Marriage amendment close

UPDATE: John Stemberger, leader of the Florida4Marriage effort and the Florida Family Policy Council, called to correct the record and clarify that Verdugo's "self-serving" statement was "not accurate." Those signatures just reached Stemberger's office, he said, and it may be weeks before they're counted.

The Christian Family Coalition says that today it filed the remaining 3,300 petitions needed to bring an amendment to the state constitition to Florida voters next fall.

The group filed the petitions with Florida4Marriage, the sponsoring political committee, and they still must be verified by the state. Assuming the petitions are validated, the amendment limiting legal marriage in Florida to one man, one woman would be scheduled for the November 2008 ballot.

According to Florida4Marriage, the exact goal is 611,009 and "we are not yet finished until it is official in Tallahassee."

"In our system of government, the people of Florida, not unaccountable judges, should define marriage in our state," Anthony Verdugo, chairman of the Christian Family Coalition, said in a statement.

Comments

How about an amendment to criminalize being a busy body?

We could call it the "Mind Your Own Business Amendment"

I am so glad that Anthony Verdugo and the Christian Family Coalition does not have respect for our government system. Get rid of judges.

What is next we don't need a legislators? Then we will be with a king or dictactor, but I guess as long as they are a christian we will be ok.

That $150k from the RPOF sure did come in handy.

Marriage is between 1-man and 1-woman… DEAL WITH IT!

[Zhombre]

Call it the "Hometown Marriage" amendment. Is is OK for people to approve all development in the state, but not OK for those same people to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

[UF Student]

Don't worry about any of the important things, as long as those gays can't marry. What a joke these Christian Family Coalition people are!

[stephen]

Isn't this the same Christian Coalition that gave their A1 score rating to Rep. Marvin Coach? Foley? Allen? and many more? Does a $22 dollar hooker ring a bell? Same ones that continually support people they say their religion condems? This is America, we have a right to be free here whether you or any religious group likes it or not. We have a Constitutuion. You deal with that! These religious groups, especially the Christian Coalition, do not seem to like our Constitution. Perhaps they do not like this country and what it stands for. I happen to think that marriage is between a man and a woman also, but that is my personal belief and it is not to be imposed on anybody else.

[crcg]

I am all for it. We need to keep Foley, Lott, Craig, Graham, McConnell, Allen, and scores of other Republicans (do I really need to list them all for you), from ever marrying each other at all costs.

The Democrats could have a lot of fun with this one.

Too many "christians",

Not enough lions.

Now get ready for a campaign that has a foundation of hate.

Posted by: | December 03, 2007 at 05:03 PM

Wrong!

Marriage is what two people agree to comitting themselves to each other.

“Marriage is what two people agree to committing themselves to each other. “

CLOSE!

You left out the whole part about one being a MAN, and one being a WOMAN.

When either 2-men or 2-women can produce life between themselves, and therefore sustain human existence in the circle of life… we’ll talk.

Until then, shut your pie-hole and focus on making pot legal!

[Sssssskip!]

Great!... another loss for the Democraps because they’ll refuse to focus on the real issues like war, economy, immigration, education, ect… and solutions to them - and they’ll focus all energy on making sure the pole-smokers and two-can-chews help divorce lawyers make more money.

[stephen]

Vote independent!

Stephen,

Don't forget Harden.

I am married. I don't really care about gays one way or the other. This seems like a big smoke screen for failures on real issues by the GOP party that controls everything. I want my property insurance fixed. The special session back in January didn't cut it.

As far as the citizens are concerned, I believe that the results of the recent elections suggest that they don't care about gays (one way or another) either.

I'm for gay marriage as long as the two chicks are HOT.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong":
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could, in general, get it... You'll be surprised and awestruck by their inability to come up with a counterpoint this time.

10:55 please pass the peyote.

[Gene Smith]

The wingnuts are desperate to act now. That's because young folks overwhelmingly approve of either gay marriage or at least civil unions (67%) according to this ABC US Politics poll on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=6246438270

So if they don't get their hateful amendment into the Constitution now, they never will.

But, in the immortal words of ole number 41:

"Not gonna happen".

[trashy4u]

8:37,

Your argument, like all of those put forth by opponents of gay rights, is ignorant and thoughtless.

We do not ask prospective spouses to promise that they will procreate. Ahh... but you will surely retort that is irrelevant because they "can" have children.

How about individuals who cannot have children, they should they not be allowed to marry either? How about post-menopausal women, no marriage for them either?

Simpleton.

[Anthony Verdugo]

It is very sad to see how John Stemberger, who calls himself a Christian, is not a team player. Instead of being gracious and thankful for the 50,000 + signatures collected and filed by the Christian Family Coalition, it is HE who is being self-serving by attacking his own friends. IT it were not for our organization, he would NOT have the necessary signatures. He should save his arrogance for his political enemies

Leave people alone! How does their marriage affect you? How would you like someone telling you who it was okay to marry? It's none of your business and has no place on our constitution.

[MCO]

Gene,

Not that anyone takes you seriously, but did you really just use a FACEBOOK poll as your argument? Come on Gene, you can do better. Your right, you probably can't. Typical kossack posting.

[UF Alumni]

I was listening to the Allen Hunt radio show Sunday and he made a statement that it is immoral for a man and a woman to get married and not have children.

[trashy4u]

There is no legally or logically sound argument for not allowing gays to marry.

[Erik Libby]

Too bad the balanced budget law wasn't enacted by the Republican majority and Contract for "Our" America in the 80's and 90's. Can you imagine the Republicans being held to their own rediculous standards that they expect others to buy. Instead they feed deeply in the public trough for their own benefit, and the wealthy peers.

There is no need to ban civil, or social unions between two adult consenting partners. As usual the real issues that governement should be focused on taxes, water suppply, and the needs of the poor, elderly, and education are merely glossed over. Not much of a positive photo op for smiling Charlie of Florida Legislature with the real substantive issues that desrve real energy.

[Anthony Verdugo]

It is sad to see how John Stemberger, who calls him himself a Christian, is NOT a team player. Instead of being thankful for the 50,000+ signatures he received from the Christian Family Coalition, he is attacking us! It is HE who is being sel-serving. If it were not for our organization, he would not even be close to gathering the necessary signatures needed. I hope he saves his arrogance for his political opponents.

[politicalspectator]

12/3 10:55 - Fabulous!

Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Attorneys should be supporting this bill as well.

The wheels are coming off of the big machine. The GOP coalition of the willfully ignoranat is beginning to self destruct!

[Lucidity]

"Dogs and cats living together: mast hysteria!"

I’ve always wondered why an extension cord with a male adapter at each end… just never seemed to work right, and shocked the hell out of me too!

The one that had a female adapter on each end just laid there and did nothing.

Funny how certain things were made to work a certain way… and simply can’t be forced, or tricked, to work it a way it was never intended or created to.

[Veracity]

I had a pair of dogs that were of an extremely rare breed. Interesting enough, they were the only two of their kind left in the world. What was even more interesting is that they were both female.

We tried and tried to breed them so the breed could continue its’ existence. But for some reason, it just never worked out. They both died of old age, and the breed became extinct; never to be enjoyed again.

Funny how certain things were made to work a certain way… and simply can’t be forced, or tricked, to work in a way they were never intended or created to work.

Funny, how if you're born gay, you find that you can't force yourself to be straight, or fool yourself, or work in a way that you were never intended or created to work.

But you can always ruin other peoples lives and families by acting the straight part for years, and relieving your frustration later in a men's public restroom at a park or airport. Or maybe you'll give your unsuspecting wife AIDS or HIV because you're on the down low.

[MCO]

Born gay?

So can one be born stupid? Born racist?

[trashy4u]

Veracity and Lucidity,

Your posts were serious perversions of both words.

Veracity - As I noted above, the procreation argument is unavailing. We do not ask prospective couples whether they intend to procreate prior to approving their union. Furthermore, individuals who conclusively cannot procreate because they are either sterile, infertile or past the child-bearing age are allowed to marry.

What's worse, your only arguments against gay marriage are derived from one or two single sentences in the Bible. Government should not create discriminatory laws based on the tenets of any religion Remember, it's called the First Amendment.

How would you like it if the American government began writing laws to placate the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, etc.

Keep your religious beliefs between you, your god, and whatever repressed homosexual pastor you confess to.

[trashy4u]

Can one of you please point me to the story in the New Testament where Jesus taught us to discriminate against homosexuals or that homosexuals were inferior?

trashy4u, you should read the Bible before you try and question it. And nice try on singling out the New Testament.

Its not an issue of whether the Bible teaches us to tolerate homosexuality. The issue is that the Bible prohibits homosexuality.

Nice going. Can't we have a constitutional amendment for everything the Bible prohibits? Or did I miss the Bible's power rankings of sin?

[Zhombre]

These amendment, once on the ballot, have generally passed in other states, including state that are nominally "blue" and went for Kerry in 2004. The Arizona amendment failed in 2006 I think primarily because it was broad and restrictive and left no room for civil unions or other forms of legal equity short of marriage. This amendment, if the electorate is allowed to vote on it, may pass on majority vote.

[trashy4u]

5:49:

Again, please point me to the parable of Jesus discriminating against the "faygs."

If you are referring to Leviticus, I think you're argument that God disapproves of homosexuals is on pretty shaky ground.

Plus, unless you are Jewish, and do not believe in the New Testament, it appears that Jesus' teachings that God will be the only judge and to love your neighbor as yourself trump the one line in Leviticus which disapproves of homosexuality. It is the "Golden Rule" after all.

So, Bible scholar, where can I find the part about Jesus and the "faygs?"

[Actuality]

I had this car once… and it ran out of gas. We filled that tank up with milk, ‘cause we preferred milk over gas. No matter how hard we tried, it just wouldn’t start. It was weird, ya know… like somehow the engine wasn’t made to run on milk.

Funny how certain things were made to work a certain way… and simply can’t be forced, or tricked, to work in a way they were never intended or created to work.

[Certainty]

The there was this time we replace our roof with screening. No matter how much we claimed it was the right thing to do… we kept getting wet when it rained. It was weird, ya know… like somehow a roof wasn’t supposed to be made out of screening… if you wanted to stay dry.

Funny how certain things were made to work a certain way… and simply can’t be forced, or tricked, to work in a way they were never intended or created to work.

[John]

I'm ok with defining a legal marriage in FL.

What about the guy in Asia that married a dog (and I am talking about the kind with 4 legs). Is that a legal marriage?

[Clueless]

I had this friend once....no matter how much we joshed with her, she never did get along with the boys if you know what i mean. I loved her to death though, a friend of the family and like a sister to me and i wish her the best in my heart.

Funny how certain things were made to work a certain way… and simply can’t be forced, or tricked, to work in a way they were never intended or created to work.

[Back to the 50s]

If we can't stigmatize and discriminate against blacks, women, native Americans, foreign born citizens or the old, then at least we should concentrate on homosexuals. Go get them, all us Godly folk!

Virtue cannot exist within each of us in a vacuum, it must have something opposite of itself existing at large to identify itself against.

How can I remain self-righteous and holy when there is nobody around to identify as evil and God offending?

Why not use the coercive power of the state to disadvantage somebody different from me? What good is it being a majority if there aren't disadvantages to being in the minority?

God created people different and we should honor that by treating one another differently. Gays will serve until we can move on to some other minority to identify, stigmatize and disadvantage. It is the age-old American way that should be revived and strengthened.

[Issywise]

John:

Your slippery-slope argument that if we allow gays to marry than we must also allow people to marry dogs lacks only one necessary supporting foundation--the human ability to reason.

The argument for dog marriages is just as supported by analogy with heterosexual marriages as with homosexual marriage. Can you distinguish between the three types of "marriage"--hetero, homo and interspecies?

If so, you can reason and that facility should have made you ashamed to plop such a pile of ignorance into this marketplace of ideas.

Reasonless faith is said to sometimes justify such expressions of ignorance, but nobody's particular faith should be lent the coercive power of the state to enforce it on others.

Prejudice is prejudice: the fight here is to keep prejudice against Gays socially acceptable.

Illustrations such as the one you've provided show how far some will go into self-blindness to justify their own desire not to open their eyes to the reality within their own soul.

Your argument was once made against interracial marriage and sharing drinking fountains with people of different skin tones. The old game is still being played by some--only the victims change.

[Icarus]

The votes will be there and the amendment will pass. Gays will have to go somewhere else to "marry".

Unless you find verifiable evidence that being gay is the same as being Caucasian or having red hair or big ears or a funny nose?

I am waiting...still waiting...yep, still waiting...anything yet?

[john]

Perhaps this amendment isn't about gay marriage but is instead a ploy by the Repugs to get more of their voters to the polls so they can get more votes for their party on the issues that really matter. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

“The votes will be there and the amendment will pass. Gays will have to go somewhere else to "marry".

Bottom line!

We are no more going to be able to convert 1000’s of years of culture in Iraq into McDonalds and Blockbuster… than we are going to convert 100’s of years of “male/female” marriage culture here in America.

It is not a religious issue, nor is it a racial issue, nor is it a prejudice issue… so save the spin.

It’s a matter of natural order, and that is the reason there’s so much opposition to it on BOTH sides of the isle.

[trashy4u]

On the dog-marriage post above:

I don't think that I can say it any more eloquently than Issywise.

However, it is also important to note that what makes marriage between to same-sex adults most distinguishable from man-animal marriage is an animals inability to consent legally.

I'm still waiting on the parable about Jesus hating gays.

I also think it's important to note that there has not been one logically and legally sound argument posted on this thread by the gay marriage opponents.

Trashy, I beg to differ with your last point. 9:10 pretty much nailed it dead on the head.