Amendment 2

I just know that your remarks about Amendment 2 are just to start a dialog and that you really aren't as ignorant as you sound in your blog.  You are a funny man, Felix.  Sometimes you come across as an intelligent person, other times, just being the good/bad cop.  I understand what you are attempting when you come across as being so ignorant. 

I know you are just a cute and funny blowhard who attempts to start an intelligent and informed dialog amongst us MCS bloggers! 

Thank you Felix, for being so astute and such a good 'middle man'.  I bet you are a huge success in your workplace.

www.CTLAC.com

Felix,

If it is information you seek, I'm sure some time tickling the keys would be beneficial.  Also, Pym blogged about three other amendments on 08.30.08, titled, Three Dangerous Amendments.  It told of a meeting on thurs, Sept. 4, 2008 at Fleming Island Library that will also have an overview of all the amendments.  It would seem that the meeting will be beneficial also.

Your suspicions are noted, but I also note that you provide nothing in the way of substance or a source to either back up your suspicions or show that the ACLU is attempting to deceive us, putting forth inaccurate information or is outright lying.  So your suspiciaons are based on.....what?  JATFUR.

Rich K

VOTE YES!

Smuncey,

Vote Yes?  That's right.  I almost forgot.  On your bio page, it says conservative Christian.  Party line & all that.  That explains it.  But I have to admit that I question the efficacy of your choice process.  Or have you so quickly forgotten the phrase, "Obama, your momma," or your prediction of Fred Thompson for President?  Be careful what you post, it may come back to haunt you.  Like Now.  JATFUR.

Rich K

Solo, I am undecided about the CAN meeting.  I want to go, but it is scheduled at the same time as a florida4marriage event.  I can't decide where I would rather be.

Back to the subject at hand. I guess I'll spoonfeed it.

Go to the website of the Florida ACLU, www.aclufl.org.  Click on "Seniors against amendment 2."  Scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Share Your Story."

This is what I'm hoping to get here, that I will throw out something that I am unsure about, and that someone will share their story, the result being that in the end I will know more about these issues than I had previously known.  For instance, I can look up facts on the social security website, but that gives me a pretty narrow view because I do not have personal experience with social security. 

If you follow the links about it tells a story that goes something like this: If amendment 2 is passed, it might cause domestic partnership registries to be banned.  The result of such a ban is that couples in domestic partnerships would lose the protections guaranteed to them by domestic partnership registries.  The emphasis is upon seniors, and the assertion is made that many seniors are in domestic partnerships because they cannot get remarried without possible losing social security benefits or pension benefits from a previous marriage

(Note, I wrote that last paragraph in my own words.  If you want to see the original, follow the links.  It will be a cold day in hell before I copy something from an aclu page and reprint it in a public forum.)      

I consider there to be a great deal wrong with the aclu portrayal of reality in this particular instance.  However, since this is spoonfeeding time, I just want to focus on the concept that "seniors cannot get married because because they might lose social security or pension benefits from a previous marriage."

Now, a little copy and paste from the social security administration

Generally, you cannot get widow’s or widower’s benefits if you remarry before age 60. But remarriage after age 60 (or age 50 if you are disabled) will not prevent you from getting benefit payments based on your former spouse’s work. And at age 62 or older, you may get benefits based on your new spouse’s work, if those benefits would be higher.

A deceased worker's former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (as early as age 50 if disabled) can get benefits if the marriage lasted at least 10 years. A former spouse, however, does not have to meet the age or length-of-marriage rule if he or she is caring for his/her child who is younger than age 16 or who is disabled and also entitled based on the deceased worker's work. The child must be the deceased worker's former spouse's natural or legally adopted child

The way I'm reading this, if you are married to someone for at least ten years, then divorce, and they later die, you are entitled to survivor benefits.  The only way you can lose these benefits is if you remarried before 60.  After 60, re-marriage doesn't matter. 

I do not consider someone younger than 60 to be a senior citizen, my only guess is that here the aclu is using "senior" in a much broader sense than it is normally understood.  I consider this vague enough to be "deceptive."

I consider that many of the statements about "seniors" that have been made by various opponents of amendment 2 give the impression they are referring to large numbers of Florida senior citizens, perhaps all Florida seniors in general.  If this is intentional, then it is a dirty business because it is immoral to try to scare old people to get their vote. 

It is not large numbers of seniors that could potentially lose ss benefits because of amendment 2; what we are talking about are people under sixty who were married for ten years, whose former spouse is deceased, and who are in a domestic partnership. 

Lets break this down even more.  In the state of florida, how many people do you think there are who are younger than 60 years old, were married for over ten years, and whose former spouse is deceased?  I'm going to take a wild guess and say about 20,000 people.  How many of these people do you think are in domestic partnerships?  Note that domestic partnerships are not the law of the land in Florida, they are only offered by certain counties and municipalities.  When you break it down that the indicated "seniors" are only those who live in places with domestic partnership registries, I will make another wild guess that we are talking about 5,000 people.  Furthermore, many of the anti-2 statements seem to refer only to people in "straight" relationships.

If you break it down this far, I believe the "seniors" affected are going to total a few hundred people.  While that is many, it is very few in comparison to the total population of Florida or even in proportion to the number of senior citizens in Florida.  Furthermore, this effect would only take place if the passing of amendment 2 did ban domestic partnerships.  I don't believe this to be the case, and will explain why in a later post.

Now, the pension benefits from previous marriages that seniors will lose if they remarry: I have no idea what they are talking about. 

My only guess is that during a previous marriage their spouse earned a pension, and that at divorce this pension was divided and their current payments are being treated as alimony they would lose if they remarried.  I don't know how this works under Florida law, and I don't know how it works in other states that Florida residents might have moved from.  However, I have been under the impression that the dividing of a pension during a divorce is treated as division of property, and that this right to property acquired during marriage is not affected by remarriage. 

If I am correct, the instances of "seniors losing survivor benefits" and "seniors losing pension benefits from a previous marriage" can occur, they are extremely rare circumstances.  If I'm wrong, let me know, that is why I am writing this blog so that I can know rather than assume.  It is deceptive to point to that which is the exception to the rule, and through the vagueness of the anti-2 statements this is exactly what they are doing.

Here is a link to a page on the sayno2 website.  This story apparently came from the editorial team of Florida Today, which I assume is a newspaper.

http://sayno2.com//index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=News%20Articles&refno=110

Look at my last post, then look what is written in this editorial.  It is ridiculous how erroneously they reported on the "effect on seniors."  How can you refer to amendment 2 as a "trojan horse," when the hidden effects are imaginary?   

Here is a link that might be helpful.  http://www.votenoon2.com/template.aspx?id=306.  It outlines the effect it could have on those seniors who are living together, but remain unmarried because of a loss of benefits from various sources. 

The seniors I'm referencing would be 62 or over as that is the age you can begin drawing SS retirement (at a lower rate than full retirement).  A couple living together but not married can each receive their full benefits as individuals.  If they marry, their Social Security benefit would be combined and based on the highest earnings, with the other receiving a portion of the higher earnings.  I am pretty sure of this, but can factcheck on www.ssa.gov. 

As an example, Mr. Smith receives $1500/month in SS benefits  and lives with Ms. Jones who receives $1000 per month based on her lifetime earnings (she didn't pay in while she was raising the children).  They receive a combined total of $2500/month in SS benefits as single individuals.  If they marry, the wife's retirement portion is based on her husband's earnings and she receives 50% of his, or $750 and they now have $2250/month in SS - a loss of $250/mo.  Ms. Jones may also have a pension based on widow's benefits (i.e. from Railroad, Teamsters, etc.) and if she marries Mr. Smith she could lose that as well. 

Felix, I believe you are incorrect about the "rare" instance of seniors living together and not marrying because of income loss.  I think it's fairly common - at least it makes sense to me!  I believe Amendment 2 is a dangerous amendment and a needless change to the constitution. 

This link also lists all of the Florida laws already on the books which prohibit marriage for gays and lesbians.  How much more discrimination is needed in this Sunshine State?  http://www.votenoon2.com/template.aspx?id=306

I urge everyone to do the right thing and vote NO on Amendment 2.  Let's stop the hatred and discrimation against others.

www.CTLAC.com

Furthermore, this effect would only take place if the passing of amendment 2 did ban domestic partnerships.

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Felix, this is not an IF situation. It is a WILL situation. This amendment WILL ban domestic partnerships. The statements about seniors losing are not deceptive. They are statements of fact.

Your numbers of seniors in domestic partnerships I know were pulled out of the air as an illustration and that is OK with me. If your numbers are high, low or right on it makes no matter to me. What matters is that you acknowledged that it could happen.

The person on the other end of that 'exception' is a real person living in the real world on a fixed income that continues to buy less and less. To that person they are not an exception. They are the rule. It is their reality and they can't afford to live without the full benefits they receive.

Felix, here is my take on what is really going on here. There are a number of religious groups that are hell bent on making sure that gays can't marry. Yes there are laws against it but laws that are unconstitutional can be changed or done away with.

Their fear is that at some point in time the judges will wake up and realize the fact that these are discriminatory laws and set them aside. So, you try to amend the constitution so that these laws are no longer unconstitutional. This is what it is all about Felix. And they don't care who ends up being collateral damage.

Take a look at where all the support for this amendment is coming from. You keep questioning the statements of the ACLU but seem to take the statements of the pro 2 groups as fact. Where are your questions about their statements?

Felix, for all their 'Christian' teachings and mouthing of platitudes and quoting of Scripture, these are some of the most hateful groups in existence. And they are accepted because they sound so righteous.

Are these the people you want in leadership positions making decisions that affect every citizen in this County and State? Do you think it is right that they pick and chose which citizens deserve the rights that everyone else has? What happens when they decide that the group you fit into is not worthy of those rights?

This has ramifications that stretch well beyond the borders of Florida. Right now we have marriage recognition reciprocity with all the other states and most or all other countries. What happens when a married couple from a state or country that recognizes marriage as two people regardless of their sex moves here? That marriage would not be recognized here. What about states that allow domestic partnerships? They would not be recognized if they moved here.

What happens if some of these states say they will no longer recognize marriages from Florida because their laws and/or their constitution are discriminatory? Can't happen? I wouldn't bet on that Felix. If we won't recognize their legally performed marriages, why should they recognize ours?

Felix, this is not about 'protecting' anyone. It is about discriminating against a particular group. Gays! That is all it is. Nothing more nothing less.

If you happen to be in the line of fire as a 'straight' domestic partner, too bad. As long as their goal of ensuring that gays in Florida can never marry or be in a legally recognized relationship that even resembles marriage they don't give two hoots in hell about who else gets hurt in their quest.

People need to start looking at what is really going on and quit believing all the self righteous clap trap being spread around just because the person spewing this hatred calls themselves a 'Person of God'.

That's my 10 cents worth of opinion.  

Mike Heemer

Felix,

I will add my ditto to what Mike said so well & add 2 more cents.  I don't worry about repeating myself on this because more people need to be told. 

We have a two pronged problem with the religious right.  For years, they have been using the scare tactic that abortion & a homosexual agenda are being "forced," on society by Godless, radical left wing liberals & Godless left wing, liberal, activist, courts.  That is a BS sham, a scam and totally without foundation.  The second part of the problem is that they have millions of people who accept what they say & think it is true.  It seems that there are large segments of the religious right who don't stop & think about it.  They don't stop to ask who has had an abortion forced on them &/ or, who has had an homosexual agenda forced on them?  Not one religious right leader has ever shown one shred of evidence to back up their BS lies.  They can't.  Abortion is a choice.  One choice out of many choices.  To add to the problem of people not stopping to think & question is the fact that those same people vote in lock step to the philosophy put before them.  Talk about an uninformed decision.

I am not pro abortion, but I am pro choice.  The problem is the same with the so called homosexual agenda being forced on them.  No one stops to ask who has it been forced on?  No, they base their argument on homosexuality being an abomination as stated in their Bible.  What they get stuck on is that in that very same Bible, it also says that man was made in the image of their God & they are uable to logically reconcile the all to obvious contradiction, one of many.  What is the result? They, by their actions, quietly & not so quietly practise discrimination on a group of people based on sexual orientation.  No one in their group stops to think & ask, "what will happen if gays are not discriminated against?"  Will we have to pay more for gas?  Will our fast food places charge more for a burger?  Will our divorce rates get any worse than they are now, with heterosexuals, mostly Christian?

So there are the two big problems in addition to not enough people thinking and asking the tough questions.  Too many people believing in lies.  Too many people with sub standard decision making processes.  And then they vote that way.

That's my added two cents to the kitty.  Regardless, the best part is that some people are thinking & taking the time & effort to find out more.  That's a great first step.  JATFUR.

RichK

Kudos to Sunflower, she brought something to the table and added to the conversation. 

Heemer, Solo, I am disapponted.  It seems that "religious right" is the answer to every question.  It's like you are cult members.  If you did your homework before commenting there is no way you could honestly say that aclu and friends are trustworthy and the shadowy religious right is suspect.  I don't know if the cure for you two is a tutor or a deprogrammer.

Here's a chance to redeem yourself and see if you have any clue of what you are talking about

Bonus question: two senior citizens are in a domestic partnership; amendment 2 passes; how does this affect their social security benefits?

Felix;

You must have attended the Baxley school of picking salt out of sugar and selective reading.

To answer your question. That I can ascertain it would not directly affect their SS benefits. But if 2 passes and domestic partnerships are no longer legal, then they would have to get married to obtain the benefits they had in a domestic partnership.

At that time it would directly affect their SS benefits. That is why it is called collateral damage Felix. It affects their life in a negative manner tangentially.

I don't know if the cure for you two is a tutor or a deprogrammer. 

And now for my question and your chance to be my tutor. If two women are allowed to marry, how does that affect you or impact your life in any way?

It doesn't even have to be a 'marriage'. How would a domestic partnership between same sex partners affect you?

Do me a favor Felix, if you want to have a conversation about this then act like it. If all you want to do is bait me, take a break and leave it alone. I'm already on record as being against 2 and in favor of gay marriage.

I'm also in favor of not discriminating against citizens of this county. If you think it is OK to not have gays included in the non-discrimination laws of this county then you should seriously consider never running for public office. That kind of leader is not needed in this county or even any of its numerous incorporated communities.

Mike Heemer

Felix,

You seem to think that I think that the religious right is the "Boogey man" & the answer to  all things against this issue.  You are partially right.  The Evangelical/Fundamentalist arm of the Christian right might not be the only answer to the problem, but they are THE main problem.

I notice that while you make an accusation, you provide nothing to back it up.  As I have been the biggest pain in the patout for charging people with providing sources to back up their claims, I should be the one to back up mine.  No worries mon.  Here are SOME of my sources.

1. Liberty Council Alert, 02.01.08.

2.  Americans United, 06.04.08, Religious Right Leader James Dobson Declares War over marriage.

3.  Christian Right returns to grassroots to boost Political fortunes, Herald Tribune, 09.22.07.

4.  Rationale For marriage Amendment, News Journal, 10.02.07.

5.  Debate on Gay Marriage Begins, The Gainsville Sun, 11.05.07.

6.  Discussion on Gay Marriage Ban Heats Up, Tallahasse Democrat, 02.13.08.

7.  Unsettling Proposal, News Journal on line, 12.19.07.

8.  Florida marriage protection Amendment meets historic Petition Goal For '08 Ballot, Florida Family Policy Council, 12.13.07.

9.  Marriage Amendment Serves the Greater Good, Florida Family Action Alert, 10.30.07.

There are only nine articles speaking out against Amendment Two.  If you wish, I will be more than happy to do the reseach from my memory stick.  But I have to tell you that in more than 100 articles, the Christian Evangelical right is pretty much the only group that is against giving gays equal protection, equal rights & equal protection under the law.  And if you wish, I will only include articles from religious right publications, just in case you might claim that something might me "not fair & balanced." Are they, "The Big Boogeyman?"  Who else is there?  Yes, they are.

The religious right might not be "the answer to every question,"  as you put it.  But I ask you, who else is?  JATFUR. 

Rich K

Solo, I have to admit that your response had more substance than Heemers.  Nonetheless, your constant requests for citations is becoming obnoxious; you would think that no one can have an opinion unless someone else had already written that opinion in a book or newspaper.

And Mr. Heemer,  

Don’t try to be cute. I said "I don’t know if the cure for you two is a tutor or a de-programer," because you said:

Felix, for all their 'Christian' teachings and mouthing of platitudes and quoting of Scripture, these are some of the most hateful groups in existence. And they are accepted because they sound so righteous

and Solo said:

We have a two pronged problem with the religious right. For years, they have been using the scare tactic that abortion & a homosexual agenda are being "forced," on society by Godless, radical left wing liberals & Godless left wing, liberal, activist, courts. That is a BS sham, a scam and totally without foundation. The second part of the problem is that they have millions of people who accept what they say & think it is true. It seems that there are large segments of the religious right who don't stop & think about it. They don't stop to ask who has had an abortion forced on them &/ or, who has had an homosexual agenda forced on them? Not one religious right leader has ever shown one shred of evidence to back up their BS lies. They can't. Abortion is a choice. One choice out of many choices. To add to the problem of people not stopping to think & question is the fact that those same people vote in lock step to the philosophy put before them. Talk about an uninformed decision.

Don’t act like I’m the one who is intolerant, the two of you started it. At that point in discussion I was trying to prove my opinion that many of the statement by opponents of amendment 2 are deceptive scare tactics. The response by you and Solo was to defame the beliefs and practices of a very large segment of the population. You both need to think about whether your responses were appropriate.

Now, back to deceptive propaganda. We seem to have reached a consensus that if Amendment 2 is passed it will not have any effect at all regarding anyone’s social security benefits or pension benefits. If this is so, it does not seem that there is any purpose at all of mentioning said benefits in any statements against Amendment 2.

I cannot say why losses of social security and pensions are mentioned; however, I think that some people when hearing these elements mentioned in close proximity to each other could easily interpret such statements as meaning that Amendment 2 would directly cause senior citizens to lose social security and pension benefits.

Is that a scare tactic, is it deceptive?

I wonder, if the issue really is about gay marriage, why do mainly hear about an economic impact on senior citizens? Why would opponents of Amendment 2 change the subject from the primary issue to an extremely speculative impact upon an extremely small number of people.

The element of the population we are speaking of are senior citizens who cannot marry because they would lose some social security benefits, and who are in a domestic partnership. The theory is that if Amendment 2 were approved that domestic partnerships would be banned, and that in such a case the citizens described would have the choice of remaining single, in which state they would not have the rights that they previously had under a domestic partnership, or get married in order to obtain marital rights, in which case they would lose some social security benefits. In the case of gay couples, they would not be able to marry at all.

This scenario is completely theoretical, and depends upon a lot of "ifs" and "mights." Mr. Heemer, you have stated categorically that Amendment 2 will ban domestic partnerships: prove it. Below I will state my reasons why Amendment 2 will not ban domestic partnerships.

This is the current marriage law in Florida

741.212 Marriages between persons of the same sex.

(1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.

(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.

(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.

This is the summary of Amendment 2

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized

They say the same thing. The statute is longer and more detailed, but Amendment 2 says essentially the same thing as the statute. I believe that Amendment 2 was purposely written to be as brief as possible because the more that is written, the more that can be challenged in court. I don’t see any conflict between Amendment 2 and the statute, so I don’t anticipate that the statutes will in any way be changed if Amendment 2 passes. Everything will remain the same. The only difference is that with Amendment 2 included in the Florida Constitution traditional marriage is protected in that "one man, one woman" may only be changed 60% majority of Florida voters.

That is democracy. You can call it tyranny of the majority if you wish, but it is still the law. A yes vote on 2 means that traditional marriage will stand unless 60% of the voters say differently. If the vote is no, the law will still remain the same, but the law will be more liable to change by court decisions and by lobbying of the legislature.

What about domestic partnerships? In Florida they are granted only by select counties and municipalities. Under Florida law, self-governing entities can only pass laws that have local effect, marriage laws fall under the jurisdiction of the state. Some self-governing entities have domestic partnership registries, it is lawful for them to do so because it has been determined that domestic partnerships are not the "substantial equivalent" of marriage that is mentioned in Amendment 2. If domestic partnerships were the "substantial equivalent" of marriage they would be illegal, just as under current laws Flordia does not recognize civil unions or common-law marriage.

If Amendment 2 is the same as the current marriage laws, which do not prohibit domestic partnerships, there is no way that the passage of Amendment 2 would ban domestic partnerships.

Domestic partnerships have been upheld in the lawsuit "Lowe vs. Broward County"

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2000/2201%20-%202400/index.shtml

page 64

The Act does not create a legal relationship that, because of the interest of the state, gives rise to rights and obligations that survive the termination of the relationship. Unlike traditional marriage, a domestic partnership is purely contractual, based on the mutual agreement of the parties.

There is no reason to believe that the passage of Amendment 2 would cause municipal/county laws to conflict with state law because:

page 65

"Florida law recognizes two types of preemption: express or implied... For the legislature to expressly preempt an area, the preemptive language of the statute must be specific... Writing for the First District, Judge Wolf has observed that implied preemption is a more difficult concept. The courts should be careful in imputing an intent on behalf of the Legislature to preclude a local elected governing body from exercising it’s home rule powers.

Amendment 2 does not expressly ban domestic partnerships. As for an implied preemption, that would have to be decided in court. However, the author of Amendment 2 has gone to great length in the public record to show that it is not his intention to ban domestic partnerships. So in order for domestic partnerships to be banned; they would have to be challenged in court, Lowe vs Broward would have to be overturned, and the intent of the amendment’s author would have to be ignored.

I consider this chain of events to be so extremely improbable that it need not even be considered. You could say that it could happen; anything can happen, domestic partnerships are open to challene under the current law without Amendment 2 ever being enacted.

I consider the rhetoric, put out by opponents of amendment 2, that domestic partnerships will definitely be banned to be deceptive. It is one thing to disagree with me; I can live with that; I just prefer that the disagreement be stated in honest terms rather than engaging in scare tactic and fairy-tale scenarios that after several "ifs" something "might" happen.

http://www.yes2marriage.org

As courtesy, when accusing me or making an accusation and not backing it up, it would be helpful if you could indicate which of my statements you are refering to.  What might be obvious to you might not be obvious to me; I would hate to back up and research something only to find that is not the accusation to which you had refered.

Travis C

Travis,

When it comes to opinions, people have two basic, yet important rights under the law.  They have a right to have an opinion & they have the right to express that opinion.  That involves very little effort.  The real test comes when someone asks a very simple question about that opinion.  "On what do you base your opinion?"  If the person answers with common sense, evidence or facts, their opinion therefore is shown to be both valid & having some value.  If they can only answer that it is a hunch, with nothing to back it up, how can another place any value on it or consider it valid?  You may think it obnoxious, but will you still have that opinion when you have a problem with your vehicle, take it to a mechanic & he tells you that it is his opinion that it will cost a fair hunk of change to fix it, but has nothing to back up his opinion?  How about your doctor in the same situation?

The reason I brought my statement to the fore is because no other group, to the best of my knowlege, has been so fervent on the topic of denying people rights, refering to Amendment two, than Christian evangelicals & fundamentalist.  If you know of another group, I'd like to know.  So therefore, it was appropriate.  If you or any other person can show evidence of abortion being forced on a person, I will gladly retract my statement & apologise.  If you or any other person can show evidence of a homosexual agenda being forced on them, I will gladly retract my statement & apologise.  I did not create those situations.  I had no part in continuing them.  I can see no logical reason for those groups to take the stand they do.  If you or anyone else can, I would be glad to entertain another possibility.  Given the reasons I gave, I see no intollerance or defamation.  Pointing out that one group, regardless of size or reason, continually attempts to discriminate against another group is not only appropriate, it is a responsibility.  I also must say that I am not taking any credit for original thought on this. 

Rich K

And Mr. Heemer, Don’t try to be cute.

Trust me Felix, I was not trying to be 'cute'. I meant exactly what I said. I attended the American Family Forum gathering for all the candidates that was held at Thrasher-Horne. I listened to almost every candidate say that their core values were based on being a born again Christian that had taken Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

I also listened to the speech about amendment 2. I was appalled at some of the stuff I heard coming out of his mouth. What really shocked me was the number of people nodding their head in agreement. Unfortunately many were candidates.

How can this be Felix? How can they stand in front of their parishioners and preach salvation for all through Jesus Christ yet have that much hatred in their heart for a group of people? Felix, I just don't get it. And for me that is a good thing. I never want to be thought of as a person that is that intolerant.

I hope that I never get so far away from MY core values that I forget what this line from the Pledge of Allegiance means:

One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for ALL.

I spent a very large portion of my life prepared to give my life for those few words. And Felix, there are a LOT of gays in the Military that will give their lives so that you and others just like you have the right to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

If you are ever faced with a life or death situation are you going to refuse the help of that Doctor, or Med Tech or Fire Fighter or Police Officer if they are gay? 

Think about that the next time you feel the need to try to make them feel as if they are less than they are or deserve fewer rights than you.

Selective responses: 

Again you choose not to answer the hard questions that actually take some self examination and definition of your motives.

If two women get married, how does that affect you or impact your life?

Do you think 'Sexual orientation ordinances/laws should be included in local anti-discrimination laws?' Or do you think that it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a particular segment of the population?

You may want to do some hard thinking about the second one Felix. It you ever decide to run for a public office you may actually have to make decisions like that. Do you support ALL citizens or just the ones that fit into your definition of those that deserve the same rights that the rest of us have?

Just as an example, let's say you happened to run for and get elected as a County Commissioner. Should a gay person bother calling you to complain about their rights being violated?

Felix, let's leave out religion and the ACLU. Let's get down to the issues that really matter. Get it down to the personal one on one level.

What are your true core values? How do you deal with it on a family level?

What would you say if you have a daughter and one day she brings the love of her life to dinner and it happens to be another female? What happens when she tells you they got married while they were living in California? What do you do when she presents a child that they have adopted to you as your grandchild?

What do you say when she complains to you that no one will hire her or rent to her because she is gay? What do you say when she complains that the state will not recognize her marriage?

That's where the water hits the wheel. What do you do? Do they not deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else? Are they less of a person than you are?

Felix, I've tried to answer your questions, show me and the rest of the community the courtesy of doing the same with mine. This is down in the dirt dealing with issues that you don't want to face leadership. This is the real world. This is what it is really about.

This is the essence of the core values I and many others want in leaders. Where do you stand? Who will you stand up for? Who are you willing to defend?

Mike Heemer

A couple living together but not married can each receive their full benefits as individuals.  If they marry, their Social Security benefit would be combined and based on the highest earnings, with the other receiving a portion of the higher earnings. 

 Sunflower, that is not correct.  My husband and I both draw benefits on our individual earnings.  I had good paying jobs during my working career and draw much more in benefits than I could drawing under his earnings.  Social security gives you several options so that you can draw the maximum benefits under your particular circumstances. 

AG;

The scenario was a couple living together and not married. Yes there are lots of options but when you remarry it removes some of those options.

You can't just assume that their circumstances would be the same as yours because you are and have been married, neither has a deceased spouse or an ex spouse.

Sunflower only mentioned one circumstance. You have to look at that one only. Comparing your circumstances to the one Sunflower mentioned is worse than comparing apples to pumpkins.

Mike Heemer

We can't seperate religion and the aclu (and friends) from the core issue of gay marriage.  If we do so we find ourselves debating a situation different than the rality which is befoe us.  How can we debate something which does not exist?

You can't seperate religion from the issue of amendment 2.  It is largely a church based amendment, though it will soon move beyond the churches.  The claim has been made that the church people hate the gays, from what I have seen that is a great deal hatred toward christianity from those opposed to amendment 2.  If we take religion out, we ignore a large part of the motivations from both sides.

Neither may be seperate the aclu.  They challenged amendment 2 in the Florida Surpreme Court, they are probably the most organized group in opposition to amendment 2, and they are behind much of the anti-2 rhetoric.

I believe you are examining this situation from a philosophic standpoint, that gays SHOULD have certain rights because they DESERVE certain rights, and the only reason they don't have such rights is because they are denied them by a christian dominated discriminatory society.

I look at the matter as a political issue.  If you want gay marriage then the law has to be changed.  If amendment 2 fails, gay marriage can come about by a vote of the legislature.  If amendment 2 passes, then in 2010 you will need 60% of the voters to reverse it.  That is the reality of the matter and there is nothing that can change it.  Right now some people think they can defeat 2 by portraying the amendment as an attack on the elderly.  I think they will overplay their hand, because the voters are not that stupid.

You seem to equate protection of marriage with hatred towards gays.  Disagreement is not hatred.  While I do not wish my state government to recognize unions between gays as marriages, neither do I hate them and desire that they be discriminated against in any way.  You might say my stance is exclusionary, I defend as saying that a gay union is not a marriage and that it is vain to want something which does not exist. 

What would I do if my daughter...First off, should would have known ahead of time that I do not consider such behavior to be acceptable.  That is one of the things that parents are supposed to teach their children.  At the meeting with my daughters "wife," there would have been a big fight, and if I was unable to change the situation I would grudgingly learn to deal with it. 

You might think that this is a bigoted response, but do not act surprised.  I wager that my opinion regarding gay marriage is not just that of the majority of Florida voters, it is the majority opinion of the entire World.  If you rage against me for not agreeing with you, you must rage against the majority of all people who have ever lived.  I am not the one who has an odd opinion, and therefore I am not the one who must justify their opinion.

How does two women getting married impact me...You do not have to be directly impacted by something in order to have an opinion on it.  The tsunami in Indonesia did not impact me, but that does not mean I wanted it to happen. 

You posted that you couldn't believe some of the things which were said at the American Family Forum, if you have anything to add to that I wouldn't mind hearing it.  I believe you also said something negative about the county anti-discrimination policy, and if there is a problem with it I wouldn't mind hearing about that. 

My next post will deal with a really cool bit of deceptive reporting and related propaganda.  One must ask, if your product is so good, why must you use such extreme marketing in order to sell it?   

I believe you are examining this situation from a philosophic standpoint,

Of course that is how I am looking at it. How else should someone in a leadership position look at something like this?  

that gays SHOULD have certain rights because they DESERVE certain rights

Of course that's what I think. What else should any person think? Should we go back in time to when Women couldn't vote? If you deprive one, you deprive all.   

While I do not wish my state government to recognize unions between gays as marriages, neither do I hate them and desire that they be discriminated against in any way. 

Felix, you just contradicted yourself. If you do not want the state to recognize unions between gays you have already discriminated against them. It is not about you Felix.

it is vain to want something which does not exist.  

Here I must look at things from a philosophical stand point again. I guess that's what happens when you get a little older, a little wiser and have considerably more life experience than the person you are conversing with.

Felix, this country was built on wanting something that did not exist. The people that crossed a few thousand miles of empty ocean to face untold hardships in a new land came in the hopes of having freedoms that they did not have in their own country. The founders on this Nation wrote their own Constitution and fought a war in order to have something that did not exist. 

I am not the one who has an odd opinion, and therefore I am not the one who must justify their opinion.

Felix, the only thing odd about my opinion is that is at odds with yours and many like you. You may want to expand your horizons just a little. Much of the world is beginning to recognize that gays are being discriminated against and making marriage simply a union between two people. In fact, it is beginning to happen right here in the USA.

Felix, like many others that try to defend their exclusionary and discriminatory stance you really don't answer questions. You manage to dance around and say a lot of words, quote or repeat what you think most of the people want to hear but don't really get to the meat of the issue and answer the question.

Here is but one example of what I am talking about:

How does two women getting married impact me...You do not have to be directly impacted by something in order to have an opinion on it.

I did not ask if you had an opinion. I did not even ask what your opinion was if you did have one. I asked how does it impact you.

This is a good second example:

I believe you also said something negative about the county anti-discrimination policy, and if there is a problem with it I wouldn't mind hearing about that.

I did not say anything negative about the county policy.

What I asked was: Do you think 'Sexual orientation ordinances/laws should be included in local anti-discrimination laws?' Or do you think that it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a particular segment of the population?  

They should have been pretty easy questions to answer. It only takes one word. Yes or No! The problem I see for you is that it is a Yes or No question and politicians hate them. For me it is pretty easy. Yes to the first and No to the second.   

You can't seperate religion from the issue of amendment 2.  It is largely a church based amendment, though it will soon move beyond the churches. 

And that is the real problem Felix. You seem to imply that it is I who am in the wrong for looking at this as a philosophical issue when it is a political issue yet you state you can't separate religion from amendment 2. Which is it Felix? Political and religious are not the same thing as much as you would like it to be.

if I was unable to change the situation I would grudgingly learn to deal with it.

And what would you do about the discrimination they are facing?

Who will you stand up for? Who are you willing to defend?

You have to make it your issue to see it as an issue. This is not politics or religion or philosophy to many thousands of families Felix. It is their reality every day of the rest of their lives if we continue down this path.

Felix, I'm not expecting you to change your opinion of gay marriage. What I am asking is are you big enough to stand up for the rights of the people invovled?

Will you stand up for them and defend their right to something you wish they hadn't asked for? That is the measure of a true leader.

Mike Heemer

I'm probably the one with the odd opinion because I agree with both of you to a degree.  I don't believe same sex relationships are right, and there is nothing anyone could ever say or do to change that because of where that belief comes from.  At the same time I do not view gay people with disdain either.  If I am put in a position of responsibility for what I believe then I say what I believe but realize they're still Brothers and Sisters in the family of man and are loved by their Creator. 

The term marriage is generally accepted for any couple who gets a marriage license, has a ceremony and files the paperwork.  For me marriage is a sacrament that you cannot get from a Justice of the Peace or notary but comes when you join together in a union you ask God to attend and bless through prayer.  I don't view those not married in a Church or by clergy as any less married, it's just different.  To me marriages and civil unions have existed for a very long time already.  Years ago even announcements of weddings in the paper used to distinguish between them by writing that so and so were married in a civil service.

With all that being said, I will most likely vote against Amendment 2 because it discriminates.  Isn't this all about mostly money to begin with, the right to have the same benefits and be recognized as a couple who have made a legal committment to each other?  What is spiritual about tax returns and health benefits?   Isn't living together without the benefit of marriage between a man and a woman still illegal but not enforced at least in some places?  Why is the "religious right" not pursuing that with the same zeal?

Not allowing gays to get married isnt going to stop them from being gay and cohabitating, it just punishes them economically and again, there is nothing spiritual in that.  I think it's just fine for ANY Church to refuse to perform a gay wedding ceremony and to speak out against the lifestyle. The Pastor of the Church my Parents attend 20yrs ago refused to marry my first Husband and myself because he was divorced.  Where civil unions are concerned I don't believe exclusions based upon sexual preference supports that lofty idea that all people are created equal especially when you're talking about an amendment to the Constitution. 

I believe you can dissaprove of a behavior and still love the person and recognize that you are no better then they are, you just have different sins to deal with. 

I do have personal experience from where I base my feelings.  I lost a Brother in 1986 to AIDS.  After having been married for over a decade he "came out" and pursued a different lifestyle.  We were estranged for several years because he was determined that I "accept" what he was, and I wouldn't.  I didn't have to accept the lifestyle or the choice to love him and still be his Sister.  I just wasn't going to utter the words he needed to hear from me.  It was tough to face him when he was dying and stand on my convictions but eventually he was the one who did the accepting.   Although there is no way to know how long he might have lived otherwise I hold that lifestyle responsible for his death. 

I still believe amending the constitution to "not allow" the financial benefits that come from a committment between two people is wrong.   What will come after that, an amendment that will not allow divorced people to get married, or not allow interacial marriages?  How about a Constiutional Amendment to deny child molesters and abusers the right to procreate?

I think the "Religious Right" has lost their way as a whole.   Above all else we're instructed to "love one another" and "Judge not lest ye be Judged".  I think they would be alot more effective if they spent more time in prayer and less time in politics.  

Yours would be the opinion that I agree with the most.

I and my wife were also told by a minister that he would not perform our wedding ceremony as we had both been divorced. So I understand what you went through.

I will be voting against the amendment also.

Marsha,

Thank you turning a sows ear into a silk purse.  Your thoughts have been reflected by others, including me, and I think we all have to realise that this is an issue which will not vanish, regardless of how the vote turns out.  All too many people are set in their minds with little regard to the validity of their view & little regard for the rights of others.  A sad state, indeed.

Rich K

Marsh and joeriley08. Thank you both. I was hoping that I was not the only one that was against this amendment.

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife

If they had stopped there I could have supported it myself.

and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

The remainder just smacks of an attack on a group of people that is uncalled for.

As Marsha mentioned call same sex unions something else. I don't care about what you call it as long as it has the same force of legal protections and benefits as marriage.

Mike Heemer

I am happy to see it is just not me. I agree with Marsha, Finder and Solo. This ammendment is entirely uncalled for. What strikes me most is the infinite capabiltiy of humanity to act with such inhumanity towards one another.

I agree homosexual relationships have no business calling themselves "marriage" as marriage is a sacrament. "Mariages" perormed by a secular individual are really legal unions. (OK, I recognize that this is merely my opinion but I am venturing it as a tool to simply differentiate for purposes of debate.) So, a legal union for homosexuals should have the same rights and benefits as anyone else.

That being said, I can not understand the hatred and bigotry a small section of our society has for the homosexual segment of said society. Homosexuals have been with us since the dawn of time whether you believe that to be 6,000 years ago or 60,000 years. They have also been pre-eminent in the arts, sports, government and war. No, I could never partake in such a lifestyle as their private lifestyles are but I also can not condemn them out of hand either. Live and let live is the bottom line. These people deserve all the respect and dignity we should give one another. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime in the near future but hopefull we can begin to develop some tolerance.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

  --  "I wager that my opinion regarding gay marriage is not just that of the majority of Florida voters, it is the majority opinion of the entire World. If you rage against me for not agreeing with you, you must rage against the majority of all people who have ever lived. I am not the one who has an odd opinion, and therefore I am not the one who must justify their opinion." - Felix

I've been enjoying the give-and-take as a spectator, but the above statement caught my eye.

My first reaction was that raging against the majority has a long and honored place in American history. Without it, the only people who'd be deciding this amendment question in November would be white men who owned land, and in some places could pass a written or other tests that varied according to whether the person was a member of the majority or some real or perceived minority.

Raging against the majority is historically the most important tool in initiating the fight for equal or civil rights. Incumbent in that rage, though, is the responsibility to justify the minority opinion and without it rage is only rage.

Being a member of the majority only means political power, not moral justification. When people lose sight of that distinction, and those two become intertwined, you get things like this wholly unncessary amendment proposal.

The majority, whoever the heck they are, should not be wasting government time looking for minorities and finding reasons to treat them differently, but instead be concentrating on electing representatives who will provide the most effective and efficient fire and law enforcement services, road maintenance and educations for our kids. That should be government's role, not making laws based on some perceived moral standard of 50 percent plus 1.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

I appreciate the people who posted, who while they disagree with my position, were able to disagree without vitriol and going into a rant about the "religious right."

Mr. Heemer, you pressed me to answer the "hard questions," and when I did so you were critical of my answers.  Perhaps you should have let me know ahead of time what the right answers were.

In particular, regarding the one about a daughter bringing home a daughter in law; I believe that anger followed by grudging resignation is the response that most people would have in such a situation.  What did you expect me to answer?  Did you expect the one extreme of:

"my heart would swell to three times it's normal size, my chest exploding and sending out waves of love in the form of yellow moons, green clovers, purple horseshoes, and blue diamonds."

or did you expect the other extreme of:

"We would all die together."

The assertions that I am just saying what people want to hear is completely ridiculous.  What people?  Certainly not those who have responded on MCS.  I don't think that the "religious right" is patrolling the blogs.

As for your comments about leadership and courage, I do not understand these qualities being eqitomized by agreeing with you. 

I also don't particularly care for the way you cherrypick my comments and respond to that which pleases you.  Opponents to amendment 2 have been doing that same thing with the financial impact report, it's misleading.

What I asked was: Do you think 'Sexual orientation ordinances/laws should be included in local anti-discrimination laws?' Or do you think that it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a particular segment of the population?  

You notice how I copied that entire statement.

You seem pretty gung-ho on this particular issue.  I have not researched anything about it.  On the face of it, it seems like a no-brainer that someone should support such a thing.  However, I am of the tentative opinion that discrimination against gays is already illegal.  If this is so, what is the purpose of creating extra policy? 

Please, do not throw this question back by saying "what is the purpose of amendment 2, when gay marriage is already illegal."  We've been over that.

Felix, perhaps I'm being too obtuse. I'm not critical of your answers. I can't be critical of answers you don't give. What I'm trying to tell you is you are only answering the easy ones. The hard ones you haven't touched yet. Here are the hard ones Felix. There are 3 of them below. 

And what would you do about the discrimination they are facing? Who will you stand up for? Who are you willing to defend?

Here is another that you danced around. Felix, in today's society if the law does not say you can't it means you can.

Do you think 'Sexual orientation ordinances/laws should be included in local anti-discrimination laws?' 

Felix, that question came directly from the American Family Forum survey. I find it sad that every candidate that returned a survey answered that question with 'Disagree'. Every one of them Felix. From the SOE to the COC to the Sheriff and everyone running for Commissioner.

Even the candidates for School Board and SOS answered 'disagree' to their question:

The word "lifestyle" should be added to the discrimination clause of employee contracts to ensure homosexual rights.

Felix, can you see a pattern here? This doesn't seem like an attack against gays to you?

You seem pretty gung-ho on this particular issue.  I have not researched anything about it.  On the face of it, it seems like a no-brainer that someone should support such a thing.  However, I am of the tentative opinion that discrimination against gays is already illegal.  If this is so, what is the purpose of creating extra policy?

Of course I'm gung-ho on not discriminating against people. I think we all should be. Especially those that seek elected office.

It is not 'extra' policy Felix. Many anti-discrimination laws say 'race, religion, color or creed'. What is 'extra' about adding sexual orientation?

Please, do not throw this question back by saying "what is the purpose of amendment 2, when gay marriage is already illegal."  We've been over that.

Yes we have. That is what started this entire conversation. The question was and is why do we need 2? Let's not sugar coat it and try to hide it behind anything but what it is.

The reason you want 2 is so that a Judge cannot say that the laws are illegal and therefore allow gay marriages. It's pretty simple. The problem for you is that when it is stated like that it smacks of discrimination which is exactly what it is.

As I said to Marsha, I wouldn't have as big a problem with 2 if it stopped before the part about anything that is treated as marriage. If the words gay and marriage together makes you gag then call it gay civil union or something else.

I also don't particularly care for the way you cherrypick my comments and respond to that which pleases you.  Opponents to amendment 2 have been doing that same thing with the financial impact report, it's misleading.

Look at my last post, then look what is written in this editorial.  It is ridiculous how erroneously they reported on the "effect on seniors."  How can you refer to amendment 2 as a "trojan horse," when the hidden effects are imaginary?

Speaking of 'cherry picking', did you just forget to mention this part of the editorial, or did you only reference the part that you think is 'imaginary'?

The amendment is a disgrace that should be defeated because it would write prejudice against gays into the state Constitution.

If it passes, it would ban same-sex marriages, but also forbid recognition of any union deemed the "substantial equivalent" of marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships that convey certain legal rights, such as to hospital visits.

The measure has no place in the Constitution, which is meant to protect equal rights for all citizens, not encourage discrimination against some because of whom they love or choose to live with. 

Felix, that's my 'rant'. I don't like discrimination. I don't want leaders that do. For me, I'll just keep tilting those windmills of injustice. Every once in a while one of them crumbles and that is a reward in and of itself. 

Mike Heemer

Felix, that's my 'rant'. I don't like discrimination. I don't want leaders that do. For me, I'll just keep tilting those windmills of injustice. Every once in a while one of them crumbles and that is a reward in and of itself. 

Mike Heemer

"Windmills of injustice."  I guess that now you are comparing yourself to Don Quixote.  (Note, Don Quixote is a fictional character)  You do realize that Don Quixote was delusional.

In the story Don Quixote became obsessed with the concept of chivalry and afterwards interpreted his reality as conforming to the idea that he was a knight.  In the "tilting at windmills" incident Quixote attacked a group of windmills because he thought they were 4 armed giants. 

Quixote saw what he wanted to see, because in his delusional belief that he was a brave knight he expected to do battle with dangerous fores.

Quixote was injured and returned to his home.  His sisters thought that if they burned his books about chivalry that it would help cure his mind.  When he awakened, Quixote wanted to know what happened to his books.  Not wanting to anger Quixote, his sisters claimed that an evil wizard had come and destroyed the books.

Quixote believed this because it was what he wanted to believe; in his mind he was a great warrior so of course he would be the enemy of evil wizards.

My point?  It is apt that you compare yourself to such a figure, because you just see what you want to see.

What I refer to are the comments on your last post.  Previously, I had accused you of cherry-picking my comments.  (Note, cherry picking means to take what you want and leave the rest, and by taking quotes out of context portrays a different meaning than if the quotes had been in their original state)  In response to this you take two of my quotes from two different previous posts and place them together; this is creative editing and can be as misleading as cherry-picking.  You then accuse me of cherry-picking, alluding that I had ignored a part of the article I had cited.  Ridiculous.  I had posted a link to the article; click the link and the reader will see the entire article.  My comments about the article referred to the subject which I had been blogging about, fraudulent claims that amendment 2 would harm senior citizens. 

Your next move was to copy and print a section of that article which states that amendment 2 would ban domestic partnerships.

Ban domestic partnerships.  We have been over this subject at great length.  I have shown my rasons for believing that this is untrue.  I have compared the wording of the amendment to the existing laws, posted the applicable parts of Lowe vs Broward County which show the legal precedent that domestic partnerships are not the equivalent of marriage, and I have referred to the intention of amendment 2's author that domestic partnerships are not to be banned. 

I have reason behind my belief.  What do you have?  Is it just that you want to believe?  That is blind faith, that is Don Quixote at his finest, seeing what he wants to see, attacking windmills because he thinks they are giants. 

You have your opinion on gay unions, I have mine.  Neither of us will be shaken, but if I was shown something that strongly indicated that my side was lying, I would accept it and then decide if that lie was a deal-breaker.  I would not tow the party line and proclaim that not only was my cause just, everyone on my side is noble and everything they say is the truth. 

Lets see what Don Quixote thinks of the following.

Here are three links

http://www.lobbytools.com/article.cfm?12847790

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080530/COLUMNIST13/805300653/-1/newssitemap

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/marriage_amendment/index.html

The first appears to be an article from the Sun Sentinel, it is written by an aclu guy, the title is "Florida's Amendment 2 is not about gay marriage," and says basically that the Florida AARP has said that if Amendment 2 passes it will cause problems for many senior couples.

The second also appears to be an article, this one from the Herald Tribune, also written by an aclu guy, it's title is "Gay Marriage is not on ballot."  This article quotes Bentley Lipscomb, former president of Florida AARP,  and says basically the same thing about Amendment 2 hurting seniors.

The third is a blog from tampabay.com, it also quotes Lipscomb, and says that AARP opposes Amendment 2.

So what's the problem?  Lipscomb is a former president, and so is probably unable to speak for Florida AARP.  Also, Lipscomb is never actually quoted as saying that AARP is opposed to Amendment 2.  As I read the second article and the blog, all Lipscomb is doing is stating his opinion.

It would be quite easy for someone to read these pieces and conclude that Florida AARP is opposed to Amendment 2.  What none of these pieces disclose is that Lipscomb is also a member of the Honorary Board of one of the groups opposing Amendment 2.  If this information had been included, it might cause the reader to take Lipscomb words with a grain of salt; as it was written, the reader would assume that Lipscomb is just speaking on behalf of Florida seniors.

 http://www.votenoflorida.org/template.aspx?id=291

Of course, what it all comes down to is whether or not AARP is opposed to Amendment 2.

http://www.aarp.org/states/fl/

Look at the page, do you see any mention of Amendment 2?  I see that Florida AARP was opposed to Amendment 5, if they were opposed to Amendment 2 they would say so. 

If Amendment 2 is so bad for senior citizens, wouldn't it be opposed by AARP?  If AARP really isn't opposed to Amendment 2, and it really isn't going to have an impact on senior citizens, doesn't that mean that mean that opponents of 2 have been throwing around a great deal of deceptive rhetoric?  Don't these amount to scare tactics? 

You have been hounding me about whether I would support an anti-discrimination policy for gays, and have expressed outrage that all the candidates at the American Family Forum said that would not. 

Did you ask any of the candidates why they answered no?  Maybe there is more to the issue than just hate, maybe they know more about thee issue than you do because there must be more to than just being either "for or against discrimination."  I assume that Bradley was there, he is a practicing lawyer and former member of the BCC, I am sure he would take your phone call, why don't you call him or any of the other candidates and ask them about their answers. Chances are there was more to it than the hate the Don Quixote wants to see.

You have been talking a great deal about leadership, you have been pressing me about my opinion on an anti-discrimination policy for gays, why don't you quite screwing around and take your opinion to somewhere it can be of use.  You are such a fan of anti-discrimination policies, take it the BCC and see if they will vote on it.  That is where the rubber meets the road, the bullet hits the bone, the stuff hits the fan, and any other cliche that fits.

I humbly request that you not only cease cherry-picking and creative editing my comments, I would like it if you stopped telling stories from the Scout Masters Handbook.  

Ah Felix, did I hurt your feelings? I must have to have garnered that type of response. Feeling guilty about your stance? Is that why you think you have to talk to me like I'm an idiot? As if I had no idea who Don Q was? That it was only some obscure reference to something I heard once? Did you think I might not know the meaning of 'cherry picking'?

Felix, you have to be able to present a logical argument and be able to defend that argument with logic in order to debate someone. Anything less is just opinion and desire. Your arguments are made of thin air. You present no reasons for supporting 2 other than it won't affect domestic partnerships. If you cannot present any facts of why we need this how can you expect to be able defend your stance?

You would make a truly wonderful politician in Clay County. You have managed to go an entire week without answering a real question with any substance behind it. The real issue I see for you is that you cannot defend your stance on discrimination and want to continue to try to focus on just the 'domestic partnership' portion. The reason? You can at least present an argument that might be true.

No one knows for sure if it will do away with them. I think it will. You think it won't. Neither of us is 100% sure. I would rather err to the caution side and not have 2 be so restrictive. You on the other hand don't really care if it does or not so long as you get what you want which is to ban gays from having anything that even resembles marriage.

You have been talking a great deal about leadership, you have been pressing me about my opinion on an anti-discrimination policy for gays, why don't you quite screwing around and take your opinion to somewhere it can be of use.  You are such a fan of anti-discrimination policies, take it the BCC and see if they will vote on it.  That is where the rubber meets the road, the bullet hits the bone, the stuff hits the fan, and any other cliche that fits.

And that Felix is the real problem. As I stated, every candidate for a BCC seat that returned an AFF survey answered the question the same way. That includes the two that just got elected from D5 and the 2 year at-large, the two running in D3, the REP from D1 (the write-in didn't respond to the survey) and the REP running for the Chair (again the write-in, me, did not respond). It is a sad state of affairs when we could end up with 7 people on the BCC that think it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a group. Felix, it's just like the 50s and 60s except it is a different group.

If you were running for one of those seats and you were to win, would you vote on that? If so, how would you vote? Maybe I should ask the question of whether you are running. If you are, why did you answer that way?

Sorry, I forgot you don't answer questions that make you take a stance that might indicate that you would not be for all the people.

Felix, I am running for one of those seats and I don't have a problem with answering questions. And I don't have a problem using my real name. I'd vote on it and vote yes. See how easy that is?

That is the difference between a politician that is hoping to move up that ladder and someone like me that just wants to do a better job for this county than some of the people sitting on and running for the board now.  

Felix, I was probably in my 26th year of Naval Service when you were graduating from HS. You'd be just a little shy on experience on that level. By then I had already been through the race riots in the military that were caused by people that thought certain groups were inferior and treated them that way. I'd already been through the times when a Pilipino could only be Stewards. I was there when the military finally decided that women really could fly an airplane as well as a man. And that she could be a mechanic or an electrician or something other than a pretty face in a skirt doing paperwork.

I had also been through the 'don't ask, don't tell' debacle that we are still dealing with because some people think a certain group is inferior. Don't ask, don't tell is better than what it was when I was a Navy Recruiter from 78 - 82 but it is still one step from being what it should be.

Hmm. Stop telling stories from the Scout Master's Handbook. I'm not familiar with that saying. But if it means trying to teach someone a moral code that says to treat all people equally I don't think I can do that Felix. On that subject you have a long way to go before graduation.

Unfortunately there are a lot like you out there. They'll spend more time ranting about how people don't take care of their dogs than they will about how some people want to treat humans. But then that is what the people that wrote 2 are counting on. Skim the surface, that's it, I'm done. My Preacher said this is a good thing so I don't have to think about that one anymore.

Felix, if all you got from the story by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra was that Don Q was delusional you might want to read the whole book instead of the Comic Book version. It takes a little deeper thought process to get to the real meaning of 'tilting windmills' and who the windmills were.

It's kind of like 'The Lord of the Flies' which is more than just a story of some kids shipwrecked on an island. If you haven't done so you might want to try reading that one too. All of it, not just the Cliff Notes. If you have read it, you might want to try it again. It's amazing what you can pick up the 3rd or 4th time you read it. 

Mike Heemer

Mike, I read all the AFF surveys and you are correct, there is a huge similarity to all of them.  Maybe it is because this county is conservative and quite right wing. 

I am curious--if you are so interested and keep going back to the responses that WERE  given--and you seem to think  the given answers were from people who "think it is perfectly okay to descriminate against one group"....Why didn't you answer the questions? Why did you go to the AFF candidates meet and greet and not speak? ALL candidates were invited to attend and paticipate. Iwas there to listen and learn.

Clearly, you have opinions, why only state them on the blogs and not to AFF?

I am off to church.....to "see what my preacher thinks so I don't have to worry anymore"  You seem to equate religion with stupidity. I may have a shepard in my Lord but I am no SHEEP.  I think for myslef and do not always agree with my church or pastor.

I hope to have a response from you upon my return.

Mike,

I have been trying to stay away from this discussion however,   I have read and understood amentment 2, maybe I understand it as I have only limited formal learning and the liberal college professors never got ahold of me for any length of time...... I will be voting NO to amend. 2..

By the way I liked "Don Q" and the "lord of the flies", however I could not pay attention to the books so I watched the MOVIES..  

Mike,

Shame on YOU!  Have you no compassion for your fellow man?  Have you not even one ounce of the milk of human kindness in your mean spirited body?  Have you no understanding whatsoever of the human condition?

Are you so totally unaware that there are those among us, & Felix is not alone, who don't have clue #1 as to WHY it is important that a person should base their opinions on something other than the fact that they have the capacity to form an opinion?  And yet, they would be among the first to demand it of us.

Are you so totally unaware that there are those among us, & again, Felix is not alone, who consider it obnoxious when a source is asked for when a claim is made?  And yet, they would be among the first to demand it of us.

Are you so totally unaware that there are those among us, & again, Felix is not alone, who, when confronted with facts that dispute their unfounded claims, use the expedient method of ignoring that person by never bothering to reply?

Mike, I am truly shocked at this kind of deficiency on your part.  Nay!  I am also very disappointed in you.  I may go into some kind of depressed state, withdraw from the world, roll my eyes back in my head while my precious bodily fluids slowly evaporate to join the cosmic one.  Or, I may just go take a shower, make one of my favorite adult beverages & watch the CUBS & the Jags on TV.  It's a toss up.  Go figure.  JATFUR.

Rich K

You have been talking a great deal about leadership, you have been pressing me about my opinion on an anti-discrimination policy for gays, why don't you quite screwing around and take your opinion to somewhere it can be of use.  You are such a fan of anti-discrimination policies, take it the BCC and see if they will vote on it.  That is where the rubber meets the road, the bullet hits the bone, the stuff hits the fan, and any other cliche that fits.

And that Felix is the real problem. As I stated, every candidate for a BCC seat that returned an AFF survey answered the question the same way. That includes the two that just got elected from D5 and the 2 year at-large, the two running in D3, the REP from D1 (the write-in didn't respond to the survey) and the REP running for the Chair (again the write-in, me, did not respond). It is a sad state of affairs when we could end up with 7 people on the BCC that think it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a group. Felix, it's just like the 50s and 60s except it is a different group.

If you were running for one of those seats and you were to win, would you vote on that? If so, how would you vote? Maybe I should ask the question of whether you are running. If you are, why did you answer that way?

Sorry, I forgot you don't answer questions that make you take a stance that might indicate that you would not be for all the people.

So I guess that if something is hard, you are not going to try.  Let me turn this around on you.  I feel that many Republicans when running for office make a big deal about being pro-life, and that when in office they still declare themselves as being pro-life, but don't do anything to promote pro-life policies.  Lip service.

As the Republican candidate for Chair, are you now saying that you pro gay rights, in office you will remain pro gay rights, but if elected it will be too hard for you to change anything?  As a citizen, are you saying that you are perfectly able to blog about what you believe, but anything that might bring about a change is too hard?  Lobbying state reps, calling on the BCC to vote, starting a non-discrimination PAC, petitions for a BCC vote, petitions for a Charter Amendment, there are avenues for citizens to at least voice their opinion.  You can't always win a vote, but you can pressure BCC to vote. 

Do not confuse blogging about something with doing something.  I am not under any illusion that I am votes for Amendment 2.  From the very beginning all I wanted was to get input about the anti-2 claims, and to see what kind of attitutes and questions I would encounter if I decided to volunteer for florida4marriage. 

Judging from the MCS responses, there was one that was positive, though I'm not sure if he was serious.  He was immediatly attacked for having such an opinion on the grounds that his profile said he was a conservative christian.  Someone else posted regarding social security benefits, she was immediatly shot down, I assume because what she said slightly undercut your argument.  One poster was vehemently opposed to 2, but he has since moved on, perhaps making the wise decision not to devote too much time to this blog.  A few more people posted that they were opposed to 2 or would probably vote against it, but they were not abusive in their comments. 

Then there is you, arguing with me for a week, and for all your rhetoric you seem resigned to accept the status quo. 

You do raise a point that I accept, I paraphrase, but perhaps I should do things to help people instead of tearing them down.  I have been thinking along the same lines myself; however, I don't see opposition to gay marriage as hurting anyone, rather of denying them something that they should not have.

As for my focusing on domestic partnerships, I have been focusing on that and related subjects because that is the tactic that opponents of 2 have been using.  If gay rights is so persuasive, why have they framed Amendment 2 as being an attack on senior citizens?  It is just a scare tactic.  If Amendment 2 is so bad for senior citizens, why is the AARP sitting out?  As I said, it is one thing to support a cause, but another to pretend that lies in support of that cause are truth. 

Your responses raise a number of questions about your character regarding your candidacy for Chair.  Change is too hard, it is ok to lie for a good cause, anyone who disagrees with you is a hate-monger who is immediatly silenced, and any point can be proved by giving a long winded speech about liberty, sprinkled with cliches and weird mixed metaphores. 

At least you owned the Don Q thing. 

CV;

I was at the AFF forum. I did speak. Each candidate was given one minute to explain how their 'core values' would serve them as a Commissioner. That was all the time given to candidates. The rest of the time was a set program.

I did get to speak to a few people during the breaks and I did express my opinion on a few subjects. It was not always about 2 but a number of subjects. There is never enough time to actually have a debate or long conversation about any one particular subject.

CV, I never ever related religion to stupidity. What I said was that there are way too many people that do not think for themselves. If the Preacher says it is a good thing then that is all they need to know. There are a lot of non-religious people that have the same problem. Their next door neighbor said it was a good thing so they vote that way.

Or perhaps they step into the voting booth and look at the amendment for the first time and say, 'of course I want to protect marriage' without ever thinking about it or getting past the title. Kind of like the Religious Freedom amendment that just got pulled.

CV, I think it is a good thing that you are not a SHEEP. I do not condemn those that are more religious than I am, I just would like people to think about what the ramifications are of this amendment. It is more than what appears on the surface. From there it looks good but the net result is not a good thing.

CV, I know I'm probably not doing myself any great favors by discussing these issues. It may not be helping my cause of getting elected to the BoCC but I'm not going to give the stock answers that I think people may want to hear. That just is not me. I want what is good for all the people of the county.

But not just the county. We are not an island here. I keep hearing how we want to grow and bring in new business. That new business is going to want more than we have to offer right now. The companies that I worked for after retiring from the Navy were mostly large companies. They offered high salaries and good benefits to their employees that covered same sex partners and would not even consider coming to an area that restricted that. If you as an employee had an issue with gays you were not going to get a job with them. They would not tolerate discrimination of any sort.

Like it or not, that is the right thing to do. It is where this country is going to go despite any efforts against it. Large companies that pay good wages expect that. If we tell them that we are not going to allow that kind of stuff in our county they will walk. If you tell them that the spouses or partners of their employees (regardless of sex) that try to get a job with the government will not be covered by the same type of benefits that they offer, they will walk. If you tell them that any people they bring in may have problems renting if they have a same sex partner they will walk.

We cannot expect to bring in high paying jobs and large companies to this area if we continue walk down this path. What we'll get is more of the same low paying small time fast food joints and more people driving across the river to go to work.

Why didn't you answer the questions? I don't know what you are asking here. You'll have to be more specific.

Mike Heemer

joeriley08;

The books are a little daunting and take a while to read. But then I found The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy to be the same. But they were all worth reading and reading more than once.

I find that some books are like old friends. They are great to revisit because there is always something new that you learn.

I have seen the movies also. They are good, and worth watching but they just can't express or cover all the nuances of the written word.

Like Don Q, Frodo and Bilbo are imaginary characters but their stories cover life lessons on a number of levels. Be it tilting windmills or fighting Sauron or analyzing Lord of the Flies there are many lessons to be learned in these stories.

Of course the Parables found in Luke and Mathew do the same. But these also require more thought and introspection than just a quick once over read.

Mike Heemer

I agree Mike, and I have read my share of books...I guess that I just get distracted too easy...

The statutes have for years restricted marriage to being just between a man and a woman.  Domestic partnership registries only exist in selected Florida counties and munici