living in their own shit is sissy and “European,” why bother talking to that moron at all?
Thank God NBC finally got around to posting “Giraffes!”, the hilarious skit/mini-movie that ran on last weekend’s Saturday Night Live. That was the same night as the “John McCain on QVC” skit. That was very funny. This is so bizarre it’s transcendent.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jun. 12, 2008, at 1:50 pm
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.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jun. 3, 2008, at 10:53 am
The latest Quinnipiac University poll out today (and downloadable as a Word doc) is not great news for opponents of the Florida Constitutional ban on gay marriage, aka Amendment 2 — 58 percent of Floridians would vote to approve the prohibition against same-sex nuptials, despite the fact that such a ban is already state law:
Florida voters support 58 – 37 percent a constitutional amendment that specifically defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, making same-sex marriage illegal in Florida. Republicans back the measure 77 – 19 percent, as independent voters support it 52 – 44 percent, while Democrats oppose it 52 – 44 percent. Voters with no college degree back the amendment 64 – 32 percent, while college-educated voters oppose it 50 – 46 percent.
Note the split between college-educated and non-college-educated respondents. Ever wonder why the Republican-led Legislature is so hell-bent on crippling the state’s university system? Pound the university system into submission and maybe you can lower that opposition to stupid right-wing amendments, they gotta figure.
In related news, Gov. Charlie Crist’s approval rating continues to be strong at 61-23, although below his initial months after inauguration in 2007. Here is what the Q poll found:
“Any politician would die to have Gov. Charlie Crist’s approval rating. The economy is down; state programs are being cut and 60 percent of voters say they are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the way things are going in Florida today, yet his numbers remain very, very good,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Crist’s support remains solid across the board with 67 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents giving him a thumbs up. In addition, 55 per cent of voters say Crist has kept his campaign promises.
Kept his campaign promises? I don’t recall him promising on the campaign trail to sit by impotently while the Legislature ignored his proposed budget and failed to tap reserves rather than make disastrous cuts to schools, or his promise to fail to bring about real property tax reform.
Finally, here are the approval ratings for other cabinet officials:
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, 51 – 26 percent;
U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, 40 – 35 percent;
State Attorney General Bill McCollum, 52 – 20 percent;
Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, 33 – 25 percent.
Melquiades’ numbers suck, while McCollum’s seem off the charts, given that he lost the 2004 race to Martinez but has been rumored to be prepping another shot at it because of Melquiades’ poor showing in Congress. The high McCollum numbers (I just can’t imagine anyone really liking him) make me suspicious that this was a very Republican sample for this poll.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Feb. 12, 2008, at 12:11 pm
As Florida careens toward a November date with straight-marriage-protectin’ destiny, I’m intrigued by a question posed by a high schooler to Karl Rove as he spoke to a New England prep school yesterday. (An event combining a day at a New England prep school AND a speech by Der Rover, how in the hell did I NOT make the roadie up for that?!? But I digress …) Here’s the account from Think Progress:
During his controversial speech at New England prep school Choate Rosemary Hall yesterday, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was challenged by a student “to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.†Rove dodged answering her at first, saying that the issue “should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court.†But the student, Choate senior Marla Spivak, continued to press him:
Spivak kept pressing. “You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?†she asked.
Rove asked, what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?
What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.
The Spivak-Rover tit-for-tat (he said tit, heh heh) went on for a bit longer, but the central question remains:
“What’s so wrong about gay people getting married?” I’ll even allow it to be turned backwards for consideration: “What exact societal ills would banning gay marriage solve? What specific good would come of it in Tampa Bay, for instance? Would our traffic move better? Would we have less crime? Would our environment be miraculously cleaned, or developers decide to stop paving the state with suburbia?”
(Full disclosure: I am a straight married man; my editor at CL is a gay married man.)
Brendan McLaughlin of Flashpoint had opposing sides on this issue on his show this past Sunday, and his blog details the shit he caught from some viewers who thought he was improperly injecting his personal bias into the discussion:
The flurry of comments on the gay marriage amendment discussion on Flashpoint included several requests that I keep my opinions to myself. My first reaction is, “…and deprive the citizenry of my wisdom and unerring judgment? Never!” On further consideration, I realize that any expression of bias in my role as a moderator is fair game for dissection. So let’s pull out the scalpel.
You can catch the two segments from Flashpoint on streamed video here, just use the pulldown menu to go to Flashpoint and choose segments 1 & 2 from Feb. 10.
McLaughlin, who anchors the 6 & 11 newscasts on ABC Action News in Tampa Bay and who frequently suffers from lapses of judgment that result in me appearing on Flashpoint, acknowledged that his objective role as an anchor changes for the Sunday political talk show. He also admits that he has no problem showing his opinion on issues that are “so wrong-headed.” Like banning gay marriage.
One of his blog commenters agreed:
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
So I will come back to my central question: What’s so wrong with gay marriage that we have to ban it in our state constitution?
(And if you are opposed to the amendment banning gay marriage, then you might want to check this website that has the names and addresses of the 600,000+ registered Florida voters who signed the petition to put it on the ballot and ask your friends and neighbors listed there the same question. Do it in a nice, friendly manner, maybe bake a nice coffee cake and take it over to their house, you know the drill. We’ll cotton to no violence here at PoHo blog.)
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Dec. 13, 2007, at 1:33 pm
Like we apparently need more reasons, this today from the Rear Admiral via his campaign e-mail:
“I applaud the work of Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage. Their efforts will give the people of Florida a voice on this very important subject. I strongly believe in the time honored principle of marriage being a union between one man and one woman, the foundation of any civilized society. Florida’s Marriage Amendment will have my support in 2008. As President, I will appoint judges who apply the law, not make it up from the bench. We should not be held subject to judicially created social policy, and I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to defend the institution of marriage.”
The Spivak-Rover tit-for-tat (he said tit, heh heh) went on for a bit longer, but the central question remains:
