How the Sincerely Devout Become a Tool to Be Used for Cynical Purposes

I have written in the past about how sincere devout people, conservative Christians for the most part and predominately supporters of Republican candidates, have been and are being cynically used for partisan purposes. An example of this manipulation can be found in the alleged "War on Christmas" discovered and promoted by commentators on Fox News.

The latest manifestation of this practice is in the proposal to amend the Florida Constitution to include this provision:

"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."

The battle against same-sex or civil unions has been resolved, even if those opposed will not admit it. It is last year's cause. Moreover, there are very real secular issues to be addressed by the political system that are being subjugated to the emotional concerns about same-sex marriage, notably, a crumbling infrastructure, the unavailability of low cost medical insurance and care, the balance between safeguarding civil liberties and the dangers of terrorism.

Even if this were not the case, however, the proposed Amendment is unnecessary in the light of both the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, thus far untested in Court but likely unconstitutional, and Florida Statutes, § 741.212:

"(1) marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.

"(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.

"(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union."

First a look at the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, provides, in a rather typically cumbersome fashion,

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. (1 U.S.C. § 7)

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." (28 U.S.C. § 1738(C))

The Supreme Court has, thus far, not tested the constitutionality of this law. I believe it would fail that test. The Constitution requires each state grant "full faith and credit" to the public acts of another and, in the past, marriage has been treated as such a status to be recognized. But even if this were not the case, the state of Florida seems to be protected!

The Florida statutes on the refusal to recognize "non-traditional" marriage are clear.

The operative statute is cited above. There is simply no need for a Constitutional amendment. Except there is a purpose!

Florida is well-known for being the only state that absolutely forbids the adoption by homosexuals. I have discussed this situation and the unfortunate consequences.

The "Marriage Protection Act" will permanently enshrine Florida's anti-gay bigotry in the state's Constitution and remove rights of other unmarried couples. It is not necessary. So why is an organization known as "Florida 4 Marriage" spending so much time, effort and money?

As of today, the Amendment supporters have obtained more than the 611,009 signatures required. According to their site, they are still seeking signatures and money. Again, the question must be raided: why are thousands of dollars being spent to further a cause that is already won?

The organizer and chairman of Florida 4 Marriage is a former political director of the state Republican Party. His hope is that the ballot initiative will encourage "value voters" to shop up at the polls and vote Republican. It is no surprise that Republican activists are the primary source of funds; a total of $ 557,699 has been collected thus far.

The entire enterprise is to get social conservatives "energized" so G.O.P. candidates will be elected. Playing on bigotry against homosexuals is cynical and abusive. It is, perhaps more importantly, a manipulation of good people of faith.

The fight against civil unions has already been fought; the battle is over. The right to civil unions or same-sex marriage has been established.

The term "marriage" is a charged one. What I refer to are formal, legally recognized, unions between individuals of the same sex. From these unions flow legal rights, including the right of intestate inheritance, the right to participate in advance care and medical decisions - in short two people living as a family. In a subsequent post, I suggest that, regardless of the acts of Florida now, the issue has been joined and there will come a time when same-sex couples will be able to enter into marriage or quasi-marital relationships; the idea of forbidding these will be as foreign as the once common laws preventing mixed race marriage.

If one were truly troubled about the weakened and seemingly fragile nature of marriage among hetero-sexual couples, then the concern would be focused on society's fixation with the role models presented to our children, the number of out-of-wedlock children being born, the transient nature of marriages by recording artists and other performers and so forth The attack on marriage as an institution is from those who cohabit and have children without marriage not from those who want marriage and commitment and cannot have it.