Christian Coalition of South Florida

Marriage Petition Web Page

Florida's Pro-Family
Leaders Are United:

Pictured above from left to right are Bill Bunkley, Florida Baptist Convention; Bill Stevens,
Christian Coalition; Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel; Carole Griffin, Eagle Forum; John Stemberger,
Florida Family Policy Council; and Mike McCarron, Florida Catholic Conference.

"Let's finish the job-
155,000 petitions in
the next 155 days..."

In light of the recent deadline where Florida4Marriage.org was short 155 thousand petitions in order to place the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot in 2006, statewide pro family leaders announced the plan to collect the remaining 155,000 petitions needed in the next 155 days on the steps of the Florida Supreme Court. This historic day brings Florida one major step closer to protecting natural marriage in the state constitution as marriage leaders now head for the 2008 ballot. On Wednesday February 8, Florida4Marriage.org leaders participated in oral argument, and then held a press conference and a rally across from the Florida Supreme Court building.

Florida4Marriage.org legal counsel, attorney Mathew D. Staver did an outstanding job arguing the single subject requirement before the full panel of seven justices on the Florida Supreme Court. In opposition to the amendment, the National ACLU flew in their top legal guns from New York City. The members of the court who spoke up seemed remarkably candid about their view that the amendment did not violate the single subject rule and that the language was not unclear or ambiguous as the ACLU argued.

After the oral argument, Florida4Marriage.org publicly announced its plans and new goal to have the amendment placed on the 2008 ballot by collecting 155 thousand petitions in the next 155 days. They will do this using the same grassroots organization of county coordinators, churches and open air petition gathering by volunteers. In the words of Florida4Marriage.org quarterback John Stemberger, "Center Blitz-- On three..BREAK!"

Attorney General Charlie Crist signs Marriage Amendment Petition.

Thursday, September 1, 9 AM

This morning at the Versailles Restaurant on Calle Ocho, Charlie Crist addressed a group of about fifty invited guests on a campaign swing. Our own Dave Zachary asked him if he had signed the Marriage Amendment petition. He replied "Where do I sign ? I don't have my glasses." Then he signed the petition.

Other Christian Coalition members attending were Gladys Bernard, Ivette Wheelock, and Dina Zachary. Gladys and Dina covered all the tables with petitions in Spanish and English. Some people asked for petitions they could take with them. Most attendees signed the petitions and Gladys and Dina collected them.

Dave Zachary, in a short discussion with the Attorney General, said he understood that Crist was still holding up the petitions and not releasing them to the Supreme Court. Crist stated that it was a false rumor, and that he already handed them over to the Supreme Court. Zachary then asked if Crist's position on slots was as strong against as Jeb Bush. Crist replied "Of course. I'm your man!"

FLORIDA4MARRIAGE.ORG FILES OPENING BRIEF WITH FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. ACLU RESPONDS.

(Tallahassee, FL) On Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Attorney Mat Staver, lead counsel for Florida4Marriage.org filed the Opening Brief in the Florida Supreme Court defending the language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. State Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org John Stemberger said, Mats legal brief is simply an outstanding piece of advocacy and irrefutably demonstrates that our language is clear, proper and meets the single subject requirement.

Stemberger also said After reviewing the opposing brief it seems as if the ACLU has not even read the language of the amendment, because it is clearly about one thing and one thing alone- and that is natural marriage. Their arguments seem desperate, emotional, and simply stretching bounds of credibility."

Staver, who is also President of Liberty Counsel is the primary author of both Floridas current marriage statute and the language of the amendment itself stated, The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment has one objective the protection and preservation of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage advocates know that a majority of Floridians support traditional marriage so they have resorted to raising unfounded scare tactics. This amendment will not strip unmarried persons of basic rights or benefits. This Amendment protects marriage by prohibiting polygamy and same sex marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment enshrines in our state constitution what has been true since Florida was a territory marriage is between one man and one woman.

The same time their filed their legal brief, friends of the ACLU also filed a frivolous law suit attempting to block the proposed Florida Marriage Amendment claiming that it interferes with the rights of same sex couples which in turn somehow violates the Florida Constitution.

The legal brief filed by Florida4Marriage.org can be found HERE:

The legal brief filed by the ACLU can be found HERE :

Christian Coalition Director
Bill Stephens interviewed on the Marriage Amendment
Petition process

Dave:
Bill, I am looking at this Supreme Court of Florida web page.“Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General RE: Marriage Protection.” It says that Charles J. Crist Jr. pursuant to Provision Article 9, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution has requested the courts opinion as to whether the text of the proposed amendment seeking to amend the Florida Constitution defining marriage,etc.” Bill, have you looked at that? Did you see the dates in there they are talking about?

Bill:The Court Briefs. I did .

Dave:“It is therefore the order of the court the interested party shall file their briefs on or before Sept.22, 2005.” I noticed that John Stemberger was on the list of people that received this. Who will be, do you think, filing briefs?

Bill: Mat Staver will be filing briefs, because he will be arguing this case. I am not sure what other law firms will be filing briefs. But essentially the September 22^nd deadline is for Friend of the Court briefs. In other words if you are an attorney and you want to weigh in this Florida Marriage Protection language you can file a brief for or against it, and then all those briefs will be shared and then there is a follow-up deadline which is October 12^th which is the answer to the original Friend of the Court Brief. At that time they will probably move on to oral argument where Mat Staver will be appearing before the Florida Supreme Court to argue for the language and I am sure that the ACLU and some of these other groups that have come out vehemently against the language will be arguing against it
.
Dave: Timeline, “Answer briefs shall be filed on or before October 12^th.” What specifically does that mean.?

Bill: I’m not sure. It is better if you are asking Mat Staver who files these Friend of the Court briefs and Amicus briefs.

Dave: After the briefs are filed, October 12^th comes up and evidently that is the time that you have to have these briefs in.

Bill: Then what. Then the court convenes and you have an opportunity to argue. It would be after the October 12^th time then they would start taking oral arguments.   Just so you have the thumbnail sketch of what is going to happen. The typical timeline that the Florida Supreme Court works on is about 2 months to be done with this process. So Charlie sent this over on September 1^st.   I expect them to be done and have an advisory opinion by the fist of November.   Generally they take about 2 months to go through this process and that is why you have all these deadlines in front of you. You have September 22^nd for the first line of briefs, you've got an October 12^th deadline for the 2^nd round of briefs. Probably between October 12 and the first part of November they will be taking oral arguments and then be done with whole process. Legally they can drag their feet…, but generally, the court handles these things in approximately 2 months. I am expecting them to issue their advisory opinion the first part of November, but they don't have to do that.

Dave:The advisory opinion is for the Attorney General. Is that true?

Bill:That's correct, but the trickle down effect is this. If the Florida Supreme Court Advisory opinion is that our language is more than one subject, then we are done.   When they issue that opinion it is frivolous to continue getting petitions signed because we know that their opinion of our language even if we get the required petitions, they're never going to allow it to go to the ballot so the project is over at that point. What their advisory opinion, if it goes the other way, does for us is we can continue collecting petitions, try to get to the 611,226, get it to the November 2006 ballot. But even in that scenario, their final ruling is still happening in April of 2006. So their Advisory Opinion possibly could say everything is fine, that is our advice for now, and in April of 2006 they could change their mind.

Dave:Ok. In your personal opinion Bill, do you think that this whole Supreme Court process puts a shadow on this effort?

Bill:I do not expect the Florida Supreme Court to derail this project. In fact, I expect the Supreme Court to look at our language, hear all of these briefs, take oral arguments and say this amendment is clean as a whistle. And that will essentially give us the green light to go for the 100% on the signed petitions and go ahead and get it on the ballot in November 2006.   I am not expecting them to say that this amendment is more than one subject.

Dave: Just the fact that it is a collaboration of Mat Staver and John Stemberger, people with this kind of legal background working on this petition language to begin with makes us pretty comfortable. Don't you think?

Bill: Yes, I am very confident because early in the process, we looked at all the other state amendments and Florida's Marriage Amendment is unique to Florida. It’s not like any other state’s amendment. And you noticed that others states around the country got the amendment on the ballot and passed it on the ballot and now their state supreme courts have come back and said that it's got a problem. “We've got to strike it.” And some of those states went to great lengths to define the yes and the no and the does and the don'ts, of what marriage is, what civil unions are and what domestic partnerships are. What that will stand for in their state. And the amendments were very lengthy. You know, the longer the amendment is, all you've got to do is to find one hole in it and apart from a severibility clause you can throw the whole thing out. So these other states, where they passed these lengthy marriage amendments, all the opponents have to do is find one little hole in it and they can throw the whole thing out. Ours is short and concise. I expect it will be on the November 2006 ballot
.
Dave:This line of reasoning on how amendments are so subject to that. Are marriage amendment bills that are written by the legislature so subject to such scrutiny, and perhaps lengthy, is why you wanted to go to the petition process. Is that what you are saying?

Bill: No, that's a whole other subject. The other states that did this by petition effort had lengthy amendments because they went into all the specifics. The reason we chose to go the petition effort is because we would get the language that we want. We want to preserve not only the label, the word "marriage," but we want to preserve what marriage is. The essence of what marriage is. The whole concept of marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

Dave: Well that makes sense. But now if the legislature would try to do that rather than you doing it?

Bill: The legislator would say marriage is between a man and a women period. It's all we would get out of the legislature. And effectively what the legislature would do is just preserve the word and not the concept.

Dave: We just want people to become educated.

Bill: It has gone through the Glenda Hood office, The Charlie Crist office, now it is over at the Florida Supreme Court. We expect them to handle this in a timely manner like they do most everything else. It should be about 2 months, so somewhere around the 1st of November we are expecting to get the confirmation from the Supreme Court that we are on the right track.

Catholic Churches join the Marriage Amendment Petition drive

Catholic parishes throughout Florida were given talking points in a mailer from the Florida Catholic Conference last week together with parish guidelines for constitutional amendment petition drives.

Parish gathering of signatures on petitions is planned for the weekends of September 24/25 through October 29/30

Working in cooperation with the Diocesan Family Life Directors, the Knights of Columbus and the Florida Council of Catholic Women have agreed to collaborate on gathering of petitions in the parishes.

For further information on the marriage amendment, churches are urged to contact Sheila Hopkins at 850-222-3803 or shopkins@flacathconf.org

Florida4Family has experienced volunteer teams available to assist the Miami parishes in the petition gathering process. Pastors or church secretaries can call us at 305-663-4454 or 305-803-2298 for more information.

Florida4Marriage County Leaders:

www.floridafamilyaction.org

Signatures:

Required for review by Attorney General:	61,113
Required to have initiative on the ballot:	611,009
* Number currently valid:	460,318

* Currently Verified Totals are unofficial until the Initiative receives certification and a ballot number.

Approval Date:	02/09/2005
Undue Burden:	03/16/2005
Made Review:	08/22/2005
Attorney General:	08/24/2005
Sent to Supreme Court:	09/02/2005
Supreme Court Ruling:
SC Ruling Date:
Made Ballot:
Ballot Number:	0
Election Year:	2006

Download your Marriage Amendment Petition below:

Marriage Amendment Petition Standard                English           Spanish
Marriage Amendment Petition Bulletin                  English
Florida Voter Registration Form                             English           Spanish

Battle for Marriage Video

View without charge on the "Save America Now" Video Player.

On this video you will, as Chuck Colson says, "learn what you can do about the most dangerous issue in America."

UPGRADE TO WINDOWS MEDIA 9

To view correctly you must upgrade to the latest version of Windows Media Player 9. Upgrade now - Click Here

In eighteen states across

America

, people of all races, creeds and religions have spoken clearly by amending their state constitutions with overwhelming majorities to defend marriage from attack by a minority of people and activist judges who seek to totally redefine this sacred institution. Florida citizens also wish to add an amendment to our state constitution which will define marriage clearly and protect it from those that are willing to conduct a vast, untested, social experiment upon our children.

States who have approved a Marriage Amendment

Will you help Florida become the 19th State to protect the institution of marriage as God intended?

*******

IMPORTANT STATISTICS    As of April, 2005, 18 states have passed marriage protection amendments. The newest is Kansas on April 5, when voters approved a marriage amendment by 70% to 30%.

ALASKA 68.11% to 31.89%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage.

HAWAII      69.2% to 28.6%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage. State offers limited domestic partner benefits to homosexuals.

LOUISIANA: 78% to 22%. The amendment, passed in 2004, bans homosexual marriage and bans civil unions.

NEBRASKA: 70.1% to 29.9%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage and bans civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any “similar same-sex relationship.”

NOTE: On May 12, 2005, federal judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the Nebraska amendment was unconstitutional. The state is expected to appeal.

NEVADA: 67.1% to 32.7%. The amendment bans same-sex marriage.

MISSOURI: 70.7% to 29.3%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage.

In November, 2004, the following states passed marriage protection amendments:

ARKANSAS: 75% to 25%. The amendment bans homosexual marriages or any other arrangement between same sex individuals that is identical or similar to marriage. Civil unions are banned.

GEORGIA: 76% to 24%. The amendment bans same-sex marriage; bans any other union between persons of the same sex; and bans recognition of any out-of-state same-sex marriage. Civil unions are banned.

Kentucky: 75% to 25%. The amendment bans homosexual marriages and any arrangement that is similar or identical to traditional marriage. Civil unions are banned.

MICHIGAN: 59% to 41%. The amendment says: “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Civil unions are banned.

MISSISSIPPI: 86% to 14%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage and bans recognition of any same-sex marriage from another state. Civil unions are banned.

MONTANA: 67% to 33%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage and does not recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages.

NORTH DAKOTA: 73% to 27%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage and any “other domestic union, however denominated” that gives legal approval to homosexual marriage. Civil unions are banned.

OHIO: 62% to 38%. The amendment bans homosexual marriages and any other arrangement that “intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Civil unions are banned.

OKLAHOMA: 76% to 24%. The amendment bans homosexual marriages and does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. Civil unions are banned.

OREGON: 56% to 44%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage.

UTAH: 66% to 34%. The amendment bans homosexual marriage and any “other domestic union” that might be recognized as same-sex marriage. Civil unions are banned.

Excerpts taken from Traditional Values Coalition.

CHRISTIAN COALITION OF SOUTH FLORIDA Revised: November 7, 2005

CHRISTIAN COALITION OF SOUTH FLORIDA
Revised: November 7, 2005