State Ban On Gay Marriage No 'Slam-Dunk'

By WILLIAM MARCH The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jul 8, 2007

TAMPA - As social conservatives gear up to put an antigay marriage constitutional amendment on the 2008 state ballot, opponents are gearing up a campaign to defeat it.

Their task may not be hopeless, as it has been thought.

Gay marriage bans long have been considered virtually unbeatable at polls nationwide, particularly in conservative states such as Florida. From 1998 through 2006, voters approved the bans in 28 states.

Recently, however, there have been indications that this conventional wisdom may not always hold true.

The 2006 election saw the first-ever defeat of a gay marriage ban, in Arizona. Voters at local levels, in city and county referendums, also have shown an increased willingness to oppose the bans recently, said University of South Florida political scientist Susan MacManus.

"They are increasingly not a slam-dunk," she said.

That could be particularly true in Florida, where constitutional amendments now must pass with 60 percent of the popular vote, not just a simple majority.

Opponents also have received some new ammunition against the measure, from court rulings in other states that the bans can undercut domestic partnership laws, employee benefits and even laws against domestic violence.

That, they say, shows unintended negative consequences that can arise from a gay marriage ban.

The intent of the amendment, advocates say, is simply to put into the state constitution a ban on gay marriage that already exists in state statutes.

The amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Staying On Message

In Florida, two political action committees have formed to oppose the ban.

One, originating in South Florida, has taken advantage of the region's concentration of big-dollar, liberal donors and links to national interest groups. That group, Florida Red & Blue, won't reveal its fundraising - figures will be public this week - but has told supporters it raised more than $1 million since its founding this year.

The other, Fairness for All Families, organized mainly by Equality Florida and its well-known Tampa leader Nadine Smith, is a coalition with organizations including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, churches and retiree groups.

That division into two separate opponent groups could be a drawback. Arizona activists said a consistent message pushed by a disciplined organization is essential for opponents of a gay marriage ban to succeed.

"Discipline can be hard for activists," said Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona Together, which opposed the measure there. "In other states, they would bounce back and forth between messages."

Her advice to Floridians: "Raise a lot of money now. Do the research to figure out a message that works for Floridians. Be disciplined in communicating that message."

Signature Goal Near

The constitutional amendment petition drive is being conducted by the Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage, also known by its Web site, Florida4marriage.org. It's led by John Stemberger, an Orlando lawyer and national-level religious conservative activist.

The organization says it has gathered all but 18,000 of the 611,009 petitions needed to place the amendment on the November 2008 ballot, and the rest will be turned in this summer. So far, state officials have checked and approved 467,000.

Stemberger wouldn't discuss his group's fundraising, but said he expects concerted opposition to the amendment, and that his organization will mount an effective campaign.

Both the pro- and anti-amendment groups, like other political committees in Florida, will file reports this week detailing their fundraising for the second quarter of 2007.

Fairness for All Families will show more than $50,000 raised in the quarter from about 600 donors, said board member Gregory Wilson of St. Petersburg, a political consultant.

From its founding in 2005, when it began its petition drive, through the first three months of 2007, Florida4marriage raised more than $500,000 in cash and in-kind contributions - $300,000 of it from the Florida Republican Party - and spent about $440,000, according to previous reports.

Gov. Charlie Crist has said he does not favor the party giving any more money to the effort, which means it almost certainly won't.

Florida Red & Blue formed after a February gathering in Miami of state and national supporters of progressive or gay rights causes.

The organization has received $50,000 from the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights advocacy group.

Its bipartisan name reflects a board of directors including Republican South Florida businessman Jonathan Kislak, previously campaign finance chairman for both Attorney General Bill McCollum and former U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw; and Democrat Bob Farmer, previously treasurer for the John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis campaigns.

Advocates of the amendment have one big advantage: By and large, majorities of voters in Florida and nationwide consistently oppose gay marriage in polls.

A recent national poll by the Pew Research Center found voters opposed by 57 percent to 32 percent; a 2004 poll of state voters by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Tribune found 60 percent opposed.

Plans Of Attack

Even though voters oppose the concept, that may not mean they will vote for an amendment, opponents say.

They intend to argue that the amendment could have sweeping, unintended consequences, interfering with legal rights of gay and straight unmarried couples, from hospital visitation and health care decisions, even to domestic partner employee benefits.

"This is not about gay marriage," said Stephen Gaskill, a veteran South Florida Democratic operative and Red & Blue spokesman. "This is about ensuring that people are able to determine their own life choices."

Sinema said the Arizona campaign featured a Tucson retiree couple, "Al and Maxine," both widowed, who live together but don't want to marry because it would cost Maxine her pension.

The amendment, Sinema said, could have interfered with their rights for hospital visitation and health care decision-making under a domestic registry program available in Tucson.

The Florida opponents have taken note.

"Arizona was a valuable lesson in process that we have learned from," said Wilson of Fairness for All Families. "People may have strong feelings about different lifestyles, but as Americans we find it difficult to support discrimination."

The opponents also note that in several states where gay marriage bans have passed recently, including Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia, the favorable votes were less than the 60 percent needed in Florida.

Stemberger acknowledged the 60 percent requirement is "a challenge."

He also said his side is ready to counter arguments about domestic partner benefits and rights, and that the Florida amendment language is not identical to any other state's.

"What they're going to do is try to scare senior citizens of Florida into thinking the amendment will somehow take away their benefits," he said. "It will not. It simply codifies the current law of Florida. It does not prevent domestic partner benefits."

Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761 or wmarch@tampatrib.com.