Like clockwork, every time the LGBT community takes a step forward, the Florida Family Policy Council will release a statement complaining about why the progress is anti-Christian. Florida’s lawsuit for marriage equality is no exception.
The same day the lawsuit was filed, John Stemberger, the notorious anti-gay activist who is President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, issued a statement in response. Nadine Smith, CEO of Equality Florida, summed it up pretty well with her Facebook status declaring Stemberger’s statement Arrogant. Condescending. Bigoted. Expected.
But we couldn’t resist the urge to take it apart, line by line. Stemberger’s words are in bold.
Sixty two percent of Floridians have decisively spoken on this issue.
Stemberger is referring to the vote for Amendment 2, the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in Florida. The problem is that he’s using old information. That election was held in 2008. Not only has public opinion changed, but his use of the word decisive is misleading because anti-gay forces needed 60% of the vote to change the state constitution. That means the change squeaked in by a mere 2%.
Gay activists cannot win in the marketplace of ideas, so they have resorted to trying to find renegade courts who have little respect for the rule of law to create social change that would never happen through the people or their elected representatives.
This statement is false, but more significantly, it’s really strange. Interestingly, the marketplace of ideas is a phrase most commonly used to defend patent law, freedom of the press and the media’s responsibilities in a liberal democracy. That’s right, liberal, as in protecting the rights of minorities. Not only is the phrase meaningless in the context in which he attempts to use it, but it’s such an odd choice for such a strident social conservative.
Today’s lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Well, it’s not a publicity stunt. It’s a real life lawsuit, with a determined legal team and 12 defendants, 10 of whom are raising or have raised children as part of their real families. That is an awful lot of diaper changes, piano recitals and expensive college education bills for a publicity stunt.
Filed in Miami, it represents “forum shopping” in the most liberal legal venue in the state.
This a bold and completely unsubstantiated statement. We challenge John to provide some statistics as to how conservative and liberal various state courts are, because none of them exist. What does exist are hard numbers illustrating how politically conservative Miami is. The area leans slightly democratic, according to statistician Nate Silver’s blog FiveThirtyEight, but Stemberger is remiss in failing to take into consideration the Hispanic vote, which was powerful enough to give John McCain the edge during the 2008 primaries.
However, we are confident that Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi will provide a vigorous defense of Florida’s long held law and in doing so will expose the radical views and overreaching legal positions set forth in today’s lawsuit.
Fine, sure. We’re not inside Bondi’s head and we don’t know what she’s going to do. It is worth pointing out, however, that when asked whether the Florida National Guard can process benefits enrollment for the spouses of gay troops on state property, the attorney general’s office completely chickened out and avoided answering that simple question. That’s the latest news from Bondi’s crew on marriage equality, and we wouldn’t exactly call that non-statement vigorous.
The Florida Family Policy Council will vigorously defend the victory of 2008 and the constitutional mandate from Floridians that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Okay, how? (Hang in there. John answers that in a minute.)
Hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens volunteered to see marriage protected in Florida, and we will not sit idly by and watch leftist groups try to undermine this common-sense legal precedent.
This is pretty rich, considering that a key argument in the lawsuit asserts that the ban on marriage equality is not common sense. Here, we’ll let the complaint speak for itself: The Florida laws and the actions by the Defendant Clerk that this action challenges cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny because they do not rationally further any legitimate government interest, but serve only to injure and humiliate same-sex couples and their families.
If he can conjure up a legitimate government interest furthered by Florida’s ban on marriage equality, we’d sure like to hear it.
We will spend as much time and money as necessary to oppose those who seek to redefine marriage in Florida.
Ah, that’s how he’s going to defend the glory days of 2008 – by throwing anti-gay donation money at it. Except for the tiny hiccup that marriage has already been redefined. Marriage equality is happening, and it’s spreading. He’s a little late on this one.
The six same-sex plaintiff couples in this lawsuit appear to be very sincere and are certainly free to self-define themselves and have private civil commitment ceremonies.
Which deprive them of the 1,138 rights, protections and benefits automatically granted legally married couples. It is insulting that Stemberger presents this as a good deal.
Wait a second… the plaintiffs seem sincere? But I thought this was a publicity stunt? Which is it, John?
But they, and the activists who motivated them, are not free to redefine a fundamental human institution which has served civilization since the beginning of time.
That is adorable. It is common knowledge that marriage has changed enormously over the years. The first recorded marriages were in Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago and designed to preserve power, allow kings to forge alliances, produce heirs and seize land. Romantic! Actually, love was specifically cut from the equation because marriage was serious business and love is a fickle emotion. Things have changed, John. A lot.
In states where marriage has been redefined it has produced absurd results-in the law, in education, in religious liberties and in what is best for children, families, and the common good of society.
The burden of proof is really on Stemberger for this one. Marriage equality is relatively new, and so long-term effects cannot yet be gauged. But so far studies show that families matter they’re good for kids, good for the couple’s health and good for the community at large. We and Stemberger agree on the importance of family, but where we differ is that we believe the families of same-sex couples are just as legitimate and valuable as the families of heterosexual couples.
When it comes to defining marriage, history will always be on the side of nature, biology, logic, and the collective wisdom of human history.
Which is why marriage equality makes perfect sense. This is the only sensible thing John has said.
We look forward to a robust debate on this issue as it makes it [sic] way through the courts.
So do we, John. So do we.
