Florida Agenda

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

The approach of Valentine’s Day and the treble victories of Rick Santorum in Republican primaries this week bear more than a passing relationship to one another, as well as to some other things of LGBT interest this week, than might first be apparent. Although couples of every stripe, political and socio-economic, gay and straight (and BTQ, too), will exchange the gee-gaws of lovers on Feb. 14, there’s no first-hand evidence of what exactly they will be commemorating on that day.
The name “Valentinus” isn’t even mentioned in the earliest lists of Roman martyrs compiled in the 4th Century A.D. The first “Feast of St. Valentine” was celebrated in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, who named

“Valentine” as one of those “… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.” Even the Holy Father didn’t quite know what we are honoring.
Fast forward to this Valentine’s Day, and we find that love is in the air as the self-described One Million Moms (an affiliate of the American Family Association) pressure retailer JC Penney to fire its new spokesperson, Ellen DeGeneres–an action so contemptible that even Bill O’Reilly called it “McCarthyism,” saying that One Million Moms is behaving in an un-American fashion to “actively push for a private company to fire an American citizen based on her lifestyle. That’s just wrong.”

Of course it is, as is all bigotry hidden behind a veneer of “religious freedom” and “freedom of speech,” both of which I personally revere. But a scoundrel is a scoundrel, and a bigot is a bigot, even if he is pretending to  be somebody’s “Mom.” (DeGeneres’ unruffled response this week: “My haters are  my motivators.”)

Last week in this publication, Nick Stone opined as a gay Republican on the reasons why he supports a Mitt Romney presidential candidacy (and in this issue, Marc Paige offers his own thoughts on why Stone and Romney are full of … it). I spent a number of years “living among the Mormons,” and found that any xenophobia that I thought existed concerning their culture and my own was both misplaced and wholly a product of my own imagination. In the main, they are, individually and collectively, men and women of goodwill, straight, gay, bi, and questioning, Republican and—well, mostly Republican, but willing to hear an honest “gentile” out on issues of mutual import.

Ironically, the LDS Church-owned KSL-TV in Salt Lake City (an NBC affiliate) carries Ellen DeGeneres’ program every weekday, and its news programs ran a story last month that praised the comedian for a $100,000 grant her program made to an elementary school located in Utah County, Utah, home of Brigham Young University and the most conservative spot in the most conservative place on the planet. Talk about the lamb and the lion.

When I listen to gay Republicans extol upon the lonely existence of the queer conservative, I sympathize with their contention that they are not “one issue voters” focusing solely on marriage equality or the plight of LGBT armed service members. And there are plenty of gay-bashing registered Democrats to be sure. But I have a hard time reconciling the Mitt Romney of 1994, who said “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” (who happened to be Ted Kennedy), with the Mitt Romney of yesterday, who, after the federal appeals panel’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8 is offensive to the Constitution, offered helpfully “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.”

Ron Paul, usually a paragon of principle, has danced around the marriage equality question with all the skills of Rudolf Nureyev (gay), Tommy Tune (gay, too), or Alvin Ailey (also gay). One side of Paul’s mouth speaks fluent “libertarian” (“I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”). The other side does a mean imitation of Mussolini, as authoritarian as any Leather Daddy in wielding the whip of the Federal Government to make the states bend to a narrow—and dare I say it? bigoted)—You’re-Not-Admitted-to-Our-Club mean spiritedness. It is as sour as is his default facial expression (“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state.”).

Like Paul, Rick Santorum–who swept the Minnesota and Colorado GOP caucuses and the non-binding Missouri primary this Tuesday–has an appeal to those who are inclined to dislike (or worse) LGBT persons. Unlike Paul, who at least has the courtesy—and one supposes, the guts–to agonize about his conflicting views, Hamlet-like, in the public arena, Santorum has no such love for
the subtleties of human behavior— or, apparently, human love. He compares “consensual sex within your home” to “bigamy,” “polygamy,” “incest,” and “adultery.” Now isn’t that romantic?

“Love, American Style: Truer than the Red, White and Blue. Love, American Style: That’s me and you.”

Cliff Dunn - Editor

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

CLIFF DUNN

Every four years, the American tribe engages in the Rite of Democracy known as the presidential preference primary. (Five states, Idaho, Iowa, Nevada, Texas, and Washington State’s Democratic–but not Republican—Party, hold caucuses.) I find this ritual somewhat distasteful, as it’s another excuse for Americans to break up into our component parts, focusing on the differences between us rather than the things which unite and unify us.

This week, Florida’s Republican voters selected Mitt Romney as their choice to challenge President Barack Obama in the fall.

The Democrats have been spared the almost fetish-like ceremonial Eating-of-One’s-Own-Young this time out by virtue of Obama’s uncontested re-nomination. But for now, we are treated to the spectacle of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and American statesmen like Everett Dirksen, Robert A. Taft, and Barry Goldwater, going picnicking on its own, with Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul locked in a contest of Who-Can-Commit-The-Worst-Atrocity in the service of getting to do unto Obama in much the same fashion come this November. At times like these, I wonder if any of the Revered 2,977 Victims who fell to their deaths on 9/11 wondered if the unfortunate person who was plummeting beside him was a Democrat or Independent, Liberal or Tea Party-er.

Although I am not eligible to vote in the Republican primary (I hold no party affiliation, although I tend to skew left in the Sensible Center), I was hopeful for the candidacy of Jon Huntsman, Jr., Utah’s former governor and America’s Obama-appointed ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011.

There are some things I find noteworthy about the 51-year-old Huntsman, much of it having to do with his relationship to his faith and upbringing. Huntsman is a Latter-day Saint or Mormon, but he’s not what members of that faith call a “Utah Mormon,” which has a negative connotation when made by Latter-day Saints from elsewhere in the country, and refers to a parochial mindset and provincial ideas. Huntsman was born in California, a polyglot, open-minded part of the country (excepting, perhaps, for Orange County), and attended the University of Utah, which is considered the more secular of the Beehive State’s institutions of higher  learning, as compared to its vastly more conservative rival, the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University (BYU). After attending the “U,” Huntsman transferred to the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, another place he would be exposed to “big ideas.” (His distant cousin, Mitt Romney, attended Harvard, another “big idea” school.)

Although he dutifully served a Mormon mission in Taiwan for two years–Huntsman’s father, Jon, Sr., whom Glenn Beck praised as “the only man I have ever met that I believe has the character of George Washington,” is a billionaire philanthropist and well-placed member of the Mormon hierarchy—the former ambassador professes an almost New Age theology. In a May 2011 interview with “Time” magazine, Huntsman was more cagey than a stripper in church (pardon the metaphor) about his standing with the LDS Church (“I’m a very spiritual person,” as opposed to a religious one, he says, “and proud of my Mormon roots.” Roots? That makes it sound as if you’re not a member anymore. Are you? “That’s tough to define,” he says. “There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.”). That one so cagey as to be worthy of Bill Clinton. Or Abraham Lincoln.

On LGBT rights, Huntsman deeply contrasted with both party and church positions. Quoting a Huntsman spokesman last June, The Daily Beast reported that “Gov. Huntsman has long been supportive of civil unions. His position on that issue is the same as President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.”

That article noted that “in 2004 Bush said the GOP was wrong to oppose same-sex civil unions and that it was up the states to decide how best to move forward. But he didn’t push for gay rights, as Huntsman eventually did.”

Although as a candidate for governor, Huntsman supported Utah’s 2004 constitutional amendment which forbids same-marriage, he supported the 2009 initiative permitting civil unions, in spite of overwhelming opposition from his party and from within his church.

While governor, Huntsman, who supports Second Amendment (gun ownership) rights, and opposes abortion rights, shepherded a legislative agenda that was worthy of the most cranky Tea Party member, including creating jobs while at the same time cutting taxes. Here’s someone who could have appealed to several camps at once, a—and I’m almost embarrassed to use the word—unifier. Sadly, that just doesn’t play well today in Iowa. Or Florida.

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

Dear Editor:

Naugle Endorses Santorum – OMG!

I can only ask myself and the public at large a full list of questions; such as doesn’t Santorum already have plenty of crippling, degrading baggage without Naugle’s endorsement? Also, what kind of crazy person accepts an endorsement from the mayor of a large metropolitan city that left office discredited by his own preposterous statements and wasteful proposals? He was expelled by the city of FT. Lauderdale Tourist Council for his derogatory / inflammatory statements which insulted the large gay South Florida community, no? Even though I know the answer would be… a Republican… guilty of delusion.

Oh for sure – Republicans love scandalous behavior. Do we ever get an honest, straight answer from any of the wife cheaters and divorcees defending the sanctity of marriage while condemning gay marriage?

Naugle has plenty of his own baggage – we already know that every library (in the world) contains pornographic images, but only in the minds of the illiterate.

Naugle continues to show his ignorance and buffoonery by stating his reasons for the Santorum endorsement… the anti-abortion issue and the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Like it is with too many of the similarly disengaged, the right to own as many weapons as one chooses is solid but the Constitutional right of privacy to do with one’s body as she (or he) chooses is far too indistinct for the right to decide upon.

They oppose family planning yet are willing to let the world succumb to its biggest risk, over-population!

We can all bet that neither of them is familiar enough with the document to quote its most valuable statement, “[…] ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare…”

Where else does the selfishness and dislike for “Obama-care” come from? Isn’t it greed? Don’t Santorum, Naugle, their
families and many others receive the benefit of taxpayer funded healthcare?

So how do we rid our fine city of this “frothy” pair? Shout it out and then flush it!
- David Littlefield, Fort Lauderdale

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.”

Next week, Florida Republicans will decide which candidate will oppose President Obama in November. For voters both gay and straight, marriage equality will be a defining issue of this, the “Teens” decade of the 21st Century. There are men and women of goodwill, faith-espousing and secular, who will passionately disagree over this divisive topic, and they will express their divisions in the age-old ritual of  democracy by voting their consciences, among other things.

As of this writing, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, Washington State, and Washington, D.C. have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying rights and responsibilities of marriage. New Jersey has also created legal unions–not quite marriages, but offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Gov. Chris Christie said this week that he will veto marriage equality legislation, but one miracle at a time.

At present, Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages originating in other states and jurisdictions, while not allowing such marriages to be held within its own borders. The novel laws of New Mexico do not specifically allow nor prohibit same-sex marriages or other types of same-sex unions–perhaps a subconscious legislative nod to the region’s history of Native American three-spirited-persons.
Florida, of course, enjoys the tax base of one of the largest and most prosperous permanent LGBT communities in the world. Our governor, who describes himself as “an across-the-board conservative” (“I am pro-life and support traditional marriage,” sayeth Rick Scott) enjoys the benefits of that tax base, while denying its source the full benefits of citizenship (“We need to protect our values as well as our tax dollars.”).

Legally, marriage is no more a “right” than being issued a driver’s license. But even Ron Paul acknowledges that “everybody is an individual person, and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else.”

Demographics are destiny. I think it is reasonable to assume that the trajectory of marriage equality will follow that of gays serving openly in the armed services. When Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” he was making a case based upon the fundamental sense of fairness that exists in all people, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

If the phrase “all men are created equal” is to be taken in the spirit that our fellow citizens among the Strict Constructionist set would have us believe, then should not all the rights and privileges of citizenship accrue to “all men (women included)?” If libertarians, constructionists, and conservations, “traditional values” supporters all, can agree on the original intent of the Constitution, what is keeping a wave of Scotts, Pauls, Rubios, and Romneys from speaking in favor of a principle as American as fairness? Otherwise, government should get out of the marriage business entirely, and leave it to the churches and Vegas Elvis chapels.

Cliff Dunn - Editor

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

In the midst of all the current political rhetoric, it can be difficult to identify the best candidates in terms of the issues relevant to the LGBT community, along with identifying the true supporters of same.  I personally think it is important to make a voting decision based upon a broader spectrum of issues than a candidate’s position on gay issues, but the trend today is to ask “what will you do for me?” before asking “what will you do for us/everyone?”

Since Hillary Rodham Clinton’s eloquent speech about gay rights last year before the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, a leading issue at every level of elections, federal and state through county and local, is LGBT rights. Our own Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida’s 20th Congressional District, who also chairs the Democratic National Committee, has taken an aggressive stand against any politician seeking to suppress  gay rights.

That aside, who is the right person for whom you should cast your vote? Should you vote solely based on that candidate’s positions on gay marriage, or domestic partnerships, or gay adoption?  What if the Democratic candidate supports everything in the “gay agenda,” but wants to increase taxes?  What if the candidate marches in Pride parades in full-blown drag, but has no interest in healthcare reform?

While acknowledging the importance of the continuing fight for equality, intelligent adults need to understand our candidates’ positions, and research not only what they say they will do, but also what they have done in the past, and how they conduct themselves as people.  I don’t believe that it is possible for a person to truly separate who they are in their personal life from who they will be in their political life.  Knowing about a person’s life can help identify certain attributes that they will likely bring to bear in elected office.

In Fort Lauderdale, the non-partisan mayoral race includes Jack Seiler and Earl Rynerson.  Members of the LGBT community may recognize the fact that Rynerson is a gay man, but does that guarantee he will be the gay person’s politician?  First as mayor of Wilton Manors, and now as Fort Lauderdale’s incumbent mayor, Seiler twice advocated and passed domestic partnership ordinances. I remember the day he looked me in the eye and said, “A.J., I am fully committed to making this happen, and I will.”  He was true to his word.  Does this make him the gay person’s politician?

My feeling is that politicians are destined to act “politically.” Considerations of political survival and decisions that seem illogical or simply wrong are par for the course. The question we have to ask is how genuine are a candidate’s aspirations and political promises? Will he or she be brave enough to stand behind their convictions when it matters? There will never be a perfect president, governor, or mayor, but there will be those who bring integrity, good intentions, and a true understanding of our needs to their offices.

There never has been and never will be a “gay person’s politician.” There are simply politicians. It was Seiler who said that “good public policy always makes for good politics, but good politics seldom makes for good public policy.”

AJ Cross

AJ Cross is a social writer and regular contributor to Florida Agenda. He can be reached at CrossEyed@jumponmarkslist.com.

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA – While campaigning during this week’s Iowa Caucuses, GOP presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry admitted that he didn’t know about the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, a case that was decided while he was governor and struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law.

According to ABC News, a voter at a meet and greet asked Perry to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.

“I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I don’t. I’m not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would be — I’m not a lawyer,”  “We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever,” said Perry who trailed at 5th in the caucus.

In 2003, the Supreme Court deemed Texas’ anti-sodomy law to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and the case nullified anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states at the same time. Perry, a strong opponent of gay marriage and the ability of homosexuals to serve openly in the military, served as governor when this case was decided.

When told that the Supreme Court case struck down the Texas sodomy law, Perry said, “My position on traditional marriage is clear and I don’t know need a law. I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me.” The Texas governor referenced Lawrence v. Texas in his 2010 book “Fed Up!,” calling it one of the court cases in which “Texans have a different view of the world than do the nine oligarchs in robes.”

The two leading Republican presidential hopefuls are outlining competing visions for what they see as the future of same-sex marriage if they are elected next November.

Mitt Romney, once considered the unchallenged frontrunner for the 2012 GOP nomination, has outlined a proposal that calls for a three-tier system that specifically defines marriage for LGBT persons.­­­

Speaking to the Boston Herald newspaper, the former Massachusetts governor laid out a plan for a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes maintaining marriage rights for heterosexual couples, recognizing existing same-sex unions, and barring recognition of future same-sex marriages.

Said Romney, 64, with respect to his plan: “I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.

California’s 2008 passage of its Marriage Protection Act — Proposition 8 — which barred same-sex marriage, led to similar conditions in the Golden State: an end to future weddings between gay couples, along with recognition of the 18,000 same-sex unions that had already been performed.

The aspiring Matchmaker-in-Chief’s plan for a Federal mandate contradicts his earlier political position. In 1994, during his unsuccessful challenge to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney said that “the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”

Romney’s proposal has also been criticized by members of his party. On December 15, the Log Cabin Republicans released a statement calling the plan “unworkable, unnecessary, and entirely foreign to the United States’ founding principle of equality under the law.”

The group’s Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper, wrote that “Governor Romney is contorting himself into a pretzel trying to avoid the simplest solution to a purely political problem. The best way to strengthen all families is to grant equal access to civil marriage for all couple regardless of their orientation.”

Meanwhile, the man who has emerged as the most serious threat to Romney’s nomination aspirations has taken a completely different turn on the issue, with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich singing the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) “marriage pledge,” also on December 15.

NOM’s pledge states that candidates will work to support an amendment to the Constitution barring same-sex marriage, as well as “establish[ing] a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate, or to vote for marriage, and to propose new protections, if needed.”

According to NOM’s website, the pledge also requires that, if elected president, the candidate will appoint federal judges and an attorney general who “will respect the original meaning” of the Constitution’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Gingrich’s own marriage history includes two divorces, each of which reportedly ended after the 67-year-old former Georgia congressman’s infidelities, and while each of his wives was seriously ill. He married his third wife, former congressional aide Callista Bisek, in 2000 after a six-year extramarital affair he has acknowledged.

In 2010, Esquire.com reported that when asked how he could act unfaithfully towards two seriously ill wives and still give a speech on family values, Gingrich replied that “people need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”

Gingrich’s half-sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, a gay woman and LGBT rights activist, said during an interview with MSNBC that her older half-brother “is definitely on the wrong side of history when it comes to [gay rights] issues.” Gingrich-Jones says that she will support President Obama’s reelection in 2012.

Former President Bill Clinton will share his insights and observations in a program entitled Embracing Our Common Humanity.

The event will take place at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts in Fort Lauderdale on Tuesday, March 20 at 7:30 p.m., in the venue’s Au-Rene Theater.

The evening will feature the 42nd President of the United States exploring the challenges of globalization, the growing interdependence of nations, and ways toward a common future based on shared goals and values.

“As Broward County’s official cultural embassy, the Broward Center for the Performing Arts plays an important role in promoting the exchange of ideas,” said Broward Center President and CEO Kelley Shanley.  “We are pleased to have this opportunity to bring President Clinton to Broward County for this exclusive South Florida speaking engagement.”

After serving as President of the United States for eight years from 1993 to 2001, Clinton founded the William J. Clinton Foundation with the mission to strengthen the capacity of people in the U.S. and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.

The Clinton Foundation includes staff and volunteers around the world working through several initiatives that address critical health issues, climate change, and sustainable growth in developing countries.

President Clinton was named United Nations Special Envoy for Haiti in 2009 following a series of devastating hurricanes. The appointment built on his longstanding commitment to Haiti while in the White House and his work through the Clinton Global Initiative, which has brought together thousands of world leaders, business executives, Nobel Peace Prize laureates, and innovative thinkers to take action to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.

President Clinton and former President George W. Bush established the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund following the 2010 earthquake to raise funds for immediate, high-impact relief and long-term recovery efforts on the island.

Tickets are on sale now to the general public and are available through the Broward Center’s AutoNation Box office at 954/462-0222 or   www.BrowardCenter.org.