Florida Red and Blue - No on 2

Subject: FACT CHECK: John Stemberger

Well, they are at it again.

The main sponsor of Amendment 2, John Stemberger, graced readers of yesterday's South Florida Sun-Sentinel with another tired and misleading opinion article about Amendment 2.

If you have the stomach for it, you can read his latest diatribe here, but here are a few highlights:

What he said:

“Our campaign opponents are trying to cover up their real motive — to advance special rights for gay-identified persons by dishonestly scaring senior citizens using tortured arguments that ‘benefits’ will be taken away.”

The truth:

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled this month that their “marriage protection” amendment does take away shared health benefits from unmarried couples.

The Michigan language is similar to Florida’s – both have vague and undefined language such as “substantial equivalent” of marriage, “treated as marriage” or “similar to” marriage. These ambiguous phrases have already blocked rights in Michigan and Kentucky and it could very easily happen here.

To see how Amendment 2 could hurt seniors, read about Wayne and Helene – unmarried seniors in Broward County by clicking here.

What he says:

Gay activists “want to redefine marriage and then force that definition upon the rest of society largely through unelected, unaccountable activist judges acting outside the scope of their limited role. This is precisely what occurred in California.”

The truth:

What happened in California has no impact at all on Florida. To illustrate that point, we’d like to quote Mr. Stemberger to Mr. Stemberger.

When the Michigan court used a “marriage amendment” to take away rights and benefits (as we mentioned above), Mr. Stemberger issued a press release saying “Michigan is not Florida – and any state law decision it makes will have absolutely no effect upon Florida law.” Read his press release here.

As Mr. Stemberger neglects to tell readers in his column, “same-sex marriage” is already prohibited in Florida. Because it’s already the law in Florida, neither California courts nor Amendment 2 will change that.

Even the conservative Florida Times-Union editorialized against Amendment 2 just yesterday and noted that, “…Florida is not California…” and “Frankly, marriage does not appear all that threatened in this state.”

We could go on with this forever, but we think it’s more important for you to be armed with truth in this debate. Here’s what we know:

· The question isn’t, “Will Florida follow California?” The question is, “Will Florida follow Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky?” Those states passed marriage amendments which, like Amendment 2, were vague and unrestricted. The results: a real loss of protections, rights and benefits.

· The language of Amendment 2 doesn’t “protect marriage.” It blocks our state from recognizing any relationship that is not marriage – putting at risk any rights, benefits and protections for every unmarried Floridian. Read the whole amendment here.

· Amendment sponsors in Michigan insisted their amendment would not take away benefits – just as Mr. Stemberger and the Florida sponsors are doing now. Here’s a great article on the Michigan bait and switch.

· Every major newspaper in Florida is opposed to Amendment 2, including the most conservative papers in the state – the Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville), the Northwest Florida Daily Times (Fort Walton Beach) and the Tampa Tribune.

More information on Amendment 2 is on our website, www.SayNo2.com.

To stop the backers of Amendment 2 from changing the subject and spreading their nonsense, forward this email to friend using the button at the bottom, join the fight, or make a contribution today.

The SayNo2/Florida Red and Blue Team