Who needs Wicker Hayes to tell them what to believe about anything?

How can a constitutional ammendment be a violation of one's constitutional rights? Liberals amaze me, they cannot read the following and understand it:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yet they think they have some unwritten right.

No-fault divorce was the worst thing to happen to this country in 1976. Several of the retired legislators who voted this at the time, now agree.

I think gay people should be allowed to marry. And no 1 person should be allowed to break that up, unless there is sustantiated violence.

The so called marriage act was even passed in California..do any of these protesters believe that the good people of Florida will opt for weirdness. Miami can't drag down the entire state.

The question was, "Would Jesus discriminate?"

No, Jesus would not discriminate!! He would heal the sick and free the captive. The homosexual would no longer be a homosexual after an encounter with Jesus.

Preserve marriage as one of the first institutions ordained by God.

Silverback, you can have your "god" ordained marriage.
But some of us live in a free country with alleged rights.
And what if your "god" is not mine?

I am a lesser citizen?

volochine and Lie

We live in a Democracy where the majority of the people decide
our freedoms

80% of the people believe in god
they believe in adam and eve, not adam and steve

Duh - you certainly represent your namesake well. I'd say keep up the good work, but Steve doesn't need anyone's help sounding like an idiot.

I've always believed that those who thump the Bible the loudest are only doing so to drown out the sound of the skeletons rattling in their own closet.

Bang harder, Bhut. Those bones can get real loud!

Do you people realize that this amendment prevents people straight couples from enjoying the same benefits as married people? If they live together?

If your significant other gets sick, and you aren’t family, then you can’t be with them in the hospital. You cannot leave a will for your significant other that won’t be contested by the state.

This amendment is basically saying that all people who aren't married will not have the same rights as married people, gay or straight.

It’s just "packaged" as an anti gay measure to get all the bigots out to vote yes.
Wake up America. It's not just a question between two people of the same sex,
it affects everyone.

VOTE NO

Again, doesn't our government have more important issues to address other than what two consenting adults decide? Gay or straight it is no ones business- especially not the government.

I happen to agree with Silverback and Bhut, although to the latter I must say: They're not listening. Delivery is in the wrong format.

Kind of like when those guys show up at my door to discuss the Bible with me, a very devout Christian, and I know I could engage in more eloquent discourse than they ever could...but it's annoying that they're even there, so I politely move them on.

Should be interesting to see how this vote plays out.

If this amendment does pass, many seniors who live together rather than marry will find themselves in a real bind. They will not receive any benefits of tht domestic partnership and most unfortunately, if one of them is hospitalized, the other has NO legal rights to the care and visitation of their loved one. Please, learn about the ramifications of this amendment. It is not strictly an anti-gay marriage amendment. It will affect ALL domestic partnerships.

#7 Hey DUH!!!!
Germany once decided, by majority, to turn to Nazism. Zealots.

Re-check your American history.
Freedom and Democracy.

Rube.

Vote NO on 2. Come back with an Amendment that will outlaw no-fault divorce. That will save marriage.

Attila

Why don't u write back?

What do you think Junkyard?

Is it that difficult to change the language so that legal unions be recognized?

Call it a union and you have my support. Call it a marrage and I will disagree. All couples should have the right to be happy but I still believe a marrage is between a man and a woman.
I think all unions should have the same benefits as a marrage, insurance and all.

To # 9

Have you read the whole Bible or just Leviticus?

A literal translation of the Bible can be and is DANGEROURS.

If we take the Bible and what it says literally without properly interpreting the scripturures, things would be differente for all of us on many levels!

Most societal prejudices stem from:

Lack of knowledge (poor interpretation of scripture)
Unwillingness to attempt to understand different beliefs/lifestyles

When one interprets scriptures it is crucial to consider the following:

1. To whom the scripture was written-the audience
2. The cultural setting of the day-their belief system
3. The purpose for writing
4. The context in which the writing is found.

Even Jesus understood the sin as Sodom as a sin of "inhospitality"

Did you know that?

Carmen
From Celebrations MCC Naples.

http://www.mccnaples.com

VOTE NO ON 2

I think I'll vote yes just because of the comments here. Normally, I wouldn't give two hoots on this but I think it'll be fun just to watch PFLAG and their supporters come up with more "Vote YES and you are a NAZI" slogans.

Amendment 2 is not needed.

Why?
Because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida.
Not once. Or even twice.
But four times!

From Florida Statute 741.212 (1):
From Florida Statute 741.212 (2):
From Florida Statute 741.212 (3):
Florida Statute 741.04 (1)

It is already against the law four times. So you have to wonder:
What is Amendment 2 really about?

Amendment 2 is also known as the “same sex marriage ban” amendment, but it’s really a benefits ban that will harm ALL unmarried couples in Florida, whether they’re gay or not.

Say No 2 taking away existing benefits and legal protections.

Say No 2 hurting Florida’s seniors who are unmarried by choice.

Say No 2 eliminating shared health care and pension benefits.

Say No 2 someone else deciding who can visit you in the hospital.

Say No 2 more government intrusion into our private lives.

Florida Government has more important things to do than take away rights and benefits from non-married Floridians. Gay or Straight.

The Amendment 2 could actually strip rights from unmarried couples (straight and gay) when it comes to things such as health care and end-of-life decisions.

Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" and see it for what it is:

A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.

Carmen

VOTE NO ON 2

Vote yes on 2. The reason a constitutional amendment is needed is because liberal judges ignore the will of the people and legislate from the bench. No fault divorce was a bad idea and gay marriage is even worse. By the way, if sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality, then I pity New York City! That argument is and has always been ridiculous. Finally, it is always funny how liberals always resort to name calling.

What's with calling everyone liberals all the time?

I'll vote no, but I doubt it'll pass anyway. Too many people interested in how other people live their lives. Maybe one day you guys will just get over it and tend to your own lives instead of judging how others live theirs.

Personally I think that marraige is a dead institution and that gays are foolish to want to marry, but that is their business.
This amendment is just another example of the moral cowardice that masquerades as religion in america.
These people are terrified of their own shadows, so they want everyone to agree to outlaw shadows.
The shadows being their own latent homosexuality.
If these so-called religious folk want to defeat their homosexual demons they need to face them, else we will be reading about them getting busted down at the restrooms at Bayshore Park. Again.

I didnt know jesus was a genetic scientist...

Get your noses out of others bedrooms!
How is their "marriage" hurting you?
What do you care and why do you care?
Does it effect your life? REALLY?
Does it dimish your marriage vows? HOW? Does it make you love your own 'chosen one' less, because Adam and Steve, or Ann and Anna married each other?
Get over your 'highness' and perfectness....
Will your God Judge you for Judging others?

Hi Liestopper: I am sure you have spotted him... He's back (again), you know atilla, YeOldeNaples, SWH and now as...well, you can read the very same words he posted and continues to post again.

I am not a "liberal" but fully believe that any such amendment would violate the US Constitution. My wife and I will vote no to this absurd addition to our state's constitution. Frankly I don't believe we need to amend our constitution at all.

Currently homosexuals have the “same” rights as heterosexuals – they can marry the opposite sex

They are fighting for “additional” rights – to marry the same sex.

Next they will want to marry their dogs, cats, and gerbils- and it only gets darker from there

Vote YES on 2

I'm voting yes on 2.

Would Jesus discriminate? I think Sodom and Gomorrah answered that question.

Not everyone believes in Jesus and we have the right to freedom of (or from religion) in the USA. Your churches can ban the marriage but the state should not.

I have just as much right to practice my religion as you do yours. The state cannot or should not limit what is a civil process.

#30 - wasn't sodom and gomorrah in the old testament?

I thought marriage was about LOVE, not gender?

Ignore the religious bigots. I am happy with my beliefs and will vote no.

Consider becoming a Pastafarian, it is a great religion which is more forgiving and kind, especially around lunch or dinner.

BhutJolokia/Attil

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE......

mend, you have one of the AKA's right, but don't forget to add the others (SWH and YeOldeNaples).

Lie- or not to know the truth!

American History and Germany??

Who was in the leadership and how did it happen.
there was 6 different political parties 41 million votes where cast
22 million for the five other parties--17 million for the nazi party alone
there was not a majority vote-to become nazis-
Germany was soon turned into a dictatorship.

lie if you need to learn the facts check
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/...

Thanks for yur help JYD

#40
I doubt that Jerry Jeff Walker would allow you to illegitimateize his song that way.

I'm definitely voting no. It's nobody's business except the participants what goes on in private relationships. Is everyone that insecure in their relationships or sexuality that they want to impose their beliefs on everyone else? Do they really think gay people are threatening or, even worse, recruiting?? Grow up.

The people supporting this amendment are being duped by the GOP with the help of their pastor, minister or preacher. This is all about getting out the vote - GOP needs the one issue voter.

There are alot of important issues to vote on.

yes will be voted by a majority of Dems also, so don't say this is a GOP
get out the vote.
this is a vote of beliefs.

JYD,
I sometimes agree with your conservatism, but not here. Burning books has never been a true American's answer, only reactionaries who tend toward absolute control of our lives through their religious doctrine.
The marriage of a gay couple has nothing to do with your life or beliefs, just theirs.
Parenting is a huge responsibilty requiring love, supervision, discipline, and leading by example. The fact that alternative lifestyles exist or books inappropriate for children exist in children's sections of book stores does not cause me concern or fear in the slightest. The teaching of "morality" is a parental responsibilty issue and not up to a subjective agenda of those who wish to control others' behavior.

Sometimes you need to go left to get right, depending on the issue, of course.

keep turning left! keep turning right !
this is our biggest problem, we are going in circles!

Gay people indeed have rights, I'd back domestic partnerships, etc. I'm not deeply religious but marriage is between one man and one woman. One can support gay rights and not gay marriage. At least I can.

Duh and #49. Yes, there are many issues to vote on and all should be considered. However, I think you would agree that there are many 'low information' voters and one issue voters. Voting for Republican John McCain may be a vote against gay marriage but it's also a vote against sound foreign policy/diplomacy, universal health care, maintaining social security as we know it, global climate change, stem cell research, reigning in big oil and gas, restoring sensible regulation to our financial services sector and continued overspending on weapons we don't need.
Need I go on.
John McCain is not the answer.

Pro
we don't have the same values- There is nothing wrong with our appoach to foreign policy- I pay for my own HealthCare and for my Children, Don't need to pay anyone elses. ,percentage of s.s. should go into market. china and india much worse on enviroment.
I'll vote for stem cell research if they can fix the gay gene.
crude oil off the futures market.
regulate sector who gives $$$ to the people who regulate- thats very funny
nothing wrong with a strong military

Obama couldn't community organize a slum

I have to follow Duh? Yikes.....

Dear Abby,

I have two friends from college. Graduated in 75. Fraternity brothers. One came out of the closet in 79, and has been with his partner for 30 years now. The other has been married since 76 and is very successful too. He has a girlfriend, in addition to his wife in Illinois, and has a condo down here for her, that his wife doesn't know about. The girlfriend has a legal background, so she is on the payroll of his company.

Both these people are good human beings, just different needs.

Dilemma: Both have asked me to be executor of their wills.

Who is the better person?

I am learning to despise these pages.

Argueing with the likes of people named duh and dog and bhut who could care less about others.

Duh is OK with stem cell research if they can stop the "gay" gene. Thanks for thinkin of the sickly kids duh, instead of yourself.

Enough said. I am learning to hate all you bigoted blowhards.

Sure Dog, sure.

Keep yappin with your girly friends while insulting my defense of voter rights.

Then call me a whiner.

Sure Dog, sure...

I suppose you agree with duhs callousness towards sick children. Real man, I guess.

You know what?
Been nice commenting to all.
NDN has come down too much.
Dog has become a jerk.
I am gone.
I'll be back 11-5-08 to tell all McSamers to kiss off...

Otherwise, see ya! Never again.

I guess.

LS, don't go. You have to stay and fight. Dog and Duh will run these comment boards without the voices of common sense and decency. There are probably many who read these boards without ever commenting and they need to see both sides especially when you identify the bigotry and selfishness of posters like the above-named.

Dog, if you read my posts you question, you would see I was referencing a commenter who had already used terms like taliban, etc.

Was it because I likened repubbys to the Taliban?

I have been called a communist, marxist,femocrat,and wimp on these pages.

And you get on me?

I merely advanced a thought somebody had posted.

I usually only name-call after it starts.

But, whatever. These pages are tiring lately.

Sarcasm does not translate very well in written form.

CutthroatLiberal
Bob Luther, Bonita Springs
Don't say I hide behind anything, please.

I respect that, Scott.
I respect you too.
I gotta go to work.

Never gotten a handout in my life.
Not from anyone.
I'll catch up with you.

For BhutJolokia and all of you who like to take scripture out of context... go to www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com, read the site as it relates to specific scriptures, then give your comments.

For those of you using the Bible as your reason behind a yes vote, I gather that you are not eating shellfish or pork,or cutting your hair, also found in Lev. so be careful where you point that finger it may come back at you.
While I am a religious person my favorite quote is "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself". Do that and the rest will take care of its' self.
and #32 your goute is old testament, prior to the arrival of Jesus. A little lost in time and space are you?

I sure missed a lively exchange. Since JYD and I see eye to eye on many topics as LS/CTL and I do, sure am glad this got settled in a reasonable fashion.

We all have our own POV, I don't go lock step with any political view. I do believe in the US Constitution as an originalist which is the view of Scalia and even though he is religiously conservative his interpretation of the highest law of the land does not seem to be influenced by his personal religious convictions. I believe that he would focus on the part of the Constitution which discusses the inalienable rights. If I am a secular person, agnostic, wicken (spelling?) or hold other religious beliefs such as being a deeply fundamentalist Christian, I have the right to practice my religion, but I do not have the right to extend the rules/credos, etc. of my religion to others via a state constitutional amendment. That is my POV. I find myself both agreeing with Justice Scalia on his principles but not on his personal beliefs. Still I admire him. I also think it is admirable that he and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg are friends despite the deep chasm in how they interpret the Constitution.

It is with that friendship referenced that I personally pleased to see that respect for one another is present here, too. Especially because the individuals who almost left are folks with sincere and thoughtful perspectives. They don't usually "preach" and I try not to as well.

So, JYD and LS, sure am glad this ended well. Both of your considered perspectives would be missed if you deserted the "blogs".

Rock on.

Let’s for one second ignore the moral dilemma about this topic between the "bible thumpers" and the "looney liberals" and really take a look at this amendment.

I have noticed several posters who say that they have no problem with the gay community having a "civil union" which will protect their spousal rights as a couple. If you are one of those people please vote no to this amendment! If you are against the gay community being able to call their union a marriage, but not against gay rights, then you MUST vote no because this amendment will end ALL spousal benefits for unmarried couples be they gay OR straight.

Fight against gay "marriage" if you must, but do not fight against any type of spousal benefits for unmarried couples. I urge you to do your homework on this amendment before you blindly vote to ban gay marriage, because that is NOT what this amendment is about.

BTV..great post.

This topic has almost lost several contributors over the past few articles. It’s a very heated one for sure. I truly believe that one day time will heal this sore in America's history.

Here's a suggestion for all of the religious zealots. If your god is all-powerful, he'll get off his fat butt and do something about the issue, although he doesn't seem to care. He doesn't need you to meddle.

That enables you to go through life without sticking your noses into the private lives of others, giving you extra time each day to convince yourselves that the book written two hundred years after the death of Jesus, then rewritten to suit the needs of politicians, it the true word of God.

Meanwhile, if your churches are so hell bent on changing the constitution, let them pay their g0ddamm taxes like everyone else.

My version of the "creator" is different than yours #90. Religious freedom and even freedom from religion is one of the founding principles.

Now, I have no intention of debating my strong opinion with you and your strong opinions because we will never ever see eye to eye.

My "creator" may be Shiva, or the Big Bang or a subatomic particle yet to be discovered in the CERN accelerator, or it could even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a pirate or the Invisible Pink Unicorn...or no single focused thing. The laws need to be looked at objectively and not married to your perspective.

I don't think you would win your case before Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and the rest who got things started, especially if they were amongst us today, but that is only speculation as is your "interpretation" of the purpose of our government being tied to YOUR version of religion. Even as the founding fathers made this document, at least some of them (like Franklin) were aware that not every person living believed in the same God/Gods/creator, I suspect that he even knew some who held no particular belief.

Thanks emmy. The animosity of some who insist there is only one point of view in the world: theirs and that their POV is "proved" by the doctrine of their church is not what this country is about. I do know some quite devout individuals (I mentioned them once before) who subscribe to the kinder God being "in charge", one who rises above the secular fray and do not try to impose on others who may well not follow the same vision.

The US is a representative democracy and not a direct one. I am completely against amending state constitutions with special interest petitions. This amendment was started by an Orlando trial attorney and a group with which he was involved. I opposed the amendment which affected female porcine livestock and I will reject this one as well. Not only do I think the process to amend the constitution flawed, I believe that what amounts to a "law" about secular marriage between adults has no business being placed in this document.

I will not be preached to by someone for whom I have no respect. I will read and consider the words of JYD who seems a reasonable man, but doubt I would change my vote. I respect JunkYardDog. And without the colorful expressions punctuating his post, I feel mthalo has a very good point about taxes!

Dear God,
Please save me and protect me from those that believe in you.
Amen

When will the bible thumpers realize that not everyone has to believe as they do? Will they try to legislate love next? I believe it's their own insecurities that have them trying to cram their values down our throats. It was after all pretty easy for the Bush Admn. to hijack their religion. How does one put their faith in a man that kills people in Iraq for oil, his own people no less, and stand behind him. Oh yeh god spoke to him. He can hear the fetuses screaming.
VOTE NO!

Anti-Gay Names Posted in Florida

Names of anti-gay marriage petition signers posted online in Florida by KnowThyNeighbor.org.

The names and addresses post here are part of the public record.

Know your neighbor at:

http://KnowThyNeighbor.org

and watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oqnHD...

VOTE NO ON 2

Good post, LegacyNewEra. I do suspect few realize how broad the public record laws are in Florida.

JYD..I would think that you would be just as concerned about divorce then? Because with a divorce rate of over 50%, thats a lot of broken homes.

I'm voting yes. Don't need to give anyone a reason except that we all have a right to vote the way we want. The majority will win - if the "no's" win, so be it but I doubt they will.

Oh, and just to correct incorrect information, benefits can still be given to same sex partners if a company wishes EVEN if a same sex marriage is not recognized by the state. These benefits are not usually offered to those heterosexual couples who choose to live together but not get married because they have the option to get married. (Did that make sense?)

Anyway, companies CAN offer benefits to same sex partners if they want - my company does now but there are stipulations involved as far as who qualifies.

Wow. We're Nazi's now?

Religion is a fairy tale. Vote no.

"Try a different approach....it might work. My God has soft, easy voice and not as you call him, dammed."

I'm not calling your God dammed, I'm using that term to describe the churches that use their beliefs as an excuse to meddle in the private affairs people, and in the laws and government of the nation.

I know enough good people that have been hurt by
people claiming to have the true word of God.

Let the churches really practice the love that they preach, which should not have to require a formal campaign to discriminate agaist any one group of people.

#97,

Actually, you really don't get it.

Laws allowing men to marry men and women to marry women does not force you to conform to someone elses version of morality.

If you don't want to marry someone of your own gender, you still have that right.

If you want to teach your children that marrying someone of your own gender is wrong, that's also your right.
Therefore, if someone chooses to marry someone of their own gender, no harm is done to you. You can choose to ignore it if you wish.

When you impose your morality, you force YOUR will on someone else.

NDN why are you allowing him to call your subscribers Nazis?

How many times can one person be removed from your blogs before you ban the IP address? Don't you think calling those who simply disagree with his view Nazis crossing the line?

I'll answer BhutJolokia #108 - because you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on other people.

You represent the Religious Nazis - always having to have a scapegoat to support your position. And of course you compare our gay citizens to animals in one of your post items. That is exactly what hitler did - made the Jews less then human. And then marched them off to the death camps.

And we can look at the history of right wing religions over the ages. Why do the Muslims find it so easy to hate us? Because 50 million of them died in the crusades in the name of the christian God. They haven't forgotten, and that enabled another religious fascist - bin laden - to get intelligent, middle class, mostly well educated men to fly airplanes into buildings on 9/11. Right win absolutist religions are and have been one of the horrors of mankind from the beginning of history.

And we are not talking about religious morality here, whatever that means. We are talking about equality before the law, one of the founding principles of this country.

All you say has been heard before - all you do is parrot the right wing religious bigots, who are filled with hate, because their religion has little else to offer except lies and superstition. And hate blinds their adherents to the truth of what these people are really about.

If you really used your own mind, you would realize the simple justice of the gay rights battle. And based on your name, how would you like to be discriminated against yourself. I presume you are of Asian Indian descent. And to many people here in this country that makes you almost the same as what Black people are still considered by some, especially in the south. So be careful what you say,because after the gays, you will be quite possibly the next victim. This battle is for every minority in this nation, that we do not become a tyranny, a christian version of Saudi Arabia that gave us 15 of the 19 infamous 9/11 hijackers.

"But everyone who chooses to marry will be both (1) allowed to marry only a person of the opposite sex, and (2) prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex." Quote by Bhut Jolokia

But marriage is really about marrying the person you love, regardless of gender. Just another of your worn out arguments, Bhut. We've heard them before. Please come up with something original, Bhut.

And why, for some of our good hearted readers, who support equality for gays, but want to reserve the word marriage for opposite sex couples - what is this about?

Because gays want equal rights under the law. Partnership benefits, SS benefits, joint tax return benefits, and hundreds of benefits us str8 couples (we've been married 40+ years) take for granted. But all of these benefits say they are for people who are 'legally married'. That is the real problem. Civil unions would be fine with me, if they come with state law saying that re legal and contractual benefits under law, employment, etc, civil unions are to have the same identical benefits as married couples. As things stand in the states with civil unions, virtually every marriage type benefit is either not available, or becomes a problem. CU's are like an egg shell without the yolk and white inside - empty . I know that Bhut isn't going to change his mind, at least until some tragic event, like his having a secretly gay child who can't take it any more commits suicide. And then, too late, he will understand.

And in the final irony of those who hate - they can't stand the idea of gays being legally and socially accepted in our society, I think the amendment would ban all marriage like structures for gay people, regardless of what they are called.

So lets understand how people like Bhut and a few others remind me of nazi germany and the monstrosity it became. Only today, now that Jews have mostly achieved recognition and respect in our society, except for the KKK and other skinhead groups, the new victims are the gays. Same agenda, different victims.

How can we possibly be proud of an America like this, especially where virtually every western European nation (except Italy and Greece), plus Hungary, Chech republic, Israel, NZ, parts of Australia, Canada, parts of Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay,etc now recognize gay relaitionships legally. It is time that America, perhaps the last western nation to end slavery, comes out of the darkness as well on this subject also.

Then once again, we can hold our heads high in the world, while the purveyors of this hatred, right wing churches, are exposed for how they are utterly at odds with the true meaning of Jesus Life.

Terms of Service spell out "censorship": perhaps you need to read them, attila/YeOldeNaples/SixwhiteHorses/new name this week.

http://www.naplesnews.com/privacy/#user

Emmy seems to believe in complying with the user agreement. BHUT you must be right, you always are. Yep, fully 100% dead on right and we all need to listen to your comments as gospel because you have the WORD, man. Wow. I seem to recall another user name with similar tendencies: Elohssa? Is that you?

Emmy hopefully the IP police can ferret out the person with multiple ID's and close the gap.

JYD and emmy, you and the majority of the others really make for a reasonable interesting online community.

I did take the time to see who in Collier signed the petition. It was interesting to scroll through the names and find some very familiar ones. Getting people to sign a petition can depend on how they are approached. I am reminded of a favorite experiment that Penn and Teller illustrated quite well about getting people to oppose dihydrogen monoxide. Even some public officials came out against this very dangerous and even abused substance. If you want to have fun, do a search on the substance and let me know what you think. Undoubtedly many who signed the special interest group's petition for this proposed amendment did understand all the implications of what they signed, but some may well have felt peer pressure or even pressure from their churches to sign.

Since my deity endowed me with a mind which is logical, thinks for a living and looks long and hard at unintended consequences, I resist petition signing for thoughtful communication with my elected representatives. Bullet trains, pregnant pig enclosures and limitations to secular laws about marriage do not belong as constitutional amendments. Should a bill in our state house or senate be introduced to address these items, fine, but we do not have a direct democracy as our form of governance.

I am done with this article. See you around folks.

homos should not marry homos and be recognized, same as carpet bearers. why is this such an issue, the whole freedom thing is getting a little to free and being readinto a little to much. lets all take a breath... better, great, liberals will honor anyone that votes

steve wake up!!

this is not a right wing or left wing thing.

people from the left and the right have the same beliefs for and against on this amendment.

majority still rules to we become a socialized country.

I do not want to suppress your opinion, bhut.

I do not want to be called a Nazi because my opinion differs from yours.

I have not once called you names, but rather I have debated with you. YOU are the one calling others names, such as Nazi. That is why people view the religious folks as nuts. Because of people like you who can't debate without making the debate personal by calling the opposing view names.

I am not a Nazi, and I do not take that lightly. Tread very cautiously when you think you're hiding behind free speech, bhut. You are not. That is a very serious label and a lie.

A 'no' vote could open door to same-sex marriage later
By John Stemberger
Special to the Sentinel, September 9, 2008
A "yes" vote on Amendment 2 does one thing and one thing only: It defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Marriage is defined in Section 741 of Florida's Statutes, but there is a national strategy by activist judges to overturn the will of the people and force a redefinition of marriage upon the rest of society. This is precisely what happened in Massachusetts and California. Unlike what opponents have said, Amendment 2 has nothing to do with the "government interfering in people's private lives." To the contrary, the amendment has everything to do with ordinary citizens stopping the government from redefining a human institution that has served us since the beginning of time.

If we don't protect marriage as an institution now, this could open the doors later for a law allowing same-sex marriages. What really helped me "get" this issue was the understanding that when same-sex marriages are allowed, same-sex families simultaneously are created. Then the question becomes, "What is in the best interest of children?"

A vast body of peer-reviewed social-science research over four decades reveals the common-sense answer. Children are happier and healthier and perform better in every category when raised with a married mother and father. And the inverse is true. When a mother or a father is absent, the social problems children have, such as abusing drugs, becoming depressed, committing suicide, dropping out of school and getting sexually transmitted diseases, are more prevalent.

Same-sex marriage subjects children to a vast untested social experiment.

Single parents do the best job they can, but whenever possible, kids deserve both a mother and a father. The reality is the two best dads can never be a mom.

A 'no' vote could open door to same-sex marriage later
By John Stemberger
Special to the Sentinel, September 9, 2008
PART 2...

Opponents of Amendment 2 are stealth gay-activist groups that have agreed to not even discuss -- much less debate -- same-sex marriage or special rights for homosexuals. Instead, they have resorted to scare tactics targeting Florida's most vulnerable and precious citizens -- our seniors.

The opponents make fraudulent and deceptive arguments without a stitch of legal authority that "seniors and unmarried persons" will somehow lose Social Security benefits and health insurance. What? The fact is that 27 states have passed marriage amendments and not a single person has lost Social Security benefits or health coverage.

The Florida Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Amendment 2 is about the "singular subject" of marriage -- not benefits. The court also held that Amendment 2 simply places the existing marriage law into the Constitution.

Ideas have consequences. And the innocent-sounding idea of "gay marriage" has consequences that are more far-reaching to the transformation of culture and society than anyone would imagine.

Massachusetts is "Exhibit A" for what's in store for states that legalize same-sex marriages. National Public Radio recently interviewed Deb Allen, an eighth-grade teacher in Brookline, Mass., who was using models, diagrams and sex toys to teach her class how homosexuals share intimacy.*

The NPR report said that Allen felt "emboldened" since the high court legalized gay marriage, and she said that if someone wanted to challenge her, she would say, "Give me a break. It's legal now."

Most amendments do something new. Amendment 2 does nothing new. It merely protects something timeless, longstanding and beautiful. For children, for families and for the next generation, please, vote yes on 2.

Copyright © 2008, Orlando Sentinel

* Author's Note: The original and exact question that Deb Allen asked her students in class in the NPR interview was "Can lesbians have intercourse?" However, The Orlando Sentinel refused to allow me to use the medically appropriate term "intercourse" in the original article and insisted upon the alternative use of the inaccurate, very broad and soft term "share intimacy". The best deal I could get was a compromise position that it would read "homosexuals share intimacy."

The American Taliban (sometimes called the evangelicals) have reared their ugly heads again.

Whatever happened to separation of Church and state?

Or stated another way: This is not a matter of what is right or wrong, this is a matter of who decides what is right or wrong! Isn't it ironic that the very people who always scream "de-regulate" (and incidentally, have brought us within an inch of 1929) are the very ones proposing that the government regulate morality?

p.s. I'm straight.

I'll use one of my own words...you are disillusioned if you feel as though calling someone a Nazi is comparable to any of those terms.

I have never had a post removed, unlike you. How many times have you been kicked off the blogs? I think that alone tells us all we need to know.

Right.

#108

"They certainly do; they force me to live in a society that allows that which I consider immoral."

Sorry, but nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do, and that includes living in society, period.

How about you answer this? Give me one example of how allowing gay couples the same civil rights as married couples, in any way threatens your way of life?

"To the contrary, the amendment has everything to do with ordinary citizens stopping the government from redefining a human institution that has served us since the beginning of time."

For most of human history "traditional" marriage
meant one man/ several women.

Today, 50% of the timeless, longstanding and beautiful marriages end in divorce.

John Stemberger, is a trial attorney who started the petitions with his special interest group. The Orlando Sentinel article was an op-ed by him.
His very religiously conservative and driven by this agenda. His approach seems to deny separation between church and state.

To learn more about him: http://www.orlandolawyer.tv/

Tampa Bay Online (Tampa Trib and WFLA news site) posted this article in February about Stemburger's oppositon to teaching evolution:
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/new...

I have found that a number of attorneys do not grasp science very well. Perhaps he is one of these folks who cannot grasp the concepts too.

Why can’t we all just get along?

There are so many more important things to concern ourselves with. Education. Health care. People loosing their homes.

This whole gay marriage thing seems so insignificant to me.

And I’m a pretty far right person.

Florida, Meet John Stemberg.
The Man Behind Amendment 2.

We know Amendment 2 (the so-called "marriage" amendment)

is a ploy by the far right that threatens the rights and benefits of Floridians.

But what do we know about the architect of the amendment, John Stemberger?

The Miami Herald called him:

“One of the most interesting and influential people you’ve never heard of.”

Why don’t you judge for yourself?

On no-fault divorce- Stemberger said no-fault divorce “has been a sociological disaster” for families over the past 40 years.

On teaching evolution- Stemberger said "Neanderthals" are fighting hard to prevent the introduction of information into public schools that would contradict their belief in evolution.

On the so-called “marriage” amendment- Stemberger is using scare tactics to make people think “aberrant forms of marriage” might become legal unless Florida voters adopt his proposal at the polls next November.

On the Irish- In a suit against Dollar Rent-A-Car Stemberger characterized the Irish as hopelessly tethered to pubs and pints and unfit to drive the highways of America.

On Gov. Charlie Crist- A St. Petersburg Times editor characterized an argument Stemberger made on behalf of Tom Gallagher when he was running against Crist for governor as “a choice between good and evil, Lucifer and the Almighty.”

This is The Man Behind Amendment 2.

Judge yourself!

Vote NO on 2