Same-sex marriage amendment dominates Feb. 5 chat -- here's the transcript

Hello, happy Tuesday, and welcome to the weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. Like Dick Cheney, I operated from an undisclosed location, taking reader comments and questions about current goings-on.

My column this morning was about same-sex marriage, which generated quite a few comments. Other topics included the new  voting machines, aftermath from the property tax vote, the DCF scandal, and of course the baseball stadium.

TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY'S CHAT: Click on the "Comments" link of this announcement just a few lines below. You'll be taken to a page showing everything that's been said so far, and a box for you to add your own question or comment. Keep refreshing the comments page to see the latest.

Comments

[Howard Troxler]

Let's start with a pre-filed comment about my column this morning, which called the upcoming election on banning same-sex marriage a silly distraction:

In your column this morning, you hit on all the main points I agree make "amendment 2" a waste of time at the polls, and a distraction from more important issues, as well. I actually took it further, on my blog yesterday, looking at statistics and a variety of studies to provide some substance to my volume on the issue:

http://progressivehomeschoolersofflorida.blogspot.com/ .

-- Terri Willingham

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Terri Willingham: I checked out the blog entry and it has some interesting statistics on how many same-sex couples there are, where they live, how many are raising kids and so forth. I think this is useful info because part of the rhetoric of the
amendment supporters is that same-sex marriage is an "untested social experiment."

[Howard Troxler]

Another on the same topic:

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. -- Carol Abernathy

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Carol Abernathy: Since adultery is REALLY the biggest "threat" to
marriage, statistically speaking, we should deny legal rights to adulterers, forbid them from holding office, not protect them against discrimination and so forth.

[Howard Troxler]

Here's a slightly different take:

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. --
Larry

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Larry: Thanks for the comment. My own thinking is, since legal marriage is just a particular kind of contract, the term "marriage" doesn't bother me. But if "civil union" was what it took that would be fine too. However, this amendment OUTLAWS civil union or anything else that would be a "substantial equivalent" to marriage, so the option is not on the table for
us -- it's a yes or no question.

[Howard Troxler]

Excerpt from another pre-filed comment:

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? -- Holly

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Holly: See, as I understand it, YOU are undermining the social and moral fabric of our society, whereas, say, Britney Spears running off to Vegas or whereever the hell it was that she got married for six hours or so was obeying the social norm.

[20/20]

Howard,

Purely speculative of course, but how do you see the vote percentages going on this?

[Howard Troxler]

Holly's comment drew this reply from Smitty, excerpted here:

“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. -- Smitty

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Smitty: Thanks for the comment, but I have to point out that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones putting this on the ballot. Also, although you yourself suggest civil unions as an alternative, the amendment would specificially ban them as well...

[Ron]

I'm rather ambivalent about this topic. Any two adults should be able to have the same rights & benefits as any other two adults. Whether you call it marriage, civil union or power of attorney doesn't really matter. I think people get too hung up on words. I'll vote against this simply because it does not belong in the constitution.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi, 20/20! It is way too early to make firm predictions. The track record is that in states where the campaign was fought along the issue of what is "normal," same-sex marriage bans have passed by strong margins.

Arizona 2006 was the first state to defeat a proposed ban, but the campaign there I understand focused more on the issue of domestic partnerships and other benefits, as I touched on in today's column.

I imagine that the tendency to vote 'yes' on this amendment will be, as the lawyers say, a rebuttable presumption... folks will be likely to affirm heterosexual marriage as the norm unless the opponents run a REALLY good campaign.

Has anyone realized that Pinellas County's new optical ballot (which will be here in November 2008)rejects all "undercount" ballots, i.e. those ballots where the voter does not vote on each item, deciding not to vote one way or another? The voter will be given two more chances to "correct" the undervote and if the voter continues to choose not to vote on the particulare issue, that voter's entire ballot is thrown out.Will this proposed amendment (where some folks will not want to vote on the subject at all) render all of that voter's other votes null and void?

[Tim]

So now Charlie has indeed got his Amendment but what of us who still feel ripped off taxwise just for having purchased a home recently? You've done a great job clarifying a purposefully obscure "Amendment." But where to turn now to get Step Two in the justice machine working?
tim

[20/20]

Howard or Holly,

Is there a link that would list those 1100 rights? I’m not being facetious, it’s just the first I’ve seen an actual number attached to the issue.

And I completely agree with Ron on the Constitutional matter.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi Ron. That's an argument too... the supporters of the amendment say it is not enough to have a mere statute, since the ban we have now could be changed by future Legislatures. (I do not know if we would live to see the day, but that's the argument.)

[Howard Troxler]

12:15 commenter -- that is NOT my understanding of how the system works... the voter is asked to confirm the undervote, the choice not to vote in a race on the ballot, and then the BALLOT IS ACCETPED, not "thrown out." The demo I saw was not two more chances, but simply a beep and asking the voter to push a confirm button. Tell me if you think I have misunderstood this, but I attended the demonstration...

Howard,

You summed up my opinion with your reply to Holly. According to the law, she cannot have the rights of a spouse, and lots of these rights cannot be covered by a power of attorney.

Spears can marry, and divorce 6 hours later, well within the law.

[Heather]

Agree with Ron. My somewhat radical opinion is that all citizens should have the right to civil unions, once they've reached the legal age of consent of course. If they want to be "married" they can go to whatever church or temple will bless their union. Separation of church and state.

(Actually the real radical idea is that you should marry for romantic love, which was not common until -- what, after the Great Depression?)

In 15 years this will be a moot point, since the younger generation is FAR more tolerant of differences, and gay kids come out at an earlier age. If Obama is the Democratic nominee in November the vast majority of young voters probably will vote No, so I would imagine it would have no chance of passing. One can only hope! (PS I am 37)

Correction: If a voter fails to vote on each and every ballot item on Pinellas County's new optical ballot after having been given three opportunities to do so, that voter's entire ballot will be thrown out, including those votes which were clearly marked.

[Schauer]

There is a link called Knowthyneighbor.org that lets you see who signed the petition. That way you can tell who the bigots on your block are!

[Howard Troxler]

Tim: Howdy -- that is the big question, isn't it? Marco Rubio and the House may push more tax relief, such as the "1.35% solution" or an alternative. Maybe not as much sentiment in the Senate for more big change. Don't know if Crist will stand pat and take credit -- he SAID the other day he is in the mood for more.

20/20 -- my source on the 1100+ legal rights is the Florida4Marriage.org campaign itself, John Sternberger. He in turn was quoting some legal journal or something that surveyed all the different ways that a marital contract implicates the law... everything from survivor benefits to liability to, you know, a bazillion (or 1,098) other things.

[Schauer]

The 1100 rights comes from a gao report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[Howard Troxler]

On the voting machines: You can NOT be required legally to vote in every election and your ballot is NOT thrown out if you choose not to vote in a race.

The only time your ballot is thrown out is on an OVERVOTE, when you vote twice in the same election, and even then the machine warns you and you have the option either of (1) trashing the ballot and getting a new one, or (2) accepting the ballot otherwise, and not counting the vote in that race.

See, now here’s where it goes wrong. Just because a person disagrees with homosexuality, it does not justify them being labeled as “intolerant” or “bigots”.

Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that?

[Howard Troxler]

Schauer, thanks for the link!

[ross]

Howard - your column was right on. But the real story is not the marriage protection amendment, but the wholesale assault on the citizens' initiative process waged by power elites to kill Florida Hometown Democracy.

[20/20]

Thanks for the link!

[Ron]

Now that the dysfunction known as DCF has once again proven its incompetence and embarrased the state of Florida, is there any chance that we could just blow it all up and start over from scratch?

[Schauer]

Howard,
Now that Charlie has gone green do you think there is any chance of a return to vehicle inspections? I am seeing (and getting stuck behind) more cares just spewing exhaust.

[Howard Troxler]

Depends on what "disagrees with homosexuality" means, I suppose.

Substitute "disagrees with Jews" or "disagrees with African-Americans" for a comparison.

If it means, disagrees that people are entitled to their private lives and to live as they see fit, I disagree w/ THAT.

Well Ron, they could just change the mane again and see if that works.

What if "disagrees with homosexuality" mean a vote in favor of the Amendment, but I also respect “that people are entitled to their private lives and to live as they see fit”

[Howard Troxler]

Ross: Excellent point. Of course, we have not seen the same full-scale assault on the same-sex amendment.

I understand the Chamber of Commerce is backing even more anti-petition restrictions in the upcoming session, since having a 60-pct-to-pass rule, a Feb. 1 early deadline for counting (where they don't really have to be counted!), and everything else is not enough.

Ron: on DCF: Do you see this as a systemic failure, or just a terrible isolated case? Institutions are embarassed by arrested employees all the time... THIS institution, of course, being the very instiution that is supposed to be protecting kids.

[Schauer]

DCF - Who's bright idea was it to farm out protection of children to the lowest bidder? What type of heartless puppy eater would do such a thing?

And yes hating homosexual or blacks or jews or or latinos or any other genetically different human is bigotry!

Howard, your statement of the law is as I understood it. That is why I posted. There is at least one Supervisor of Elections volunteer or employee "educator/demonstrator" at the downtown St. Petersburg office who is incorrectly teaching people.

[Ron]

I see this as just the latest failure of the children that they are supposed to protect. And how does the department spokesman even come into contact with the children, anyway?

So, Schauer… what you’re saying is the “disagreement” is “hatred”.

[Howard Troxler]

Hmm, on the "disagrees" issue. If it were me, I would not phrase it as "disagreeing with homosexuality" but simply being in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to me there is rhetorical room to say that...

Schauer, on inspections: Not only should we be doing the old ones, but also for other emissions... I would think that the gov would NOT support it, because it is not "easy" and would in fact be a direct inconvenience on every person in the state, who would blame him personally. Better to be casually populist.

[ross]

Howard - of course, the new 60% requirement to pass amendments to our constitution (ironically passed by 58%) will apply to the marriage protection amendment. I wonder if an aggressive petition revocation effort was not waged against the marriage protection amendment because the opponents don't think that the 60% is there to OK it. I suspect that the 60% support was there for FHD and hence the passage of the revocation statute and all out assault on FHD.

[Ron]

"heartless puppy eater". I'm going to have to remember that one.

All marriages start out with a license, which is basically a civil contract.

Without that license, even if the Pope ordains it, the marriage is not legal under secular law.

I feel the religious groups have the right to decided for themselves whether to perform a ceremony.

The state has no right to deny the privileges of a civil contract, based on gender preference.

I know of at least one (heterosexual)marriage that was performed by a Justice of the Peace that lasted over 50 years.

Winston

[Schauer]

DCF is a systemic failure. working a volunteer guardian ad litem I see DCF as an organization that overextended far beyond its capacity that is fraught with well meaning people who are il-equipped to handle the case load and the consequences of he wake left by people who should not breed.

12:33

What do you mean by disagree? People disagree on ideas. There is nothing to agree or disagree with here except the proposed amendment. To say you disagree with the way someone is makes no sense.

[20/20]

Fascinating semantics afoot today!

I wonder how much more burdened the court system would become if we had a whole new group of people seeking same-sex divorces?

[Schauer]

Tell me how you can disagree with genetics. That is like saying you disagree with the the sunset. It just is and cannot be changed.

[Howard Troxler]

Winston, thanks for the comment. Right. We are talking about civil contract here recognized by the state.

Ross: I thought I saw something like 18,000 HD petitions were revoked, which is not a HUGE number. Maybe it was only for the latest reporting period. Anyway, revocation seems like a rearguard strategy to me... I imagine most signers of THIS amendment would not be receptive to revocation arguments.

Wow, Schauer, do you realize there are folks who think that homosexuals are "people who should not breed"?

Damn, kettle...

[Schauer]

Sorry for typos. I never realized the heavy machinery waring on the flu medicine meant keyboards too.

[Jason A.]

If we are trying to "protect marriage as God intended" would mean to stop letting people get married at the court house and they must be married via church. That would be true separation of Church and State and then the individual Churches can decide on wether they want to allow gay marriages. I would also like to know what the difference is (pertaining to discrimination) in banning same sex marriage and banning interacial marriages? Both are individual choices that does not effect any other person in society.

[justme]

Hi Howard & everyone.. I'm late so I will just catch up on the reading..

Schauer..LOL yes a keyboard is machinery (sometimes I want to toss it out the window) Hey at least you have your sense of humor despite the flu.

[Howard Troxler]

I guess I shouldn't joke about this...

[ross]

Howard - true that on the revocation numbers for FHD and the probable low revocation rate for the marriage protection amendment. still, the 60% rule is in play. those opposed to the MPA didn't clog up the supervisors of elections' offices with a trojan horse (pun intended) amendment either that could have kept the MPA from making the ballot. There was no "smarter marriage" amendment, lucky for the MPA fans.

[Schauer]

As for amendment two - it is simply a red herring to excite a republican base that cannot get excited about their candidates. People come from out of state and the republican party financed the drive. This is not a moral issue but a campaign ploy by a party that has run out of ideas.

[20/20]

As I posted before, I think the “Civil Unions” approach is the way to go with this. We can’t force society to change, when society is simply not ready to change.

There is a reason why each front-runner for the White House has publicly stated that they do not support gay marriage. And that reason is; they know the numbers. By that token, there is also a reason why several have stated that they see civil unions as a workable solution. And that reason is; they know the numbers.

[Howard Troxler]

Jason A., well, weren't some of the similar arguments used to outlaw interracial marriages?

I guess there is no way to settle this amicably. The trouble with this amendment, for me, is that it takes away the middle course -- there can't even be a civil union or ANY legal status comparable. Yet it seems to me the main hang-up is the word "marriage."

[Howard Troxler]

There are 15 mins or so left in the chat, PLENTY of time (nudge, nudge) to bring up a different topic...

[Howard Troxler]

And, on the earlier posts about voting machines -- if someone in the downtown Pin elex office is giving out the wrong info, we should tell them!

I will send an e-mail to my contact over there once the chat is done. They can double-plus-make-sure that nobody is telling anybody that their undervoted ballot doesn't count.

[ENough]

Is it my imagination or are the majority of Americans bent on being hate mongers? Isn't all this talk of banning G & L rights is just another red herring to keep us from discussing the real issues facing Americans. I couldn't care less what folks do in the privacy of their homes. I care more that folks have homes, descent schools and health-care. I'm hetero and been happily married for 15 years, although I've been both divorced and widowed. That is life when we are trying to navigate along the lonesome path of life. Should one stay married to an alcoholic or an addict? Those who have found a loving and secure relationship should wish it upon others whatever their sexual orientation.

[20/20]

I will vote no because our Constitution was not created as a means by which to deny the rights of individuals. However, in my opinion, I think the best path is for the gay community to redirect this argument back to civil unions.

Howard is correct… it is the word “marriage” that is at the root of the turmoil.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi ENough.

Somebody smart said to me this morning, think how different this pres race would be if Karl Rove were running an anti-Romney campaign... in terms of Mormon-related smears and dirty tricks. I could not disagree.

[Schauer]

As for voting, I had a friend who went to vote and after being listed a D for 30 years was listed in the I book. She could not understand how that happened or if it only happened to her.

Howard,

I think the unfairness of same-sex unions also applies to two people living side by side, in identical houses, where one pays double the property tax.

SOH is one of the roads to Hell that are paved with good intentions. I believe someone is going to contest, and win, the Constitutionality of this latest band-aid.

Winston

[Howard Troxler]

All such movements are a mixture of sincere belief and political advantage. Take the abortion issue. A certain percentage of people believe that abortion is the wrongful taking of a human life. I respect that belief, although I do not agree with it. Neither do I think that belief should be imposed on all other persons with the force of law. So a person can sincerely believe that being gay is, as I believe Paul puts it, "an abomination unto the Lord." Again, I think this is a wrong view, and I oppose the idea of writing it into the secular law.

[Schauer]

Is it my imagination or is Jamie a little sensitive about your discussions about the Stadium?

Also, during the vote I heard people say that the new tax law would be ripe for a legal challenge. I never understood this argument. As a law I still think it is bad but I cannot see the room for a legal challenge.

[Howard Troxler]

Hmm, the Save Our Homes mention sets me off on a tangent. If you are a gay couple with a homestead exemption, is it held in both parties' names? If not, and one dies or they separate, I assume the exemption is NOT transferable?

[ENough]

I forgot to add that everyone deserves to have the protection of a legal contract since this is a very litiguous country. All couples deserve to be protected and to receive all services due to them if they are willing to sign that contract. God has nothing to do with it.

[20/20]

Would that be 1101?

[Howard Troxler]

Re: Jamie: He is VERY sensitive, seems to me. Saw him this morning. He is now on the Inside, and getting hammered by opponents, while knowing that to stay Inside he has to stick to the agenda.

Re: challenge to the law: The theory is that portability allows us to perpetuate the existing inequalities, making the punishment for newcomers even MORE unequal. I dunno how good this case is, since it treats ALL first-time home-buyers the same, not just those who are moving to Fla.

[Howard Troxler]

We have come to the end of our hour, although I will stick around another couple of minutes if anybody has a last-minute question.

[justme]

Good question Howard about the SOH... but I assume anyone who's name is on the taxes and as long as they live there would get the credit

[Bubba Sinclair]

I must have been sleeping, what happened to the Hometown Democracy Movement? Was it killed?

I was definitely for it.

Also, I will vote against the amendment that will deny homosexuals the opportunity to be as miserable in marriage as I was.

[Schauer]

As to the homestead exemption it goes with the deed. We have the deed as tenants with right of survivorship if on tenant os still alive the homestead continues.

[Howard Troxler]

Okeydoke, it's 1:05... thank you for taking part in today's chat! I figure this same-sex issue will be hanging around for the rest of the year. I dread the campaign literature...

No live chat for the next couple of weeks, as I am booked elsewhere. My apologies. Keep an eye out for the announcement of the next one, & I'll still be posting daily updates to the blog.

Best wishes to everyone for a good Tuesday! And -- Schauer -- I'll spot you a starting point guard for tomorrow night's game.

[Howard Troxler]

Bubba -- it didn't get enough signatures by the Feb. 1 deadline to make this year's ballot, but is likely to be on the 2010 ballot since the signatures stay good and they should be able to get the rest.

Bye to all!

[20/20]

Thanks for the thread. Good stuff.

[Heather]

Howard: My dad was living with his significant other (female). The house was in her name. They broke up and she titled the house to him because she agreed to take their other property. He lost the SOH cap that was in her name & his taxes tripled.

It was a primary residence he's lived in for more than 10 years. I would assume this would apply to any adults living together outside of marriage where title is transferred.

[Aquaserpent]

I say let the Gay people live a life they are entitled too. (Hope that is not politically incorrect) I love the puppy eater comment that is what you get with the lowest bidder. I can’t wait for the day when we have a private police force and you can’t find a cop that speaks English, because the job doesn’t pay enough.

[Steven]

Out of all the people that have commented on this, no one cares to address a topic that seems to be a major crux in this debate. I am gay and have been with my partner for 8 1/2 years. I do not think I am living some sort of "scam relationship" and I am not in the mood for morality plays on my life. I live a very moral life. I pay taxes, very dearly, for your children to go to school and I pay dearly for all the services that you enjoy, but I can not be a part of. With stating this, Florida has been and will always be a state driven by tourism. Gays and lesbians, outside of Florida, are watching this issue very closely and have stated as much on the blogs they participate on.

Many of them have stated that if this amendment passes, Florida will not be a choice destination for them any longer and they will take their money to other states (in other words, a boycott). Let's place this in a common perspective that home owners and tax payers of Florida will understand. If gays stop coming to Florida and start going elsewhere, where will we receive our taxes from? Who will ultimately have to pick up the slack and pay for the budget shortfalls?

It is undetermined how many gays come to Florida for vacation (but I am sure it is a high amount). It is also undetermined how much money they spend (being that many do not have children, they do have a higher level of disposable income), but I guess if this amendment does pass, everyone will notice when budget shortfalls become more commonplace.

I seriously think that people are placing too much stock in Disney World, Universal Studios, SeaWorld, Busch Gardens, Fort Lauderdale, South Beach, and Key West to attract gay people. Rest assured, there are other more friendlier environments for gay people to go to. Mark my words on this also, if this passes, we will still call Florida, "home", but we will vacation in other places that are more deserving of our money. Who loses on this? Florida does. In the 4 years we have lived here, we have only vacationed once, outside the state of Florida. All the other vacations we have taken have been in this state, which gives Florida more money. If this amendment does pass, then I feel it is right for people to pay for their morality. To rip a page from the president's book. The Florida Department of Revenue accepts both check and money order. Be sure to get ready to pay more and see exactly what the pricetag on morality will be.

[Larry]

Steven, your analysis is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation that could be used by any group pushing its agenda, and probably part of the reason that many people are turned off by the gay community and their attempts to be recognized as just "regular folks". I would never support gay marriage simply becasue it flies in the face of what marriage all about. If you want to be partnered with the same sex, that's fine; and I accept that as your right to live your life as you choose; but you should not and cannot call it a traditional marriage, because it isn't.

A dog isn’t a cat, a fish isn’t a rat, two wrongs don’t make a right, and two men can’t make a baby… as hard as it is for the GLTB’s to accept it, that’s it in a nutshell.

[Steven]

Larry,

That is perfectly fine and I respect your perspective on this, but gays have grown tired of being belittled. How would you like if you were belittled for the most benign things possible? First it was Anita Bryant and her stupidity that took children, in Florida, out of loving and caring homes in Florida and now we have one of the worse child care and social care systems in the country. Then it was DOMA and the "fear" that gays really were a threat. Finally, it is this amendment. I do not have to write this here for anyone's benefit. Read the blogs, especially the gay ones. People are saying this and I can not entirely disagree. This state is dependent on tourism. Prove me otherwise on this matter. This is no agenda. Can Florida really afford to lose more money and alienate a group of people? Perhaps so, but in a way, as a gay person, I want this amendment to pass, just to show that the Florida Department of Tourism and other groups will have the inability to attract gay people. Again, my money, which we save, will be used in other states if this pass. To be fair, we anticipate spending almost $4500.00 in Fort Lauderdale come our next vacation in May. We may be on the high end of spending money and we may be on the low end, but if this is our last vacation in our home state, the only state that will suffer is Florida becausde this is the average we spend on 3 vacations a year. Add it up, we spend almost 14k a year on vacationing.

Vital city, county, and state services are already being cut. The fat is being trimmed, but it will have to be trimmed more once this amendment passes. Gays have FINALLY had enough of being treated horribly by others. This amendment, as posed by Mr. Troxler, has shown this will eliminate domestic partnership and civil union rights as well.

Being that I imagine you are fair minded in all respects, are you really confident in voting against these items as well? Some cities and counties already has this. This will overturn all these items.

For this reason and if this passes, I have no intention of using my money in a place where people do not respect me or my partner of 8 1/2 years. We are gay, we love each other, and yes, we want to have a civil union or domestic partnership that will be legally recognized by the state of Florida. That is not asking too much, but I guess this goes with the old, southern mentality. As long as we are quiet, not bothering anyone, and performing a business service, then we are expected, but if we want any sort of legal recognition (not meaning marriage), we are just cast aside and treated and spoken to like common dirt. Oh, in Florida, I guess it should be sand.