Florida Agenda

SALT LAKE CITY, UT – During the biannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), one of the highest ranked members of the church condemned “nontraditional” family arrangements, including same-sex parenthood, cohabitation, divorce, and single parenthood.

“Children need others to speak for them,” said church apostle Dallin Oaks, “and they need decision makers who put their well-being ahead of selfish adult interests.” Oaks, a member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was one of several church leaders who spoke to the 20,000 attendees about topics mostly concerning maintaining traditions in a modern context. He called abortion a “great evil,” and condemned child abuse and neglect.

Although he called for the parents of children who experience same-sex attraction to treat them with “loving understanding, not bullying or ostracism,” Oaks warned about the impact to children of same-sex couples or single mothers, saying that, “Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur.”

His fellow apostle Neil Andersen urged gay and single Mormons to remain chaste, despite external pressures. “The world protests: ‘How can you ask so much?’” said Andersen. “The Lord responds, ‘As the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.’”XXX LDS Apostle Quentin Cook said that many Mormon faithful apply the church’s teachings through a prism of modern sensibilities, and “allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

By Cliff Dunn

TALLAHASSEE – Last week, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a child-custody case between two women who are former partners in a committed same-sex couple. The case reflects the disparity between what Florida law defines as family units, and the reality as it exists down the length of the Sunshine State.

The case concerns two women contesting parental rights to their daughter, who was conceived in 2006 by having one of the women’s eggs implanted in the womb of the other (meaning that the girl has one birth mother, but a different biological mother). After the women split in 2006, the birth mother cut off all contact with her former partner, and took the child to Australia.

In most circumstances, both state and federal law recognize parental rights in the case of a biological mother who is raising her own child. But during the original custody suit, the Brevard County trial judge said that, because egg and sperm donors relinquish their parental rights, and because Florida law defines a “couple” as “one man and one woman” he was required to classify the biological mother as an “egg donor.”

For the protection and privacy of the child, the women are identified in court records by their initials. After his ruling, the judge told the biological mother, who is identified as TMH, “If you appeal this, I hope I’m wrong.” The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach ruled in favor of the biological mother, saying that both women have parental rights.

Experts say that at the heart of the case is a 1993 state law regulating sperm and egg donation, as well as the rights of gay people to raise children and claim equal protection under the law. (In 2010, another appeals court ruled that Florida’s ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional.)

The 5th District’s ruling led to the appeal of the birth mother—who is identified as DMT—which was heard on October 2. Her attorney, Michael B. Jones, cited the precedence of other courts recognizing a birth parent’s privileged status. “A step-parent, a grandparent, under many different kinds of circumstances, may have a relationship with the child, but when the actual parent decides that that relationship is no longer appropriate for the child, then that is terminated,” Jones said.

Justice Barbara Pariente asked Jones why the biological mother isn’t an actual parent, when a man who fathers a child out of wedlock is recognized as such if he helps to raise the child. “Is that not a situation that at least implicates equal protection of women, at least to have equal protection as men?” asked Pariente, a West Palm Beach Democrat.

Chief Justice Ricky Polston noted the definition of a “couple” under state law, and asked whether the panel could even consider such questions. “It seems like you’re asking this court to implement social policy that’s not reflected in the Florida statutes, not in the Florida Constitution or, to me, in the U.S. Constitution. But you’re asking us to make a constitutional ruling on social policy,” said Polston (who was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 2008 by then-Gov. Charlie Crist) to the biological mother’s attorney, Robert Segal.

Segal, said, “We’re asking the court to make a determination that appellee [the biological mother] has protected parental rights, based on the actions of the parties.” He said the biological mother wasn’t just an egg donor, that she had taken equal part in the raising of the child until she was taken away by the birth mother. Because Florida law banned gay adoption at the time of the child’s birth, the woman didn’t have the option to adopt her child. As noted above, that ban was declared unconstitutional in 2010.

The justices raised the possibility of returning the case to the original trial judge to decide upon a doctor’s informed consent form signed by the biological mother, in which she gives up all rights to the donated egg, as well as any resulting offspring.

The birth mother’s attorney argued that the case hinges upon the consent form. The biological mother’s lawyer countered that the form is not a legal contract (it wasn’t signed by both parties), and applies strictly to anonymous sperm and egg donors, not a committed couple who plan to raise children together.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS – On Saturday, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) became the first sitting congressman to enter into a same-sex marriage, when he married his partner, James Ready, in a ceremony officiated by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

Courtesy: CNN - Barney Frank Wedding

Patrick joked that Frank and Ready vowed to love each other through both Democratic and Republican administrations, and even through appearances on Fox News Channel.

Frank, 72, was elected to the House in 1980, and was formerly chairman of the powerful Financial Services Committee. He came out in 1987, the first Member of Congress to voluntarily do so. He met Ready, 42, during a political fundraiser in the latter’s home state of Maine. The wedding took place on Saturday evening at the Boston Marriott Newton, in suburban Boston, and was attended by political heavyweights, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

Frank announced last year that he will retire at the end of his current term, in January 2013.

On Saturday, Internet giant Google launched its “Legalize Love” initiative, with a purpose, according to dot429.com, “of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world.” Although initially targeting Poland and Singapore, Google plans to expand the campaign to every country where it conducts business—so pretty much everywhere, except perhaps North Korea—focusing on areas with homophobic history, laws, and culture.

According to a company rep, “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” That spokesperson told dot429.

com, “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation.”

The corporate dominoes are falling, ever falling, with Retail America focusing their efforts on the lucrative LGBT market, and its attractive buying power. JCPenney, which flexed its gay muscles when it hired openly gay Ellen DeGeneres as its spokeswoman, also debuted an ad in its May catalog featuring a lesbian couple, and followed up in June with a gay Fathers Day-themed campaign. (The JCP catalog is received monthly by 14 million consumers.) The retailer also sponsored a float in last month’s New York Gay Pride parade. Macy’s Inc. also has a long record of supporting LGBT rights and of advertising in gay media (including the Agenda).

Last month, discount giant Target began selling greeting cards marketed to same-sex couples, including such fare as a wedding card that reads “Mr. & Mr.” It was just two years ago that the retail chain was condemned by LGBT activists for contributing $150,000 to conservative politicalaction committee MN Forward, which supported Republican Tom Emmer, a gay marriage opponent who was a candidate for Governor of Minnesota.

In addition to its commitment to social responsibility, LGBT spending power is an attractive incentive for major retailers to “come out.” According to Witeck Combs Consulting, approximately 16 million gay adult Americans possess an estimated spending power this year of $790 billion. That translates to $49,000 per capita in greenbacks for Pink America.

 Prop 8 Decision Paves Way for High Court Ruling

By Cliff Dunn

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled to deny an appeal of a February lower court decision against California’s Proposition 8. The appeals court’s ruling paves the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of marriage equality by next year.

The 9th Circuit decision means the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have two major gay-rights cases on its docket in the near future. The ruling comes less than a week after a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—the federal law that declares marriage to be solely between a man and a woman—discriminates against married same-sex couples, by denying them the same benefits granted under the law to heterosexual couples.

As in the California appeals court ruling, the Massachusetts judges chose narrow ground to assert that the law singles out gay couples for discrimination, in ways that violate their Constitutional rights to equal protection.

Neither federal panel took the step of declaring that the Constitution supports the right to same sex marriage.

Tuesday’s case concerns the statewide referendum passed by California voters in 2008 that placed a prohibition in the state constitution recognizing same sex marriages. In their 2-to-1 decision that struck down Proposition 8, the appeals court judges said, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.” The ban had reinstated a previous one against same-sex nuptials, just six months after the California Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.

After the ballot measure amended the state constitution, two same sex couples sued in federal court, arguing that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

After the three-judge panel ruled in February that the ban violates federal constitutional guarantees—but limited the ruling’s effects to within California—sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the 9th Circuit to assemble an 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. A majority of the circuit’s judges voted against such a rehearing.

Although many believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to hear one or both of these cases, the justices are not obligated to do so. Experts say that the nine-member high court is divided 4-to-4 on the question of marriage equality, with Justice Anthony Kennedy widely considered being the deciding vote. Both the California and Massachusetts federal appeals court rulings referred at several points to decisions by Justice Kennedy to legally justify the basis for their reasoning.

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.

TUCSON, AZ – Arizona must continue to provide health-care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian government workers, according to the Tucson Citizen.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction from a lower court that blocked a 2009 state law eliminating health-insurance coverage for same-sex partners of state employees from taking effect.

In its unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the appellate court noted that the state is not obligated to provide health-care benefits but said denying them to a specific group of employees violates the equal-protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

LONDON, ENGLAND – The BBC reported that the Church of England will review its policy on same-sex relationships and would consider letting gay clergy be ordained as bishops. Recently the church has been under pressure to conform to laws guaranteeing equal treatment to gays and lesbians.

The BBC said the church’s announcement suggests it might be on course for a greater acceptance of homosexuality — a move that would be strongly resisted by traditionalists.

ALBANY, NY – A new poll from Quinnipiac shows support for same-sex marriage in New York is at 58%, its highest point ever.

According to the New York Daily News: “Voters in the survey backed legalizing marriage between same-sex couples 58-36%, ‘higher than ever while statistically unchanged from 56-38% April 14.’ Once again, we see a split along party lines: Democrats support legalization 72-23%, independents back it 58-34% and GOP voters are opposed, 64-34%. Men support same-sex marriage 58-37%; women, 59-34%.” The paper also reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has made a pitch to several Republican State Senators to support marriage equality recently.

RALEIGH, NC – Thousands of conservative Christians rallied in Raleigh, North Carolina, last week in support  of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. The rally was organized by Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council and the Forsyth County-based Return America group and held at the Halifax Mall. According to the Fayetteville Observer, the state capitol police estimated that 3,500 people participated in the amendment rally carrying American flags and listening to ministers and other speakers arguing that it’s time for such an amendment. The state House Majority Leader, Paul Stam, told the crowd that it will get done this year.