The Right Thing

Let's give credit to a Republican who is actually respecting democracy and the will of the people: Charlie Crist, the circumspect long-time bachelor (though suddenly engaged after McCain VP running mate speculation) governor of Florida, has extended voting hours in the state, to the dismay of Florida Republicans because, well, the more people vote, the more they vote for Obama!

So, kudos to Charlie for that. Now, on to the joke. Politico notes that one Republican operative said, "He just blew Florida," to which JoeMyGod responds: "Aw, come on. Crist has been blowing Florida for decades."

Explanation on Amemendent 2 Voter Guide

I spoke on the show today to Derek Newton of Florida Red and Blue about this issue regarding the League of Women Voters.

Astoundingly, he told me that the LWV is opposed to Amendment 2 rather than being neutral on it. Why, then, is the wording of the "pro" and "con" and "summary" on their voter guide so hideous, as I described in the post? He said they word it the way each side gives it to them. So the religious right tells them the "pro" is that it "protects" marriage and "protects children" and we tell them some innocuous thing that doesn't mean anything -- so as not to use the word gay, it appears to me. Newton said that his group in fact gave them the wording for "con" -- which doesn't really spell out anything bad about voting against it.

I just don't understand this logic. Why don't we say it will "hurt" (gay) families? Why don't we say it will "hurt" children rather than "protect" them?

Florida Amendment Very Close. Wonder Why?

Only a couple of weeks ago it seemed that Amendment 2, banning marriage for gays in the Florida Constitution, would not pass. But the polls have shifted a bit. It needs 60% for passage, and the latest poll has it at 56%, with 7% undecided. That, say some analysts, doesn't look good for us:

History suggests it will pass because undecided voters have tended to break in favor of gay-marriage bans in other states, said Brad Coker, polling director for Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. The firm surveyed 625 registered voters Monday and Tuesday; the poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

"Most people have an opinion on it," he said. "This issue's been on the forefront for years, and people know what they're voting for or voting against."

It's not a surprise to me after getting an email from a listener to the show who went to vote in Florida, where early voting has been brisk. He told me he was outraged at the voter guide given out by the League of Women Voters, which is supposed to be non-partisan. Check out how it describes Amendment 2:

Summary: This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

It tells us that it "protects" marriage, and does not say anything about banning gays.

Then it gives the pros and cons of the amendment. Get a load of this:

PRO:
The amendment would protect children by ensuring that only one form of marriage, between a man and a woman, would ever be celebrated in Florida....

Con:
A statute already provides for a single form of marriage in Florida.
Health care and pension benefit plans which cover unmarried couples living together and which are now legally valid may be adversely affected.

So a vote for the amendment is about protecting children, and there's nothing in the "con" about how it would discriminate against gays and lesbians. Is it any wonder many people will vote for it when "non-partisan" groups describe it this way?

Amendment 2 Backers Broke Rules

That's what Florida Red and Blue is alleging regarding the proponents of he ballot measure in Florida to ban gays from marrying, and they want the antigay groups' ads taken down until it's settled. Right now the amendment doesn't look like it will have enough votes to pass but, that can change and opponents aren't taking chances:

Florida Red & Blue, which opposes the amendment that would add a definition of marriage to the Florida Constitution, contends that Florida4Marriage.org received more than $775,000 in contributions from Florida Family Action Inc., a not-for-profit 501c(4). Contributors to a 501c(4) can remain confidential, while those giving directly to Florida4Marriage .org are publicly reported.

"This is outrageous and an intentional attempt to keep donors secret," said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue. "Florida voters deserve to know who is funding this change to our state constitution..."

...The executive director of the Elections Commission has five days to determine whether Florida Red & Blue's complaint has legal merit, said Commission Clerk Patricia Rushing. An investigation of the complaint could take weeks or months.

This will be interesting.

Florida Ballot Measure Faltering

The ammendment in Florida to ban marriage doesn't seem to have the votes for passage. Beating it down would be a big win, as we've only been able to do this once (in Arizona, where there is now a new one on the ballot). To win in Florida and California in the same year would certainly show the tide is turning.