Dan Gelber on Amendment 2

Gelber isn't a big fan of the Hate Amendment:

The amendment would do much more than prohibit gay marriages (which are already prohibited by law): it would also prohibit other legal unions that are the substantial equivalent of marriage.

It is also not clear whether this prohibition would apply only to gay couples or to others, such as two citizens living together to increase their social security benefit or to get health insurance. It would likely prohibit the business practice of allowing domestic partners (even heterosexual ones) to obtain benefits (health insurance for example), which happened in Michigan and Kentucky after similar amendments passed.

Given Florida’s health care and education crisis, and all the many challenges facing our state, I’m not quite sure why this topic is even on the ballot. To learn the many reasons why you should oppose this amendment visit www.SayNo2.com.

Another Problem With the Status Quo on Gay Marriage

Gay divorce may currently be impossible.

Why They're Wrong, Part 9

Another one on the "definition" front. This time a guy is trying to say that gay marriage proponents are trying to redefine the word family. He says that ALL dictionary definitions of the word family include "children" as a required part of being a family. Not according to the very link he provides tothe American Heritage Dictionary. Definition 1b is:

Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

I don't see anything having to do with children in that definition, do you?

The title of his "article" is even worse: "Dehumanizing Marriage." He's actually explicitly saying that gay people aren't human. Once again, opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the smokescreen of legal or traditional arguments they put forth. It's all about hatred of gay people and using them as a scapegoat in order to drive conservative turnout.

Shouldn't More of Our Unions Be Doing This?

The California Labor Federation is opposing its state's version of Amendment 2 (Amendment 8). Shouldn't all of our labor organizations be doing this as well?

"I understand the power of the state labor federation," said Smith who once served as California's labor secretary. "I suspect this is the first time that any state federation has ever engaged in one of these battles."

Shouldn't Florida be the second?

Miami Beach Does the Right Thing

The Miami Beach City Commission did the right thing and voted unanimously to oppose Amendment 2. Why?

Miami Beach is one of a growing number of government entities to establish Domestic Partnership Registries which offer specific rights and benefits such as hospital visitation and emergency decision making to unmarried partners. Amendment 2 threatens these registries by prohibiting the state from recognizing anything that is "treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof."

Opposing Amendment 2 is something all the cool kids are doing (including the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, Florida's Professional Firefighters and the Florida Education Association). Shouldn't you be doing it, too?

Terrible Ad

I hope the Yes on 2 people keep doing ads like this one:



Why? Because it is pretty insulting. It specifically endorses religion in government and implies there is something wrong with you if you think otherwise. It explicitly endorses creationism. It also portrays marriage as only about children -- therefore women are only about bearing children. It insults single parents -- regardless of the reason why they are single. So, even if your spouse died, this ad still implies you can't be a good parent. This ad appeals to people who already hate gay people, but I doubt it convinces a single person to vote for Amendment 2. Too bad they didn't waste more money on it.

Why They're Wrong, Part 8

One of the arguments that anti-gay marriage people always use is that we shouldn't redefine marriage. It's as if they don't really care about marriage or gay people, they're just worried about the integrity of the dictionary.

The argument is a bad one anyway. There is no such thing as "the" definition of marriage. The words marry and marriage have multiple meanings. Marry and marriage have always had multiple meanings. Some of those meanings specify a man and a woman. Some of them specify a man and women. Some of them say nothing about gender. The earliest usage of the word dates to 1297 when it was defined as "to wed, marry, give in marriage."

So, next time you hear this lame argument, ask the person spouting it, "which definition"? That's what it's really about, choosing which definition is acceptable and which is not. It isn't about redefining anything.