Florida Agenda

DES MOINES, IA – The state capital was awash in same-sex marriage events this week, and both sides were wellrepresented. On Tuesday, the Family Leader, a conservative Christian organization, held a rally in the Capitol Rotunda which was meant to convince the state Senate’s Democratic leaders to allow a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit marriage equality.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the Hawkeye State, after a 2009 state Supreme Court decision invalidated a state law barring such marriages. Since then, conservatives attempted to write a ban into the state constitution. Iowa’s Republican-led House approved such an amendment last year, but it has stalled in the state Senate. A constitutional amendment requires lawmaker approval of the proposed amendment in consecutive legislative sessions before it is then put to popular referendum.

One Iowa, an organization that advocates marriage equality, likewise held a rally on Tuesday, which featured speakers in support of same-sex marriage, including members of Iowa Republicans for Freedom, a GOP group that favors marriage equality, and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa.

By CLIFF DUNN

Something this week put me in mind of how long can be the passage of just 40 years. Those of us who were alive during the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade may be shocked—shocked!—to learn that people sitting right next to you at this very moment may not have been alive 39 years ago. I don’t mean to sound like a drama queen here, but the truth is that today we take for granted many things that weren’t remotely on the radar—not to mention gaydar— screen 50 years ago.

Take the current presidential election year. In 2012, Lord Alfred Douglas’ “love that dare not speak its name” is sounding a loud blast on both ends of the political spectrum, with religious and social conservatives mobilizing to keep marriage equality out of the state house law books from sea to shining sea, while the Democratic National Committee deliberates including the issue as part of its national Party Platform (see inside this week’s Agenda National News story, “Democratic Leadership Considers Adding Marriage Equality to Party Platform”).

And—seriously—it’s only a matter of time before President Obama comes out squarely in support of gay marriage (my from-the-hip guess would be on Nov. 7, the day after he wins—or loses—reelection).

Now let’s stretch back a few years B.C. (“Before Cliff”) to 1962—precisely 50 years ago–when the White House was occupied by another “minority,” the Roman Catholic John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The fallen JFK–a wounded combat veteran who served his country in World War II and whose assassination threw his nation into a depth of despair that had never been felt since the murder of Lincoln—has been a fairly regular punching bag for GOP presidential candidate and fellow Roman Catholic Rick Santorum—a lawyer and failed professional politician whose “service” to his nation includes sponsorship of failed 2005 legislation would have prohibited the National Weather Service from releasing weather data to the public without charge where private-sector entities perform the same function for profit. Santorum took campaign money from the bill’s backers but hey, whatever: service is service).

Santorum got into ideological as well as the stylistic kind of hot water last month when he criticized Kennedy’s call for a strict “separation of church and state” that is “absolute” during his successful 1960 presidential campaign. JFK, of course, was trying to assuage the concerns of Protestant America, who were concerned that, if elected, he would take his marching orders from the Pope.

Santorum, in a cheap effort to cull support from the base of social conservatives that has entrapped his candidacy, said that Kennedy’s enjoinder made him want to “throw up,” and that it represented an early liberal effort to “force God out of the public square.”

I don’t mind so much that Santorum has clearly never picked up a history book; nor apparently watched a movie. For those of us who have done both, it seems pretty clear that the Founders meant to allow religion in the public square, but they were afraid—terrified might be a better word—that it would become the largest, most oppressive building in that square.

Hoping to clarify things—but in many ways, muddying them up—Thomas Jefferson responded in 1801 to a letter written by a group of religious supporters. These included a group of Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist ministers who wrote to congratulate the new president on his election, and to express a feeling of insecurity. As Baptists, they were a minority in Connecticut, sandwiched between the much larger— and much better politically connected— Congregationalists and Episcopalians (the latter formerly Church of England, don’t you know?).

A little-known fact about prerevolutionary America is that nine of the original 13 colonies had “statesponsored” religions that were supported financially by the colonies’ governments. Those Christians (and Heaven help those Jews) who weren’t members of the dominant two faiths faced hostility and even outright persecution.

The Baptists of Connecticut were concerned about the nation’s guarantee of religious freedoms. “Our constitution of government is not specific” on this crucial point, they wrote. In his response the following year to the Danbury Baptist Association, America’s third president wrote “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

It’s true that John Jay, post-colonial America’s great jurist, urged the people “of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers,” and that the Declaration of Independence cites “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” but it didn’t specify the name of that God or his son as “Jesus Christ,” or in any way connected to him. Don’t get me wrong: for every Jefferson (Deist), there were ten Jays and John Adams (Episcopalian and Congregationalist/Puritan, respectively).

But all of them came out of the 18th Century Enlightenment as much as they emerged from the Second Great Awakening, and although George Washington refers to God in his letters, they are vague references to things like a “Grand Architect,” all of which made for an accessibility for all Americans to practice their religion in the public square—an accessibility thatSantorum and his ilk seem to seek to diminish. God help them.

“Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know
you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the
ring, they think ‘at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.’
Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some
cash, and your **** must work.”

Cliff Dunn

The latest attack on the civil liberties
of LGBT Americans came on Friday, when
the three highest ranked Republican
members of the U.S. House leadership
filed an appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San
Francisco, and asked them to overturn the
decision of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White, who on Wednesday ruled that the
loathsome Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) is offensive to the Constitution.

Judge White—a Republican
appointed by President George W. Bush–
is the second federal jurist to rule that
Section 3 of DOMA, the part that defines
marriage as between one man and one
woman, violates the Constitution’s equal
protection clause. In his ruling, White—
in the 1970s, a Nixon-appointed Justice
Department lawyer–said that the 1996
law does not satisfy a “heightened
scrutiny” test, which means that DOMA
does not further any ‘important’
government interests. This means that
the DOMA potentially could fail a
“rational basis” test, which is a lower
standard that asks if the law furthers a
‘legitimate’ interest. The case White ruled
upon concerns a gay attorney for the 9th
Circuit, Karen Golinski, who was refused
spousal health care benefits for her wife.

“The Court finds that DOMA, as
applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right
to equal protection of the law,” wrote
White “by, without substantial
justification or rational basis, refusing to
recognize her lawful marriage to prevent
provision of health insurance coverage to
her spouse.” White then became My
Favorite Person This Week when he threw
the hypocrisy of the states’ rights crowd
back into the teeth of Ron Paul and the
Tenth Amendment Set who hide behind
federalism when pointing an accusing
finger at a bullying federal government.

He lambasted the law as an egregious and
“stark departure from tradition and a
blatant disregard of the well-accepted
concept of federalism in the area of
domestic relations.” I now know what is
meant by an “honest constructionist.”
Far from protecting marriage, DOMA
actually weakens it, denying as it does
federal benefits to same-sex spouses. If
two gay men marry in Massachusetts, for
instance, where marriage equality is legal,
they can’t file a joint federal tax return,
and aren’t entitled to Social Security
survivors’ benefits. That’s un-American.

Last February, the Attorney General of
the United States said that his
department would no longer defend
DOMA in court. That’s when Boehner and
the Republican leadership of the House
formed the conspiracy called the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee, to
take up the Justice Department’s slack.

It was a clever idea, since they appointed
the two senior House Democrats, Nancy
Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, to sit on
the board and ensure there was no
funny business.

That funny business was in full force
last week, however. Once Judge White’s
ruling was made, any pretext of states’
rights and that other Constitutional
inconvenience, Separation of Powers,
went out the window, along with the
suggestion of an actually “bipartisan”
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee,
whose Democrat members abstained
from challenging the civil rights of
LGBT Americans.

There’s an old joke about marriage
being a “three-ring circus: there’s the
engagement ring, the wedding ring, and
the suffering.” If Boehner & Co. would
only dish out less of the suffering.

Cliff Dunn - Editor

Cliff Dunn is the Editor of Florida Agenda. He can be reached at editor@floridaagenda.com

Cliff Dunn

I know what kind of week Mitt Romney has had. The former more-or-less unquestioned GOP nominee began last weekend offering nervous conservatives assurances that he has what it to takes to be the heir to Ronald Reagan. In a similar fashion, I spent last week trying to be an honest broker and explain to friends, gay and straight, why Romney isn’t exactly bad for “the gays,” but lacks the testicular fortitude to tout his true feelings to his gay supporters, and so sucks up to our political enemies. In this, he resembles in some ways his hoped-for opponent, President Obama.

“My family, my faith, my businesses– I know conservatism because I have lived conservatism,” the candidate told delegates last Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC) in Washington, DC.

The former Massachusetts governor told the thousands assembled that, “I understand the battles we conservatives must fight because I have been on
the front lines.” Romney called on the delegates to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and ultimate victory over President Barack Obama  in November.

I sympathize with Romney in a way I sympathized with the now-defunct candidacy of his distant cousin and GOP rival Jon Huntsman, who was also not a “red meat” baiter of the far right fringe (who vote in droves during primary season and who have taken turns playing footsie first with fellow candidate Newt Gingrich, and then Rick Santorum). Unlike Huntsman, who never engaged in the politics of hate speech, Romney is forced to give lip-service to bigots (who would despise his Harvard education if they knew he possessed it) in a language that dishonors that Ivy League foundation for his political leadership.

I likewise blame “insider” Ron Paul for lacking the honesty to call his bigotry what it is. I admire his libertarian assertion that all citizens should be entitled to the same rights and benefits, while at the same time I despise his cowardly use of DOMA to Keep Gays Out of federal recognition, while he weakly invokes states-rights as his excuse. Paul, Paul: why do you persecute me?

Last week, Romney’s campaign took it on the chin after the candidate lost a triple crown of primary races to challenger Rick Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator won first-place in Republican caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a non-binding primary in Missouri. Of the remaining contenders, Santorum, who has compared “consensual sex within your home” to “bigamy” and “incest,” has positioned himself as the guardian of the GOP social conservative wing’s agenda.

Romney refuses to concede the right side of the playing field. “I was a severely conservative Republican governor,” Romney argued. Severely conservative? I thought that being conservative, like being pregnant, is a binary state: you either are or you aren’t. On Friday, Romney told the C-PAC delegates that he is a non-Washington outsider. “I am the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington,” he said. “I don’t have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals that I have to defend.”

Although Romney took shots at the current administration’s perceived record ["If we lead with conviction and integrity, then history will record the Obama presidency as the last gasp  of liberalism's great failure and a turning point for the conservative era to come"], he did not note his own diversity of opinions on social issues, notably
gay marriage.

On Friday, the candidate touted his opposition to marriage equality while he was in the Massachusetts state house:  “I successfully prohibited out-of-state couples from coming to our state to get married and then going home. On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.” Oh for the Mitt Romney who challenged then-Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994 to become one of those “insiders” who “[work every] day in Washington.” That Romney, who was 18 years away from throwing LGBT Americans under the Gingrich-Santorum bus, wrapped himself in a big-old-rainbow and announced “I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.”

It is a long way to November, and it remains to be seen if Obama is a one-term president or finishes the job he began for LGBT Americans with DADT and federal employee partner rights. A lot of politicians, Obama and Romney among them, agonize publicly over their policy positions and send the occasional “wink” to supporters they dare not address less obliquely. Romney may turn into the kind of “effective leader” that LGBT Americans need. But I wish that he was sending more winks to us than to Fred Phelps.

Cliff Dunn - Editor

Cliff Dunn is the Editor of Florida Agenda. He can be reached at Editor@FloridaAgenda.com.

By Cliff Dunn

Even as he struggles to convince mainstream conservatives that he is the logical standard-bearer to take on President Barack Obama in November, Mitt Romney’s triumph last month over the remaining GOP contenders in the Florida presidential primary has the blessing of the nation’s largest LGBT Republican organization.
“Having Gingrich out there reminding voters that Romney has stated support for gay rights will … play well in Florida,” said Clarke Cooper, executive director of the 22,000-member Log Cabin Republicans at the time of last month’s primary.

Romney’s victory over challengers Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul followed a contentious Sunshine State campaign in which the candidates made every effort to paint themselves as the natural successor to the Ronald Reagan, while utilizing every means at their individual and collective disposals to break the late president’s so-called Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Romney’s adoption of hardball tactics may have helped propel him to victory in Florida, just ten days after a steep loss to Gingrich in South Carolina. The former House speaker’s victory raised questions about the former Massachusetts governor’s viability as a national contender. Gingrich’s stumble paved the way for former Pennsylvania senator Santorum to claim the  far-right of the playing field, a position which propelled him to triple wins last week in the Colorado and Minnesota GOP caucuses
and the non-binding Missouri Republican primary.

In December, Gingrich signed a pledge to uphold the Iowa Family Leader’s “Marriage Vow.” In a lengthy screed, the twice-divorced former Georgia congressman promised that, if elected “President, I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions, especially in the military. I will also aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal and state courts. I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman. I will support all efforts to reform promptly any uneconomic or anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy. I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.”

During a conference call last month for supporters of the Religious Right, Gingrich–whose marital history includes three marriages and an acknowledged record of infidelity–compared marriage equality to paganism: “It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it’s a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.”

In August 2005, Romney—then Governor of Massachusetts—told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews with regards to marriage equality in his state, “I hope that people will be able to decide that neither civil union, nor same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.”

Fast forward six years to August 2011, when Romney intoned during the Iowa Republican debate “I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman.”

Just before the Florida primary, officers of the Log Cabin Republicans held a caucus in which Romney beat Gingrich by a vote of 26 to 4.

The group’s Cooper noted that Florida has come long way since Broward County passed its contentious Human Rights Ordinance in 1995, which extends to persons, based on their sexual orientation, protection from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. “Overall, the general populous in the Sunshine State has become increasingly supportive of gay-rights related positions such as employment non-discrimination and the freedom to marry,” Cooper said.

“Any candidate attempting to use gays as a dividing rod in the 2012 election is bucking public trends of inclusion and will find themselves unable to win a general election. Politics is about addition and the long term gains are made through building coalitions, not employing wedge issues,” Cooper noted.

For his part, Romney continues to try and navigate the treacherous political waters between espousing fairness and equal protection for LGBT Americans, while not alienating “values” voters who turn out disproportionately during primary season, and who clearly turned out for Santorum in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri.

Romney said during a debate with Santorum that while governor of Massachusetts he appointed an openly-gay member to his cabinet as well as gay judges.

He qualified his progressive executive model, adding that “at the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view.” Then Romney seemingly qualified his qualifier: “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people–that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights
in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

The debate’s moderator asked Romney, “When was the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?” The candidate replied, “Right now,” although he did not list any particulars. This same Romney announced last week after California’s Proposition 8 ruling that, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight.”

by Marc Paige

When a gay Republican tries to persuade LGBT people to support an anti-gay GOP candidate, the argument is always the same. First, they tell us the candidate is not really that bad on gay issues. Then, when confronted with the candidate’s blatant and incontrovertible homophobia, they have two defensive retorts: 1) Democrats have a history of being just as homophobic; 2) They are not single issue voters.

Nick Stone, Vice President of the Broward County Young Republicans, recently wrote in the Florida Agenda (Jan. 26, 2012: “The Big Tent GOP”) that LGBT people should be supporting Mitt Romney for president because, “If you believe in equality under the law, a Mormon Republican is our best bet for president in 2012.” That line could have worked if gay people didn’t read newspapers, or never heard Romney speak on TV. Unfortunately for Mr. Stone, we’ve done both.

In an August 25, 2005, appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, then-Gov. Romney explained his Massachusetts strategy to undermine marriage equality and civil unions: “So we will have a constitutional convention this year. Hopefully, the decision of our legislature will be to let the people decide. And, specifically, I hope that people will be able to decide that neither civil union, nor same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.”

Romney reiterated his views on another Hardball appearance on April 12, 2006: “I am not in favor of same- sex marriage. I am not in favor of civil unions. The Democratic Party, particularly in my state, has made an error by adopting a platform that supports gay marriage.”

At the televised Fox News Iowa debate this past August, Romney called for discrimination to be inscribed in our nation’s constitution: “I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.”
Last month Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom assured the “Huffington Post” that Mitt is also firmly against gay couples having the equivalent rights of marriage, even by another name: “He has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage. What he has favored was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with
reciprocal benefits.”

The “reciprocal benefits” language is taken almost directly from the anti-gay Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI). The MFI website supports a “new category of contractual relationships entitled ‘reciprocal beneficiary contracts’ to define basic benefits.” Romney and his friends at MFI are willing to allow gay couples, who have built their lives together, to form contracts for hospital visitations. Gee, thanks Mitt!

In 2006 Romney donated $10,000 to MFI, which also promotes “ex-gay therapy.” Its website states: “Our compassion is for those struggling with same-sex attraction and we encourage the healing of individuals who wish to change their choice of lifestyle.”

If Mitt Romney had his way, the armed forces would still be discharging gay soldiers, or forcing them to hide in the closet. Thanks to President Obama and the Democratic congressional majority in 2010, the military’s discriminatory policy is as dead as Osama bin Laden, while General Motors and Detroit’s auto industry remains very much alive.

I do agree with one point in Mr. Stone’s article: it is “simply untrue” that the GOP doesn’t want our votes. Republicans would like nothing more than to peel off enough gay votes to help propel their conservative agenda to victory. GOP operatives are happy to get as many LGBT voters as possible to vote against their own interests.

Mr. Stone ends his piece by writing that Romney will bring gays “real progress,” while Obama “takes our vote for granted.” Stone’s assessment is only accurate if “real progress” means closing the door forever on gay couples and families getting full federal rights, and “taking our votes for granted” means signing hate crimes legislation inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity, ending DADT, and refusing to defend in federal court the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

On a Jan. 25 town hall conference call sponsored by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Mitt Romney blasted President Obama for his “assault on marriage.” He pledged to “propose and promote” a marriage amendment to the constitution, and unlike Obama, “defend the Defense of Marriage Act.” While there is a small but growing number of Republican politicians who are turning away from their party’s history of anti-gay bigotry, Mitt Romney is definitely not one of them.

I’m not sure if Nick Stone is delusional, or he just thinks it’s acceptable for gays to be second-class citizens. Mitt Romney’s homophobia is real and tangible. He must not be allowed
his agenda of inscribing discrimination into our constitution, and taking us backwards.

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence declares “all men are created equal.” Gov. Romney doesn’t get that America’s promise is that all of us have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Luckily, President Obama does.

SEATTLE, WA  – Members of the state House Judiciary Committee approved a bill on Monday that would legalize same-sex marriages in Washington. The vote split along party lines, with democrats voting 7-to-6 in favor. Similar legislation was approved last week in a state Senate committee.

If legalized, Washington would become the seventh state to recognize marriage equality.

A study by the University of California-Los Angeles law school’s Williams Institute reports that “the total spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests will add an $88-million boost to the Washington economy over the first three years.

This spending is likely to generate $8 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.”

According to a press release from the report’s sponsors, estimates show that “same-sex couples will spend $39 million on weddings in Washington in the first year alone.” Study co-author Angeliki Kastanis, a Public Policy Research Fellow at the Williams Institute, noted: “That translates to approximately $3.4 million in tax revenue, given Washington sales tax rates.”

State Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) offered two amendments to the House bill, one which would require six months’ residency in Washington State before applying for any type of marriage. During the committee vote, Shea warned that passage of the law could lead to discrimination suits against wedding-industry professionals, such as photographers or florists
who refuse to provide their services to gay couples.

By Cliff Dunn

ORLANDO, FL – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has LGBT activists wondering if he goes “both ways” on gay rights issues. His call last week for a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage followed hot-on-the-heels of his nomination of the first openly gay justice to the state’s Supreme Court.

Christie, 49, is on record opposing gay marriage, and last week he proposed an alternative to legislative action on the issue, saying that voters should decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage, the matter being “too serious to be treated like a political football.”

New Jersey Democrats had hoped that by forcing a vote in the legislature, it would force Christie to either change his position, or veto the legislation and in doing so, show himself to be out of touch with the majority of voters.

The governor’s judicial nomination of Bruce Harris, the 61-year-old openly-gay Republican mayor of Chatham, New Jersey, came a day before Christie promised to veto same-sex marriage legislation in the Garden State.

Opponents decried Christie’s call for a statewide vote. Democratic lawmakers criticized the governor for sidestepping a civil rights issue, but Christie dismissed their concerns, saying that “people would have been happy with a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets of the South.”

That drew fire from Democrats, who pointed out that public opinion opposed civil rights for blacks in the Jim Crow-era South, and a referendum to end segregation during that time would have been overwhelmingly defeated. State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, one of two openly-gay New Jersey legislators, compared Christie to anti-civil rights segregationists.

The governor called Gusciora and other critics “numbnuts.” He also chastised reports for giving credence to his critics’ remarks. “C’mon guys — you’ve got to be able to call B.S. on those kinds of releases,” said Christie.

New Jersey lawmakers passed a civil unions law in 2006, after the state Supreme Court ordered that marriage benefits be extended to gay couples. The law is being challenged by Lambda Legal, which says that the measure doesn’t provide marriage’s full range of benefits and protections.

Christie told reporters that Harris, his nominee to the state’s high court, has a record of advocating for LGBT rights. “If confirmed to the court, he would recuse himself from that matter because he did not want there to be the appearance of bias on his part on that issue,” Christie said. “My perspective on that issue was to put it aside because he’s not going to rule on that.”

By Phoebe Moses

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, campaigning on Sunday, Jan. 22 in Broward County, received the endorsement of former Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle.

During a campaign stop in Coral Springs, the former six-term mayor introduced Santorum, saying that conservatives “really only have one choice.”

Naugle’s remarks and endorsement came a day after Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, placed third in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Santorum finished behind fellow GOP contenders Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Naugle, who was Fort Lauderdale’s longest-serving mayor, said of Santorum: “When you look at the candidate we’re here to support today, his unwavering support for the unborn, his unwavering support for the Second Amendment. He’s the only candidate left standing that has a position  on repealing ‘Obamacare’ that makes  any sense.”

Although a life-long Democrat, Naugle endorsed numerous Republican candidates during his eighteen years as mayor. He also earned the criticism of LGBT rights activists for controversial positions he took as the city’s chief executive.

In 2007, Naugle said that the city needed to purchase single-occupancy public toilets in Fort Lauderdale’s Holiday Park in order to “reduce homosexual sex in bathrooms.” The mayor first claimed that his orders to city police to arrest gay men accused of having sex in the park’s restrooms was intended to protect the city’s children, but he later said his purpose was to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. Fort Lauderdale Police reported four incidents of male sex acts in public restrooms during the period between November 2005 and November 2007.

Naugle said at the time: “We don’t have men and women having sex together in bathrooms–at least we don’t have reports of that. It’s men having sex with men, and I feel it’s necessary for an elected official to tell it like it is. I don’t subscribe to political correctness.”

In 2007, Naugle opposed the Stonewall Library & Archives, citing pornographic materials among the library’s collections. Stonewall Executive Director Jack Rutland countered that the three titles the mayor found objectionable were contained among the library’s non-circulating archive of 7000 titles, which were maintained for historical and research purposes only. In spite of Naugle’s fierce opposition, Fort Lauderdale city commissioners approved the library’s occupation of a city-owned building. That summer, the Broward Tourism Development Council expelled Naugle because of his positions concerning LGBT rights.

Naugle’s support for the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay troop leaders prompted the nine members of the Broward County Commission to unanimously sign a letter that called the county “safe, unbiased and gay friendly.”

After his public battles over gay rights, Naugle explained his choice of verbiage to describe LGBT issues: “I use the word homosexual. Most of them aren’t gay; they’re unhappy.”

Photo: Former City Commissioner Anthony Niedwicki and his partner Waymon at a  “Flush Naugle” Campaign Event in 2008.

By Nick Stone

If you believe in equality under the law, it might surprise you when I say that a Mormon Republican is our best bet for president in 2012. Take a deep breath and keep reading.

Let me start by saying that Republican candidates want gay votes. They just don’t think they are going to get them. In Republican circles, it can be an uphill battle to get candidates to campaign in gay and minority areas.  On the surface, it might seem that they don’t want your vote, but that’s simply untrue.

There was a time when the Republican Party was outwardly hostile toward gays.  This isn’t 2004, and George W. Bush isn’t president. Countless examples exist of the Democratic Party’s history of discrimination and repression, but I’ll forego that lesson for now. Just know that today’s Republican Party would truly surprise you if you gave it a second look.

It’s often said that demographics are the future of partisan politics. Growing numbers of Latinos, blacks, and gays are supposed to wipe out the Republican majority forever. But what these pundits don’t count on is the core of the Republican coalition. They don’t know that today’s Republican Party is flooded with the ranks of two groups: young people with an intense Libertarian streak (and lots of gay friends with fabulous weddings to attend), and former Democrats who have been turned-off by their party’s Obama-Pelosi wing of big, intrusive government. You know these as the Tea Party.

In New Hampshire several weeks ago, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney was asked, “When was the last time you stood up for gay rights?” The moderator repeated Romney’s own words, “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.”

Romney did not back down from his pledge.  He said, “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays, or will in any way try and suggest that people that have different sexual orientation in this country don’t have full rights, they won’t find that in me.” When was the last time he spoke out for gay rights?  “Right now,” he proclaimed among Republican challengers in a Republican audience.  That Republican audience’s reaction: thunderous applause.

Gays are not one-issue voters.  Many of us own businesses: we don’t want them killed by over-regulation. Many of us have children: we don’t want to leave them with a mountain of debt. All of us pay taxes: we don’t want them drown our family budgets. Many of us still vote Democrat, because that’s what gays are supposed to do.

South Florida LGBT voters led the way in 2010, swinging a full third of our votes to Republicans.  With Mitt Romney at the top of the GOP ticket, I’m confident that this November will pave the way for a brand new Republican coalition that stands for liberty for all.  If LGBT voters are willing to look forward, that will be the legacy of today’s Republican Party.  If you want to see real progress, take a chance on a Mormon Republican who has an open mind. Or, you can support a Democrat who takes your vote for granted.

Photo: Mitt Romney: Gay-Friendlier Than You Might Have Imagined.

Nick Stone is Vice President of the Broward County Young Republicans. You can read more of his work at DrawnLines.com