|
As
most
political
observers
may
have
expected,
by
the
end
of
Tuesday
night’s
ACLU-sponsored
debate
about
a
state
ballot
initiative
to
ban
gay
marriage,
it
was
clear
that
there
would
be
no
common
ground,
much
less
understanding,
between
proponents
of
same-sex
marriage
and
their
opposition.
“We’ve
gotten
to
the
core
of
what
will
be
on
the
ballot,”
surmised
panelist
Nadine
Smith,
executive
director
of
Equality
Florida.
“We’ve
seen
what
kind
of
appeal
to
prejudice
will
be
heard.”
On
one
side
of
the
room,
supporters
of
same-sex
marriage
expressed
frustration.
After
more
than
two
hours,
their
arguments
about
the
separation
of
church
and
state
were
met
only
by
religious
rhetoric
and
biblical
quotes.
On
the
other
side,
members
of
the
Apostolic
Revival
Center
stood
around
with
what
appeared
to
be
self-righteous
smirks
on
their
faces.
The
church
members
seemed
to
make
no
attempt
to
consider
a
perspective
that
was
not
prefaced
with
the
term
“God’s
word.”
Although
journalist
Jim
DeFede
tried
to
maintain
order
by
asking
the
audience
to
ask
questions
instead
of
giving
speeches,
his
rules
were
eventually
thrown
aside
as
both
sides
spoke
out
of
turn
and
heatedly
abandoned
protocol.
The
crowd
gathered
at
Temple
Israel
in
Miami
to
hear
the
debate,
titled
“The
Gay
Marriage
Ban:
What’s
the
Real
Story.”
Panelists
attempted
to
get
to
the
bottom
line
of
the
proposed
amendment
to
the
state
constitution,
which
bans
same-sex
couples
from
marrying
legally.
Rev.
Nathaniel
Wilcox,
of
Apostolic
Revival
Center,
and
conservative
attorney
Jack
Thompson
faced
off
against
Karen
Doering,
senior
council
for
the
National
Center
for
Lesbian
Rights
and
Equality
Florida’s
Nadine
Smith.
Doering
and
Smith
argued
that
the
amendment
would
only
hurt
families
and
cross
the
line
between
secular
law
and
religious
dogma.
Thompson
and
Wilcox
repeatedly
brought
every
discussion
back
to
moralistic
and
Christianbased
rhetoric.
“Two
men
married
is
nothing
but
absolute
corruption,”
Wilcox
began.
“I’m
not
going
to
throw
my
morality
aside
because
the
other
side
doesn’t
want
me
to
have
[it].”
Wilcox
did
not
veer
from
his
Biblebased
logic.
Throughout
the
two-hour
discussion,
he
declared
same-sex
marriage
as
an
abomination.
Although
Thompson
attempted
to
offset
Wilcox’s
religious
fervor
with
the
an
even,
legalistic
tone,
he
continued
to
argue
along
moral
lines
and
repeatedly
asserted
that
same-sex
marriage
would
lead
to
depopulation
and
the
destruction
of
a
civil
society.
Doering
and
Smith
countered
by
arguing
that
the
amendment
was
not
only
harmful
to
families,
but
that
Wilcox
and
Thompson’s
arguments
were
the
same
type
of
arguments
used
to
fight
abolition
of
slavery,
oppose
women’s
rights
and
resist
interracial
marriage.
As
Doering
and
Smith
argued
that
secular
same-sex
marriage
would
not
affect
church-based
marriage,
it
was
clear
that
their
opponents
on
the
panel
and
in
the
audience
would
not
even
try
to
recognize
the
difference.
Doering
and
Smith
pointed
out
that
Wilcox
and
Thompson’s
morality-based
arguments
had
no
place
in
creating
law.
Wilcox
countered
by
saying
that
samesex
marriage
would
lead
to
pedophilia,
and
“sexually
sordid
things.”
Thompson’s
face
turned
red
and
he
walked
out
of
the
debate
when
Smith
made
him
admit
that
he
agreed
with
Wilcox’s
moralistic
screed.
Earlier,
Thompson
had
said
that
the
amendment
was
not
necessary
when
asked
by
DeFede.
“The
fear
is
that
an
activist
judge
will
enter
an
opinion
[granting
marriage].”
Thompson
said.
“This
is
a
preventative
strike
on
an
anticipated
judicial
opinion.”
Doering
put
him
in
check
when
she
countered,
“The
last
time
someone
tried
to
sell
me
on
a
preventative
strike….”
She
was
referring
to
the
Iraq
war.
Proponents
of
the
defense
of
marriage
act
are
gathering
signatures
and
lobbying
to
get
the
measure
on
the
November
2008
Florida
ballot.
 |
 |
| The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by floridablade.com. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed. |
|
|
Karen Doering, senior counsel with the National
Center for Lesbian Rights, argued that the anti-gay marriage amendment
would just hurt families and violate the separation of church and
state. (Photo by Juan Carlos Rodriguez)" border="1">
