Here's one vote for the gay marriage ban

This reader left voice mail at the Times this morning to show support for the proposed same-sex marriage ban. John Stemberger's florida4marriage.org is counting on such sentiment to attain the 60 percent threshold needed for a constitutional amendment.

Comments

Isn't she a member of the Legislature?

And when did a 76 yr old women become the preeminent zoologist on what is natural and what is not.

Alex, I think it is mean spirited to post this lady's message. It has absolutely zero news value. It is beneath you all.

A 76 year old in bed with her grandkids kissing them on their cheeks is hot, baby!

Agreed 4:41!!!

And THAT'S why I never came out to my grandmother, God bless her she barely could watch the Jeffersons without mumbling about blacks on TV before she could abruptly switch the station back to Hee Haw. However, times are changing and it's not 1955 anymore, folks.

I hope the Times will post links for phone messages left that are argued just as personally for the other side.

[Charlotte]

Marriage is a basic civil right. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com The truth will set them free…

7:17
I hate to break it to you but civil right defined as a noun
Civil Right: "right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality"
13th ammendment eludes to slavery

14th ammendment: amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.

Frankly, I am not opposed to civil unions. . Moreover, homosexuals are not being denied the ability to buy homes,denied credit, are able to visit significant others in the hospital, etc...

But comparing the circumstance to civil rights is extremely misguided

Finally, marriage is a church observed sanctions (Yes with tax implication for filing purposes) However marriage is: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc"

who are you kidding? You can be married by a judge or a notary and it's not a religious ceremony in the least!

Fact is, gay marriage is already illegal in this state... what do we need this amendment for?

Is it natural? I don't think sooo...

[Chris W]

This amendment was pushed for XXX reasons:

1) Stoke up Florida's evangelicals to head to the polls to vote for whatever loser the GOP puts up.

2) Stoke up Florida's evangelicals to donate $$$ to the amendment's pushers.

Actually protecting Florida from the scourge of Gay Marriage isn't one of the motivators; faking out its supporters and making points for generating support for the Republican Party is.

[chewyandbert]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. A gay person has the right to live the life they choose and live with who they wish. Common sense, not psychological babble would tell one that the race would end if the union between a man and a woman were not the norm. Any marriage or relationship which conveys other rights is something that I shouldn't have to pay for.

[Jonathon]

The sad part about this whole thing, that was Charlie Crist grandmother. Guess he hasnt told her yet.

[Jason Straight]

This amendment is successful even when it fails miserably.It wont get 60% state wide ...in S florida it will fail because they now have paper ballots and the votes are gettin counted(Dont you hate that Charley Crist).By causing devisiveness and conflict the evangelical right wing gets to the polls in Nov.Conflict is the GOP mothers milk..the tactic works just not this time.Who cares!!!!

[I was told]

that if a gay dies of AIDS, he died of an overdose of sodomy. Is that true?

[Susan S]

Chris W is correct. This amendment is a cynical attempt to get out the bigot vote on Election Day.

Chris W and Susan S are so typical of the pole-up-the-butt brahmins of the left who can't conceive that people could actually think differently than they do, since their ideas are so self evidently true, and thus attribute only cynicism and willful ignorance to their opponents.

[Mabel]

Well, she is right. Our president is against this and has been for 8 years and I know Ronald Reagan hated it,too. And so did our past governor Jeb.
We need a man's man for president. Mitt has 5 sons and lots of grandkids.
--Mabel a "W"oman for George in 2000, 2004, and Mitt to come!

These amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman have passed among voters in ostensibly blue states such as Oregon, which means that many people who voted Democratic also supported the amendment. To pass this off as a Republican ploy is simple minded. Such measures have broad support. The reason a similar issue failed in Arizona, and may fail here too, is that it makes no allowance for civil unions which many people who believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and don't care to see this redefined, are remain willing to tolerate.

[cynical idealist]

All you people who hate the thought of gay marriage are probably homophobic to a greater or lesser degree. All you people who support gay marriage are trying to push your morals on a majority that isn't ready to accept the concept. Why don't you both spend some time working on something that really matters? Something like eradicating poverty, ending hunger, or ensuring health care for those who need it most...In the mean time, all of you need to get a life!

If you're posting here on the subject, perhaps you need to get a life too, CI.

Mabel: Methinks the lady doth protest too much...!

Lots of people insecure about their own sexuality. Wow.. maybe if they tried it, they wouldn't be so insecure. I mean, that way, they would know once and for all. So ... how about it, Mabel??

[Susan S]

cynical,
I believe it's the "moralists" who are wasting time trying to put something into the Constitution that isn't necessary. Shouldn't they be spending time on issues like poverty, hunger, etc., (not to mention homeowners' insurance and tax reform) instead of all of this fretting about who's living with whom?

Moral issues are only moral if they are moral to Susan, otherwise they are irrelevant. What perfect solipsism! The enlightened creatures of the left of the spectrum always take it upon themselves to be the arbiters of what it is appropriate to debate and when the unenlightened masses should hush up and listen to their betters. It must feel good to feel so correct.

has anyone bothered to notice that this ammendment and the whole homersectional-hating, gay-bashing crowd is saying to the children of florida, RIGHT NOW, TODAY, who already KNOW they are different, "YOU SCARE THE KRAP OUT OF US...WE HATE YOU AND WANT YOU TO GO AWAY!"

im not altogether sure that quite what jesus would say to those same children.

how about you?

Cristi won't be voting for this amendment.

Wasn't it also the argument a few years back that interracial marriages should be banned because they were "unnatural"?

This will pass with 73%. Game over for the homertesticles as lesbotarians.

all you trying to pin this on a certain type of republican voter need to remember that your boy clinton signed DOMA in the 90's (don't know what DOMA is? google it, i'm not here to school you)

oh, and HAH! stemberger - how's that *uckabee endorsement looking now?

[Hetero Bob]

This has nothing to do with either Party. Of course, both will seek a way to exploit it to their benefit.

It’s plain a simple. The homosexual lifestyle choice, while tolerated, is not of natural order. It’s not a political thing, it’s not a religious thing, and it’s not a matter of bigotry… it is simply not of natural order.

The claim that people who disagree with the lifestyle choice are just intolerant bigots is ridiculous. If the majority were “intolerant bigots”, homosexuals would not dare to come out of the closet, as it were.

No sooner will we change thousands of years of Islamic and/or Muslim culture into a McDonalds and Blockbuster culture… than we will change thousands of years of male-to-female marriage culture into a same-sex marriage culture.

I do not believe that our Constitution should be used to, nor was it intended to be used to, prevent people from having rights. But neither do I believe that society should be forced to validate a lifestyle choice that is simply not of natural order. If we place two male dogs on an island, and come back in 50-years… there will be no dogs on that island.

As harsh as that may read, you cannot escape that reality.

I need this amendment to strengthen my marriage. And I don't think the state has a more important role than to send a clear message to our children that while being gay is OK, you may not be married and gay. As for that more freedom talking point, we meant more freedome when it suits us. And on the gays, it doesn't suit us. Now let's all go out and vote for marriage! Who's with me? I said who's with me?

[Sal]

Who said being gay was "OK"?

I teach my children to be tolerant of their lifestyle choice, not validate it.

It's the pervert closet Republicans that have helped the anti-gay backlash. Live openly and freely, and you won't be driven to bathrooms

The only "people" that benefit from gay marriage are divorce lawyers.

[Clyde]

It is so sad to read all these postings. Attacking the homophobes is such a waste of time; you can't overcome invincible ignorance and fear. Understand that these folks are terrified of anybody who is different; they don't like jews, blacks, catholics, or anybody else who isn't a WASP. None are New Testament Christians. However, time will take care of all of them.

“Understand that these folks are terrified of anybody who is different…”

… particularly those who engage in male-on-male unsafe and irresponsible sodomy, which spreads a deadly disease that kills innocent people.

betcha that narrative got you all HOTHOTHOT, didnt it, 1.34?

proving even one more time that folks who get the most upset over homosexuality are those who most want to try it.

btw, 1.34, left out m/f couples who also like to share "that sort" of sexual act, not to mention lesbians totally!!

com'on, be honest.
youd like a go at it, wouldnt you??

jerk!!

No, 2:32… in fact it makes me sick to my stomach.

Not interested in having a “go at it” either. I’ll leave that and 3-letters to you and your ilk.

"jerk"… now that could save your life!

[Flagophile]

Hetero Bob,

Your post is absolutely absurd and lacking both logical and legal support.

That said, please define "natural order."

touched a nerve, there, 3.51?

and just how long have you been suppressing the impulse?

your protestations deny clear, firm data about those most upset by the issue!!

what is with folks like hetro bob and 3.51 that deny their natural impulses and snare them in hatred towards themselves and who they really are?

what is with folks like 4:05 who try to justify their own liking for tossed salad and immoral and irresponsible behavior by asserting that we all secretly want to be just like him… or her… of both… or it.

this 63 year old can assure you that he has spent almost zero time over the years, wondering about the sex lives of his many friends, whether straight or gay.

what is it with these folks who are OBSESSED and THREATENED with others' practices...most probably absolute strangers?

sexual insecurity?
emotional immaturity?
repressed urges?
envy and jealousy?
what??

i tell ya, it simply aint healthy for them...AT ALL!!!!

Hey, Casper (4:30)… I’m thinking it’s the desire to curb the total destruction of morals within our society…. whereby male/female intercourse for the purpose of procreation isn’t turned into a manufacturing process by which to simply create more people with good fashion sense… maybe.

… or maybe it’s way to curb the use of public bathrooms as a place to pick up a man-cicle… or doddle in a little diddy on the ol’ meat-whistle…

after 63 years, you'd think the guy would have learned to think ... some people don't really care about other people's private lives, but simply don't want to see the definition of marriage altered for the sake of political correctness to include same-sex unions.

Amen to that! Do what you wish in your own house, but stop trying to shove it down my throat (pun intended.

And that is why this will pass with 73%

nice slip, there, 4.55, nice slip

guess you answeed the question, didnt u?

Chris W and Susan S are so typical of the pole-up-the-butt brahmins of the left who can't conceive that people could actually think differently than they do, since their ideas are so self evidently true, and thus attribute only cynicism and willful ignorance to their opponents.

Posted by: | February 03, 2008 at 11:05 AM

_______________________________________

Wait, are you FOR or AGAINST the passing of an amendment that is about saying you-can't-do-this-because-I-disagree-with-it?

There is science out there that shows that homosexuality may in fact be as a result of biological factors. This would completely disprove the idea that it is a choice.

Moral arguments should not have a place in politics. As long as no one else is being hurt, why is it an issue? I have yet to hear how it actually HURTS anyone (other than the obvious fiscal impacts). Aren't Republicans supposed to be for smaller government?

There is nothing at all religious about legal marriage. An atheist can walk into a courthouse and have a legal marriage. Where's the outrage about the sanctity of marriage then? That's not addressed though. So the reason for the argument seems rather misplaced, doesn't it? If marriage is a religious ceremony, then it should be kept to the churches and only them. But the reality is, some churches would in fact marry gays. This is all about imposing one belief on all, and that should not be allowed in law when there is no harm done.

lots of folks think differently from me and each other

however, it seems appropriate that they shouldnt be trumpeting their immature, insecure ideas about sex and relationships on anyone...PERIOD!!

dont want to have a same-sex relationship, then dont

leave people alone and make sure that the members of your first church of goobers stay married to one spouse at a time and dont fool around, or at least pretend you dont know they do!!

i am certain you have enuff going on in your repsective lives to keep you busy right now, so you dont need to meddle in the lives of others you do NOT know!!

if you dont, i am sure you can take all that energy to a shelter for battered women or the homeless or a food pantry, as jesus would want you to.

you know, that "whatever you do to the least of these...." stuff?

stuff that actually holps folks; doesnt tear them down.