Patricia Ireland v. John Stemberger
The former NOW president will debate Florida4Marriage's leader on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment at the Tallahassee Tiger Bay Club on Wednesday, March 26.
![]() |
|
Obama campaign calls for negotations on FL, MI | Main | The TBRC's next big fight »
The former NOW president will debate Florida4Marriage's leader on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment at the Tallahassee Tiger Bay Club on Wednesday, March 26.
E-mail Times political editor Adam Smith: |
A project of the Times and CQ to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign.
|
Join Times Political Editor Adam Smith and Bay News 9 anchor Al Ruechel as they invite guests to discuss and debate the hot political topics making news, every Sunday on Political Connections. |
© 2008 · All Rights Reserved · St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111
Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

In protecting marriage, I usually only worry about my own, and I'm still married. Mission Accomplished!
Gee, if only the state could help me care more about my marriage, how we it go about doing that?
Stopping gays and lesbians from marrying?
Ok. Seems kinda odd, but that's bound to help me out.
Rudy's divorces, McCain's divorce, Larry Craig's pending divorce, Former state Sen. McKay's divorce, were all caused because their states didn't have a constitutional ban on marriage.
And I thought responsibility started at home.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM
She will absolutely run circles around him.
Posted by: Crusader | March 24, 2008 at 01:17 PM
I've already told my wife that if gays are allowed to get married then we're finished. She doesn't understand why gays should affect our lives, but I told her that it's in the Bible. Some people will just never understand.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 01:25 PM
1:25 - just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it is supposed to be in the constitution - US or state
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 01:29 PM
If we change the definition of marriage, what do we change it to? Please define for me.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 01:55 PM
I agree with many of the posts above.
I am not married and I refuse to marry until an amendment protecting marriage is passed.
I will not commit to an institution that is under siege by the gay community. There is no way that my marriage can work if gays are not stopped.
Posted by: Flagophile | March 24, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Hey while we are at lets have gay only water fountains.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:01 PM
marriage b/w gays is not marriage, but a sexual therefore bedroom preference. a gay decides to have sex w/member of same sex one day, animals the next day, himself the following day etc ad nauseam. i defend gays' right to sexual preferences but not to institutionalize a bedroom/bathroom choice.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:05 PM
1:25 is exactly the reason why so many look on the blind ignorance of the so called "religious". The bible is a a "selection" of stories hundreds of years after Christ to create a politically acceptble compilation during the time of the Roman empire. There are hundreds of texts and accounts that were "omitted" from the seletion by the council of nicea called by Constatine in 300 ad. God calls on all of us to love thy neighbor as theyself and worhip no other gods or false idols. We dont worship the bible, we worchip god. Now if the limited humamind of many of the so called religius could start comprehending that then maybe we wouldn't have all these religous "wars", and hatred.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:27 PM
I think gay only water fountains are a great idea.
Maybe the legislature can take that up now that they have completed their "baggy pants" work.
Posted by: Flagophile | March 24, 2008 at 02:30 PM
2:27, moron, you can oppose gay marriage but not hate gays. has your smemga-addled mind ever thought of that?
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Maybe Patricia thinks she knows more than God?
Genesis Chapter 2
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 FOR THIS REASON, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:32 PM
2:32, don't forget to mention Lot sleeping w/daughters or salome's dance of the 7 veils.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Wow, God says we can sleep with our daughters? Cool!
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:41 PM
2:35 "Don't forget" Lot, as others in the Bible and indluding everyone today have free will.
Genesis 2 is the institution of marriage as God ordained and according to the Natural Law.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:42 PM
Did it occur to anyone that 1:25 was meant to be read sarcastically? I won't make that mistake again.
My point is that it is ridiculous for married people to think that anyone other than themselves has an effect on their marriage.
Plus, heterosexuals like Bill Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have done a fine enough job destroying the institution of marriage, thank you very much.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:43 PM
also dont forget the books of the bilble omiited that talked about adanms first wife created "equal" to him that the bible selcetors chose to leave out because women could not be portaryed as equal to men or the story of solomon the wise king that built the forst jewish temple that prayed to false gods to appease a conqubine or Joseph that taht had a non jewish egyption wife...all stories left along with hundreds of others because they didnt fit the view of what needed to be coonveyed at the time and keep slaves and women subseviant. GET EDUCATED!!
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:45 PM
2:32
“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”
—Exodus 21:2-6.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.”
—Ephesians 6:5-6.
I'll work on getting the "pro-slavery" amendment on the ballot as well. Since everything the bible says we must take literally.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:46 PM
BTW the 2:46 post was sarcastic.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:47 PM
2:43 The above politicians didn't destroy the "institution" of marriage but perhaps their own.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM
why don't people who want to save marriage concentrate on making divorce illegal?? if you have ever been divorced -- you should NOT be allowed to have an opinion about marriage. period.
Posted by: CharlieLikesBoyz | March 24, 2008 at 02:59 PM
wonder just how many of them anti-homersectional folks DO -- or more precisely WANT TO DO --exactly what they suspect homersectionals do in their bedrooms to their own hetrosectional spouses?
remember, you cant have an "adult movie" without AT LEAST one f/f scene, and one m/f (you know what) scene, cain ya!!
i suspects theys jest JEALOUS and ENVIOUS!!
come out, come out, whoever you are!!
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 03:30 PM
if they had separate water fountains for straight people and ones for gay people, there would be no line at all for the "straight only" fountain in the Capitol. Considering about half of the House and Senate are flaming homo's, not to mention all the staff up there.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 03:59 PM
What are they battling for? The biggest loser in America?
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Personally, I don't have a problem with gays, and I am not religious. But, do I feel as though a lifestyle should have the same rights as a husband and wife? No.
I do not care about the religious postings, I do not care and find it offensive to equate race and homosexuality, and marriage should be between a man and woman. Period.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Gay Marriage will never happen. Contrary to the Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato Group’s efforts to BS people into thinking it has broad support; the fact of the matter is… it does not. That’s why none of the Presidential Candidates support Gay Marriage.
It is not a bigoted thing, it is not a hatred thing… it is a matter of natural order and common sense. Put simply; two wrongs do not make a right, and two men cannot make a baby.
Having said that, if the BLTG community wants to push for civil unions that allows a gay guy to take half his partner’s sh*t if he catches him playing someone else’s meat-whistle… then so be it.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 04:53 PM
I have nothing against gays. Why should they be spared the right to get married and suffer like the rest of us.
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 06:59 PM
same sex marriage isn't whats at stake here. regardless of the outcome of this amendment, same sex marriage will remain illegal in this a** backwards state!
Posted by: | March 24, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Quite frankly, gay marriage has more to do with health insurance and the transfer of assets upon one's death. The latter has no argument because a will normally takes care of that. The former won't have an effect soon, because fewer and fewer employers are offering health insurance to employees much less their spouses and children.
The issue is whether citizens want to pay for the health insurance for government employees who are in same-sex marriages because govt. is one of the last places to offer this workplace benefit.
From a religious perspective, I say no. From a financial perspective, the more people who are covered by health insurance in this country the better.
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 at 09:18 AM
So we just start a new religion, or interpret one a bit differently and we're there, correct?
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Does religion apply to government workers?
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 at 11:20 AM
This debate should be interesting. Perhaps Ireland will make the point that she believes and unborn child is less than human and has no rights thus she can fully appreciate how society evolved in such a way to see any particular group as less than desiring of rights others may enjoy.
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM