State lining up to become 28th to limit unions to 1 man, 1 woman
Stacks of petitions ready for delivery to the state of Florida
More than 611,000 petition signatures have been verified by Florida's 67 counties, putting a proposed state constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman on the 2008 election ballot.
"Today, the people of Florida have spoken. And they will speak again in November of 2008," said John Stemberger, chairman of the Florida4Marriage organization that supervised the petition effort.
"Their message will be timeless and clear – marriage is the union of one man and one woman," he said.
He said reaching the required number of petition signatures "is the next critical milestone in the effort to protect the institution of marriage in Florida. A super majority of Floridians believe, and the research clearly indicates, that children do best when raised by a mom and a dad."
In earlier elections, 27 other states have approved such amendments, many times replacing statutory language amendment supporters feared could be thrown out by a judge.  
Stemberger noted state officials confirmed that the number of verified signatures had passed the 611,009 that was required, but he said the signature collecting would continue, in preparation for a possible court challenge on the number of signatures submitted for the issue to be decided by voters in the Nov. 4, 2008, election.
But he said "misleading information" already is being launched by opponents to the proposal, which reads: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
"The primary group opposing the amendment is the so-called 'Florida Red and Blue' committee," said a statement from the marriage protection campaign committee. "In a recent interview on Tampa's Fox 13 'Your Turn' show, Campaign Manager Derrick Newton disingenuously stated with a straight face, 'We do not have an opinion on gay marriage.' Masked as a bipartisan coalition, Red and Blue's board and donors are actually made up almost exclusively of Democrats, left wing groups and gay rights activists."
Stemberger noted the support for the petitions came from Democrats (35 percent), Republicans (49 percent) and independents and others (more than 15 percent).
"Amendment opponents are attempting to argue that the marriage amendment could take away benefits from senior citizens and other persons in Florida who might be registered with domestic partnerships," said Florida4Marriage.
"All of these arguments are utter nonsense," Stemberger said. "Shame on them for such intellectual dishonesty. They know from the 27 others states whose citizens passed marriage amendments that if they debate homosexual marriage straight up, they will lose. Shame on them for such desperate tactics in trying to scare Florida's most vulnerable and precious citizens - our seniors."
He said the text of the amendment approved by the Florida Supreme Court would constitutionally prohibit polygamy, group marriage and same-sex marriages.
"While we congratulate all of the thousands of Florida citizens who have helped collect petitions, we are encouraging individual volunteers, churches and community leaders to CONTINUE COLLECTING petitions through December and January. Each new petition obtained helps to promote the amendment to new voters and increases the chances for a victory … in November 2008," the campaign said.
Part of Stemberger's verbal faceoff with a spokesman for the Red and Blue organization can be seen on YouTube.
He said the coalition now is beginning to work on its campaign to get the approval of 60 percent of the voters, which will be needed to make the constitutional change.
Opponents, including those at the Red and Blue group have said the plan will affect unmarried couples, a claim that helped defeat a marriage protection amendment in Arizona in 2006, the only state of the 28 to have taken a vote already to fail to approve it.
"It's really overstepping the role of government," Red and Blue spokesman Stephen Gaskill said, describing the plan as the "government saying this is the only sanctioned relationship that you can have."
Mathew Staver heads the Liberty Counsel law firm, which worked on the proposal.
"Protecting marriage is the best investment we can make in the lives of children and the future of Florida," he said.
Just weeks earlier, WND reported that a court in Maryland had rejected arguments from homosexual marriage advocates that state law discriminates against same-sex couples, affirming a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
"Because Family Law 2-201 does not abridge the fundamental right to marriage (as we understand that right), does not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Article 46, and does not otherwise implicate a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the marriage statute is subject to rational review," said the opinion from the state Court of Appeals, which went even further into the dispute.
"In the absence of some generally accepted scientific conclusion identifying homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, and in light of the other indicia used by this Court and the Supreme Court in defining a suspect class, we decline on the record in the present case to recognize sexual orientation as an immutable trait and therefore a suspect or quasi-suspect classification," the opinion said.
"We're pleased that the Maryland Court of Appeals did not allow the demands of advocates of homosexual behavior to be furthered in this case," said Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
"The court appropriately ruled that the proper place for public policy is with the public and the policymakers, not the judiciary. It remains critical for voters not to be lulled to sleep by this victory. It is crucially important that Americans support state marriage amendments, and, ultimately, a federal marriage amendment," Stovall said.
The organization had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council in the case.
The dispute erupted because Maryland law provides that no individuals may marry "in this State without a license issued by the clerk for the county in which the marriage is performed."
Clerks, in issuing licenses, are charged with looking for "a legal reason why the applicants should not be married." Frank Conaway, clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and others denied same-sex couples the licenses because of the state's family law that provides only "a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State."
Most states, however, are choosing to pursue constitutional amendments, because of the ease with which state laws are overturned by judges.
The only state where full same-sex marriage is practiced is Massachusetts, where it was imposed on the state during the tenure of former Gov. Mitt Romney. Several other states, including at least California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Hawaii, have made provision for a sort of civil union or other arrangement.
However, of 28 states where voters have been given the opportunity to make a choice, voters in 27 states have decided to embed in their state constitutions the requirement that marriage be between only one man and one woman.
Original Source