Debate heats up before vote on gay-marriage ban
Susan Jacobson | Sentinel Staff Writer
February 3, 2008
Supporters and opponents of a constitutional gay-marriage ban stepped up their campaigns Saturday in an emotional battle that both sides agree will likely boost the eventual Republican presidential nominee's chances in Florida.
The state Division of Elections announced late Friday that a petition drive, launched several years ago by social conservatives, made Friday's deadline for inclusion on the November ballot.
"It's absolutely going to drive conservatives to the polls," said Erin VanSickle, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida, whose chairman, Jim Greer, in a statement applauded the certification. "It's a Republican issue. It's a conservative issue."
Some opponents of the ban say the timing was designed to attract more conservative voters to the polls in Florida, which has 27 electoral votes at stake.
Barbara DeVane, 65, state secretary of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, is among them.
"The other reason they're doing it is to bring out the hard-core, fundamentalist, right-wing base of Republicans for the presidential election," said DeVane, a retired schoolteacher and founding member of the board of Fairness for All Families, which opposes the amendment.
The rhetoric already was flying before the petition drive gained enough signatures. Orlando-based Florida4Marriage collected about 649,000 signatures, more than the 611,000 required.
Groups opposed to the amendment say it will end government and corporate domestic-partner benefits for gays and non-gays, and hurt economic development in the state by turning off potential employers.
"Even if you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, you shouldn't be glad to send a signal to the world that we don't believe in diversity," said Steve Kodsi, an Orlando restaurateur and real-estate developer.
Supporters say the amendment would simply cement into the Florida Constitution what already exists in state law, making it impossible for court challenges to reverse it.
The amendment defines marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman" and mandates that "no other legal union is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent . . . "
"This is a marriage amendment," said Mathew Staver, a lawyer who is founder and chairman of the Maitland-based Liberty Counsel. "The opposition tried to change the focus to benefits and scare tactics."
Staver and his wife, Anita, also a lawyer, drafted language for the amendment, and Staver argued for it in court.
Voters on Saturday were divided.
Yvette Comeau, who owns a book and music shop in Sanford, said there are many more pressing matters on the public agenda, such as the economy and the war in Iraq. The proposed amendment, she says, "deflects us from the real issues that we need to pull together on."
Others, such as Hubert Brizard, a retired security guard from Sanford, said he believes that marriage can include only one man and one woman.
"If they want to be partners, that's fine," Brizard said of gay couples. "There is no such thing as [a] two-men marriage. I would say it's against nature."
Some people, including Orange County Commissioner Mildred Fernandez, said that while they support equal rights and opportunities for gay people on the job and in housing, marriage is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed.
"Gay marriage -- I would never be for that," said Fernandez, who was attending her party's annual meeting Saturday at the Rosen Centre Hotel on International Drive. "I'm too conservative. The gay community understands that."
Advocates for both sides plan to continue their grass-roots and voter-education campaigns. They also are raising money for media ads.
:
. That way, if the Democratic candidate loses in November, at least McCain is more moderate. 
