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.”

More interviews after the break.

Not everyone at the protest was gay; Jack Crepeau, a volunteer with Equality Florida and Stonewall and a sociology professor, had just returned from his wife’s ultrasound; they’re having their first child. Crepeau’s sign: “Only divorce hurts marriage.” And Fountain’s sign — “Am I not a citizen?” — intentionally referenced the slogan of African-American protestors during the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike in 1968:  “I am a man.”

Actually, I could’ve titled this post “Are Republicans afraid of homosexuals?” But I’m going to pick on the conservatives for now. 

Why are homosexuals necessarily anti-family? Who says homosexuals aren’t religious folks who read their Christian bible, Hebrew bible or their Koran? Why do we have these black-and-white cultural dividing lines?

I bring this up because of the brouhaha over so-called “gay marriage” legislation.  Conservatives show their bona fides by fighting gay marriage legislation. It doesn’t make much sense that an anti-gay marriage agenda should be a core conservative principle.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that a same-sex couple wants society to recognize their union. In a pluralistic society that champions freedom of religion and lifestyle, conservatives should actually fight against state interference in the lives of its citizens.

The solution Obama proposed on the campaign trail last year makes some sense. Let religious leaders deal with marriage and the state deal with civil unions. This division of labor should satisfy the parties involved while maintaining and recognizing the proper separation of church and state.

Recognition of same-sex unions is not a statement about morality. Rather, it’s an acknowledgement of a diverse society. The purpose of laws is to promote the general welfare of all, not the preferences or beliefs of a few. Laws have a moral quality insofar that they must treat people fairly and equally.  Particular expressions of morality or a certain moral code are best left to faith groups.

Perhaps that’s why many, including myself, mark the advent of George W’s decline as the Terri Schiavo debacle.  After he intervened in that morass, he ignored the horror of Hurricane Katrina. As Bush sank into a black hole, conservatives went with him. Perhaps it’s because fear-mongering and creating societal inequality aren’t very popular in a society proud of freedom and equality.

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.”

Then all hell broke loose backstage. Read about it here.

The Des Moines Register reports:

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.

Daily Loaf blogger Lorna Bracewell adds her thoughts.

Download the ruling after the jump.


The Iowa court’s complete ruling (.pdf)

The Iowa court’s ruling summary (.pdf)

As Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel reports:

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.

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:

• The two most important characteristics determining the vote were party identification and ideology.
  Those self describing as Democrats or Liberals, overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8. Those self describing as Republicans or Conservatives, overwhelmingly supported California Proposition 8.

• The third most important characteristic determining the vote was religiosity.
  Those attending religious services every week, supported Prop 8 by 70% while those attending once a month opposed it by 52% and those hardly ever attending opposed it by 70%.

• The fourth most important characteristic determining the vote was age.
  All the ages groups opposed Prop 8, except for those 65+ who supported it by 67%.
  As importantly, when compared to another marriage initiative in California in 2000 (the Knight initiative), all age groups increased their support of same sex marriage equality in 2008—except for those 65 years of age or older.

• African Americans and Latinos supported Prop 8 by 58 and 59% respectively—not 70% plus as reported in an exit poll on November 4, 2008.
  Furthermore, their vote correlates more with religiosity than race.

• Contrary to popular belief, knowing an LGBT person was not a significant factor in opposing California Proposition 8.

Headlines after the jump …

• Serial adulterer Cong. Mahoney’s unique house-sharing arrangement with his wife.
• Gov. Charlie is still popular.
• The slow gutting of Florida’s higher ed continues.
• Gelber: Fighting the fiscal crisis with one hand behind our backs.
• Lakeland, the next Phoenix.
• Safety Harbor commission ready for some election politicking.
• Run, Kendrick, run.
• Making another run at gay marriage in New Hampshire.
• Closer to home, making a run at gay adoption in Pinellas County.
• Muslim family tossed off an AirTran flight.
• Some Bush aides say Cheney wasn’t a “puppetmaster.”
• The GOP diaspora begins.
• Not much changed in Pasco County government in 2008.

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:

Lorna Bracewell, Creative Loafing blogger and singer/songwriter:

My response is two fold: First of all, I think Bob Ostertag is mistaken when he intimates that gays and lesbians are not celebrating right along with the rest of the country and the world the election of the first African American president of the United States. Just because many gays and lesbians have noted the irony that this civil rights milestone coincided with a civil rights travesty doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge or appreciate the milestone.

Second of all, I think Ostertag’s argument for the exclusion of “gay marriage” from the universe of “real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities” is sloppy and wrongheaded. He’s right that straight people who remain unmarried do not get the “special pivileges” that accompany a civil
marriage. However, his suggestion that existing marriage law discriminates against these couples in the same way it discriminates against same sex couples is absurd. If a couple of straight, unmarried “hipsters who can’t relate to religious institutions” want the “special privileges” of civil marriage all they have to do is stroll down to the courthouse. If same sex couples want them, there is no remedy.

I’m in favor of coalition building; gays and lesbians need to reach out to fair minded people of every sexual orientation, but we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the law currently treats us as categorically different from straight people. We are not denied the right to marry because we are  unmarried. We are denied the right to marry because we would marry someone of the same sex.

Larry Biddle, a veteran of the Howard Dean presidential campaign and online campaigning pioneer (and partner of CL Editor David Warner), weighed in with these thoughts:

I think the issue should be separated – religious from civil.

I can’t think of why it’s important to take on religion in almost any fight.  There are still are terrible consequences to people and the world due to religious contentions. It’s a never-ending battle.

Forget that.  Get beyond trying to make everyone believe the same religiously.  What I would defend, and fight for, is equal civil rights for everyone.  We in the gay community tend to live the double standard of wanting folks to only believe what we believe is right.  That’s their argument.  We use divisiveness as a self-destructive weapon.   The amendment 2 loss in the last election in Florida was mainly due to: (1) the division into two groups to run what should have been a united campaign front – that division was mostly mostly about personality conflicts; (2) the fight wasn’t about love — as it was in Massachusetts — where polls and final results showed that love was something the transcended almost all issues and divisiveness — including most religious beliefs.  I believe universally people can agree that love is unique and not to be legislated.

The Warren fuss and the constitutional amendment losses aren’t a fight based on accepting diversity or seriously searching for commonalities.  It’s are too often about gays not accepting others even when we don’t agree with their views.  That takes principled compromise and respectful argument.  I think we should be realistic about how political fights are won.  Keep it civil.  That includes celebrating in unity on January 20th and using that as the bases for moving forward equal right for all.  It’s a waste of time to battle religious differences.

Biddle also sent along a message making the rounds along these same lines, about Pastor Rick Warren and the controversy over his planned Inauguration Invocation, from Michael Piazza of Hope for Peace and Justice:

Defending Rick Warren

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration has created quite a stir, especially in the lesbian and gay community. Wisdom dictates that I begin by saying that I disagree vociferously with almost everything the Rev. Warren believes and preaches. Although I appreciate the work his church has done combating AIDS in Africa, I wish he cared about those living with AIDS in this country, too. My life would be better if I never had to hear another evangelical pastor pray to our white Father-God, but I guess, unless I mute the TV, that again will be my fate on January 20. It makes me furious that Warren used his extensive tax-free platform to campaign against Proposition 8 in California and defend special rights for heterosexual taxpayers. There are thousands of non-white/heterosexual/male religious leaders that our new president could have chosen to give the invocation. However, he picked Rick Warren, and I support that choice.

Warren certainly doesn’t deserve our support, but the dynamic behind his selection does. The President-elect made a point of the fact that he, too, disagrees with much of what Warren believes and does. That is the genius of Barack Obama. He invites people with whom he disagrees into his life and administration. How amazing is that after the past eight years? Throughout the Bush administration, we have seen the danger and disaster that comes from only listening to those with whom you agree.

Regardless of how you feel about Rick Warren’s theology, you have to give him points for twice inviting candidate Obama to participate in events at his church, despite obviously disagreeing with Obama’s values and positions. If Rick Warren is adult enough to do that, we should be, too. Genuine diversity requires us to listen respectfully to people who are different and who hold differing views. Both the right and the left are guilty of listening only to itself. Dialogue is our greatest hope for progress, but that can never happen if we cannot tolerate including those with whom we disagree. In many ways, the disdain shown for the President-elect’s choice of Warren reflects more poorly on us than on Warren. We must learn to see issues from both sides and then respectfully disagree without becoming shrill or hateful.

Please do not think I am unwilling to fight or protest or shout my disagreement when seeking equality. I have fought for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights across the south for 30 years, so I understand the need to fight passionately. I also have learned the need for respect, and that if I ever expect to receive it I have to show it. I disagree with Rick Warren, and I disagree with President-elect Obama’s selection of him. However, I respect both men, and, mostly, I respect the values that allow people to disagree without disdain. We cannot discard other Americans with whom we disagree without expecting them to want to discard us. As someone wise said, we must “do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”

The Rev. Joseph Lowery will give the benediction at the inauguration. This great Civil Rights leader is a hero of mine. However, I assume that there are conservatives in this country who find his choice as abhorrent to them as we liberals do the choice of Rick Warren. I say, “I assume,” because I haven’t heard any of them say a word. As our movement matures, we must offer the same respect to our opponents that we want them to offer us. While we disagree vigorously with Rick Warren, millions of people agree with him, and they deserve a place at the table, too.

We must make room for those who disagree with us if we hope to have them make room for us. That is what diversity is all about. Those are the terms by which real dialogue takes place. It requires a maturity of tolerance and respect, and without it progress is impossible. As our friends in AA say, “Crazy is doing what you’ve always done but expecting different results.” We must find new strategies if we want different results. Showing respect even in disagreement may be the key to persuading those in the majority to respect us and our rights.

Let Rick Warren pray, and I’ll go get a cup of coffee while he does. Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing Joseph Lowery pray the benediction and give voice to my prayers for this new administration, which is adult enough to make room even for people with whom it doesn’t agree.

Blessings,
Michael Piazza
President, Hope for Peace & Justice

• Once out of office, Bush might still be able to block subpeonas.
• How to spend the $700 bailout? Not on this crap.
• Obama loves the techies.
• TECO customers: Prepare for a serious rate hike.
• Alaska’s Ted Stevens now down by three whole votes.
• Civil rights watch: Gay marriage now legal in Connecticut.
• The Dow: How low can it go?
• Joe Maddon named AL Manager of the Year.

• Our long, county-wide nightmare is over.
• “Sanity returns to the county.”
• Would you believe Obama’s agenda includes “Getting America back on track?”
• Obama can thank the Youth Vote, I-4 corridor, red counties, black voters, foreclosures, Hispanics for his FLA victory.
• Hillsborough GOP turmoil.
• Looks like gay marriage proponents and black people in California need to have a conversation.
• “She didn’t know the nations involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement. … She didn’t understand … that Africa was a continent and not a country.”
• Smoke up Michigan and Massachusetts.
• October consumer spending number digs six foot hole, climbs in …
• … Upon hearing the news, the Dow quickly followed suit.
• Is that Santa Claus or is it still Halloween?
• Hottest Bond girl? If you answered Grace Jones, please turn in your penis.