Revenge of the live chat, noon - 1 p.m. Tuesday

Check out the two posts below on whether Charlie Crist's new love of gambling will come back to bite him, and whether I am part of a Times effort to protect the baseball stadium. And if that doesn't get the conversation started, be sure to check out my print column coming Tuesday morning on the same-sex marriage amendment.

I hope that you'll be fired up and ready to join me at noon Tuesday for the weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. For an hour or so I'll be taking comments and questions about current events or any other topic folks feel like bringing up.

Here's how it will work: Come back to TroxBlog at noon and look for a new post with the headline, "The Feb. 5 chat is OPEN." Click on the "comments" link of that post and you'll see everything that's been said in the chat so far, along with a place for you to enter your own comment.

As always, if you can't come by during the live portion of the chat but want me to throw something in for you, feel free to "pre-file" a question or comment to the comments link of THIS post, just a few lines below. And you can always stop by later to check out a transcript of the chat.

Tuesday's chat will be the last one for at least three weeks -- got an obligation for the next two Tuesdays... so let's make this one a good one!

Comments

[CarolAbernathy]

I have a comment about the anti-gay marriage amendment. Most of the folks who rant on about "one-man-one-woman, as God intended" are really serial monogamists, on their third or fourth spouse. I wish we could restrict the eligible voters to those committed to one for life. My husband and I would qualify, just logging in our 50th, and we would vote No.

[Larry]

Howard, regarding your column today, I believe the problem here is trying to call a gay, or man/man, woman/woman, union a marriage. At least for me. It is not a marriage. I really believe that if they would "come off" the use of that term and simply refer to a civil union or commitment ceremony, it would fly. Consenting adults should be allowed to live their lives as they choose as long as it is within the law, does not harm others or become an affront to the standards of society.

[Holly]

Howard, I won’t be able to join your chat today because I have to work.

So, let me make it perfectly clear; I am a lesbian. Let me assure you being gay is NOT a choice. Accepting that one is gay is a choice.

That being said, I have been in a happy, loving, stable, monogamous relationship for 14 years. My partner and I are what anyone would call "model citizens". We are contributing members of society. We are educated. We vote. We pay our taxes. We own a home together. We recycle. We give to charity. We are well liked by our hetero neighbors. I could go on and on.

Why anyone would care if I was married to the person I love and respect most in the world is simply baffling?

How many reading this can actually say they still like the person they have been with for 14 years?

Why should we be “second class citizens” because we love each other and we are happy?

Why should we be denied the right to be legally married and denied the 1100 federal rights that hetero couples have?

Why should two people who would be fantastic parents and give a child a loving, safe stable environment be legally denied the right to adopt a child in the state of Florida?

Why is all of this even an issue?

[Schauer]

Howard, as you might expect I will have a lot to say on this topic. Before that though, I heard you on Florida matter last week. You sound real intelligent. Not at all like someone from Chapel Hill. My first thought on protecting marriage is that if they were truly christians interested in protecting gods word - they would be voting to outlaw divorce. Second if people are against same sex marriage, then they should not marry someone of the same sex! I realize that being gay is now hip but there are some people who should not be gay - like those attracted to the opposite sex! More later.

[Smitty]

Holly,

“Let me assure you being gay is NOT a choice.”

Please explain bi-sexuality, it that a mental disorder?

"How many reading this can actually say they still like the person they have been with for 14 years?"

I count as one!

"Why should we be “second class citizens” because we love each other and we are happy?"

Why does being able to get married deem you to be a "first class" citizen?

“Why should we be denied the right to be legally married and denied the 1100 federal rights that hetero couples have?”

Civil Unions would take care of that.

“Why should two people who would be fantastic parents and give a child a loving, safe stable environment be legally denied the right to adopt a child in the state of Florida?”

Why should society be forced to accept a diversion from natural order and traditional values, just to make you feel good about your choice?

“Why is all of this even an issue?”

Because the GLBT community is making it an issue.

[20/20]

Gay Marriage is the “Abortion” issue of the New Millennium. As with the abortion issue; nothing will really change, politicians really don’t care, and it really only serves as a tool in which to get the base to the polls.

Having said that, the gay community needs to stop chasing the issue as “framed” by those who oppose gay marriage. This is exactly how it was done with “The Death Tax”. By changing the name from “The Estate Tax” to “The Death Tax”, they achieved in abolishing it using the basic principles of marketing.

By changing the argument from “Civil Unions” (accepted by 85%) – to “Gay Marriage” (rejected by 78%)… opponents created a non-winnable battle.

The argument should not be “The right for homosexuals to get married”, the argument should be “Equal rights and protections under the law regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference”… that is a winnable battle.

[Howard Troxler]

Hey, don't forget that the live chat will be starting at noon, so don't tire yourselves out here in the pre-chat announcement... :)

That the fine people of Saint Petersburg KNOW the natural order and can speak to it is a testament to our collective genius.

I don't see why we keep using our tax dollars to fund anything in connection with science given the accuities of our keen citizenry.

[Joshua Good]

Can someone please explain to me WHAT BUSINESS the government has butting into a relationship between two adults?

[Wayne Wright]

Hi Mr. Trolxer,
Yes I think the governors new love for gambling will come back to haunt him. He is basing his budget on how much people are willing to gamble. Like the lottery fund before it the money will go into a general account and nobody know where it goes. In PA the lottery money goes into a specific account that the general public can check on and see where the money is going, try that with FL Lottery. Like most states lottery funds go into a general account and they back off the exact same amount from the school system. Example if a school, had a budget of $100 million dollars and the lottery was to give that school system $10 Million dollars then you would think there budget would be 110 million for that year but no. The state then takes $10 million away leavening the exact same amount. That what happen in NJ and other state where gambling is legal. The question is then where did the state put that extra $10 million? Good luck find out.

[Paul T.]

This is just another attempt by the religious right to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Why isn't anyone calling this what it is, institutionalized religious discrimination. It is also a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. What they are doing is asking government to enforce their religious prohibitions.

What I don't understand is why they don't petition to include all of Leviticus. After all, if marriage is as sacred as they say it is, then the stoning of adulterers would be a nice compliment to the ban on gay marriage, don't you think?