Poll Shows Floridians Oppose Amendment 2?

A poll by Quinnipiac in early September shows that only about 55 percent of the sampled Floridians are ready to oppose Amendment 2, which if it passes, will define marriage as strictly one between a man and a woman. At least 60 percent is needed to get this amendment through. Read the article below, which is from The San Francisco Examiner. According to information I gathered from the Quinnipiac website, the poll was conducted from September 2 - 4, and it surveyed 1,427 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. (see Quinnipiac poll). By most definitions of statistical analysis, this is a large sample, in spite of what the article below claims.

The San Francisco Examiner

Are voters shifting against gay marriage?


October 7, 11:14 AM
by J.D. Tuccille, Civil Liberties Examiner

Not too long ago, it seemed that California's Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to be "between a man and a woman," was going down to a well-deserved defeat. Polls showing opposition to the measure above 50% reinforced the impression that the state where the courts just recently legalized same-sex marriage was an unlikely environment for a socially conservative backlash.
And the last time the matter was put before Arizona voters, in 2006, live-and-let-live westerners rejected the notion of preventing gays and lesbians from solemnifying their relationships, 51.4% to 48.6%.

But that was then; this is now.

The latest SurveyUSA poll (PDF) of California voters finds support for Proposition 8 at 47%, with opposition at 42%. The shift in favor seems to come from young people, ages 18-34, who moved from opposition to support the measure by 53% to 39%.

Along the same lines, Arizona's Proposition 102, which would also change the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, wins 49% support to 42% opposition in the latest Cronkite-Eight poll.

The only good news is that Florida's anti-gay Amendment 2, yet another constitutional amendment, only has 55% support, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Good news?

Well ... yeah. That's because 60% support is required to amend the state constitution. Anything short of that is a defeat for the measure.

Hey, you take your victories where you find them.

It should also be noted that the California SurveyUSA poll results are a stark break from earlier polling, and are drawn from a small sample (670 likely voters) with a sizeable margin of error. So the news there might not be all that bad.

But for the same reason, the news from Florida might not be all that good.

And if California does formally define marriage as a monopoly of heterosexual couples, what happens to the 11,000 same-sex marriages that have been performed since the practice was legalized?

"The Beloved Son" (Book Review)

The Beloved Son
by Jay Quinn
New York: Alyson Books, 2008
Paperback edition, $14.95

This novel, the latest by fairly well established gay writer Jay Quinn, is an engaging family story of unspoken truths and vocalized fears.

Its protagonist, Karl, a methodical, self-controlled straight engineer seems to embody the typical North Carolina suburban, middle-aged heterosexual man who leads an uncomplicated life cocooned in a world of ironed-out wills, downsized homes, reliable vehicles, and cultivated pleasantries.

Married to an empathetic woman, and the father of a bohemian-like, outspoken daughter, Karl's secured world is turned upside down when he, and his family, are summoned posthaste to his parents' abode in Boca Raton, Florida. Soon Karl and his family finds out that his parents have decided to move into a retirement home, one shaped by an unexpected family crisis.

This crisis forces Karl to confront a series of entangling relationships he must now unravel, comprehend, and even embrace. First, there is his gay brother, Sven, who is partially estranged from his partner of twenty-some years, Rob. Sven is hardly the stereotypical gay man. Confident, self-assured, and all-man, Sven, however, has his share of demons, and he too must sort them out or else his life with Rob will permanently end. He must also reconcile with Sven, who has always accepted Rob as a gay man but only from a distance. Now that Karl is in Rob's turf, the former must find a way to leave behind his prejudices, many of which are subtle yet corrosive. Then, there is Frank, Karl's occasionally homophobic, temperamental father, who struggles to accept his gay son and his partner. Frank has to wrestle with his own share of insecurities, stemming ironically from his love for his sons and his inability to navigate this seemingly senseless world as that family crisis spins out of control. And thirdly, there is Karl's mother, Annike, who has this close bond with her gay son, in a way that Karl is befuddled by and yet admires. It is a bond that is replicated in Karl's relationship with his father. How each character attempts to resolves their complicated ties without erasing the past makes up part of the enjoyment of reading this novel, whose prose is fairly rich, languid, if at times, a little sentimental and maudlin.

Why We Must Fight Amendment 2: Its Impact on Straight Seniors

BREAKING NEWS

Read this article from Sun Sentinel newspaper. It gives us a good idea why we, in Tampa and St Petersburg, and in the rest of Florida, must fight against Amendment 2. The amendment not only will impact the gay or LGBT community, but also as a whole the straight-dominated society, particularly the seniors.In that sense, the struggle against Amendment 2 has larger implications--it is a struggle to ensure that certain rights that rightfully belong to all are indeed within the reach of the minority voices.

The Sun Sentinel, October 5, 2008

Amendment 2 would hurt many couples, not just gays
By Bentley Lipscomb
October 5, 2008
I've spent four decades fighting for the rights of seniors in Florida, and I am deeply troubled by the threat Amendment 2 poses for Florida's large senior population. Amendment 2 does not simply define marriage; it could actually restrict who could receive basic family protections and health benefits.

The ramifications of this misdirected amendment could hit seniors particularly hard. Many seniors who are widowed do not remarry because, if they do, they risk losing essential pension benefits or they fear that a new marriage might upset estate plans for their adult children.

This amendment threatens to strip away essential health and family protections unmarried seniors count on to care for themselves and their loved ones.

Already, backers of the amendment are preparing to challenge Tampa's domestic partnership policy, which provides health coverage and other protections to firefighters, police officers and other municipal employees.

The way proponents drafted this amendment could cause problems and create obstacles for Florida seniors who have chosen to rely on domestic partnership, other family benefits and legal protections even though they are not married.

Unmarried older couples would not be able to enjoy the same ability to take care of each other. Even visiting loved ones in the hospital when they are sick would be problematic. Then, there's the whole legal issue around making decisions about the end of life.

Some widows and widowers see marriage as a religious commitment made only once. Yet, they often form loving bonds with someone who becomes their closest family, whom they care for and love.

In other states, these amendments have led to unmarried partners being denied vital benefits and protections. Florida's constitution should not make it harder for people to take care of their loved ones.

The harmful consequences of Amendment 2 are not limited to seniors. According to the Florida Legislature's own analysis, all unmarried couples of any age, straight or gay, risk losing family protections that an overwhelming majority of Floridians support.

The Office of Economic and Demographic Research, which is required to identify the impact of any proposed amendment, stated: "If domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance."


Bentley Lipscomb is former director of the state Department of Elder Affairs and was a longtime state director of AARP.