Broward Republican Leader Rejects Call to Support Gay Marriage
BY BUDDY NEVINS
You have to hand it to Mitch Ceasar. The Democratic chair has a sense of humor.
Ceasar today asked Broward Republican Chair Tom Truex to join him in supporting same sex marriage.
Since he surely knew what the answer would be, it was Ceasar’s way of tweaking the newly-elected Republican leader.
If Ceasar thought he put Truex in a box, the Republican leader quickly worked his way out of it.
Truex parried Ceasar’s e-mail with a light shot at the Democrat. Then he used the opportunity the e-mail provided to outline the Republican position on same sex marriage.
“You call it a letter,” Truex quipped. “I call it a press release. If Mr. Ceasar wants to discuss this, he should call me.”
Truex quickly went on to point out that the Republican platform supports The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Florida’s Legislature passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman in 1997. Voters in 2008 passed a similar constitutional amendment.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act is one of the measures being heard by the U. S. Supreme Court this week.
“The Defense of Marriage Act defines the rights of Floridians to define marriage. Any changes of that (act) should be done by Floridians and not through a court,” Truex said.
“The institution of marriage is something that has been in effect since the beginning of time until now,” he said. “It is not something we should fiddle with.”
Ceasar accomplished three things with his e-mail.
First, he emphasized the Republicans’ problem with same sex marriage in a county that is very favorable towards gays. Second, he strengthened his standing in the gay community, one of the pillars of the Democratic coalition in South Florida.
Three, of course, Ceasar got a little media attention for himself.
Here is Ceasar’s letter to Truex (click to enlarge):
March 27th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
As a BREC member I hope our Chair agrees with and joins Ceaser in his support of gay marriage. As Chair he serves all Broward Republicans and I hope he can set aside his personal views to be inclusive.
I also hope if BREC is truly changing its ways it needs to rid itself of people of questionable character like Michael DeGruccio. He is the last holdover from the DiNapoli era (aka disaster) and we need to clean out the shady characters that overshadow regular BREC Members who just want to work to have our own get elected and are not looking for personal benefit like Ben Bennett and Rico.
March 27th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Stick it to him, Mitch! 🙂
March 27th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Mr. Truex has a point. We have had a definition of marriage for thousands of years. Democrats want to rush to change it without waiting to see the financial and societal ramifications.
Give any couple all the rights of a couple involving a man and a woman. Don’t call them married until we are absolutely sure that is the way we want to go.
March 27th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
High court skeptical of federal marriage law
BY MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — In a major gay rights case, the Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it could strike down the law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits that go to other married people.
March 27th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
And Republicans wonder why they are doing poorly and can’t get more followers?
They have admitted they are having problems with minorities, women, the youth and gays. Well that is more than half the people in the country. Their largest support is from white older men, preferably wealthy.
Their answer is that they can’t get their message across. It’s a communication problem.
The problem IS their message and that they have communicated it.
Until they wake up and realize that the majority of Americans don’t agree with Republicans (mostly because of what they stand for and the right wing extremists in the party), they will continue to have a real problem in the future.
March 27th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
@Gopapa Here is a story about how the law adversely affected a same sex marriage couple in Florida.
March 27th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
The professional republicans at the federal level have shown why the national party is falling to pieces, while the amateurs in Tally are dragging themselves down with their anti-everybody-who-doesn’t-look-like-them and special interest legislative agenda, and the local groups are continuing to pander to the conservative christian base and the BREC leadership is at war with one another.
Patrick J. Buchanan said it best in his column on Monday, “Americans who adhere to this traditional morality, rooted in Christian tradition and Biblical truth, are culturally outgunned and may now be outnumbered. They may have lost America for good.
What can the GOP do about this? Nothing.”
Its disappointing that the people who profess to love Jesus, don’t follow his example, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-40). These right-wing ideologue hypocrites hate tree huggers, science, gays, pro-gun control efforts, government help for the needy and poor, love the death penalty and support war. When their raptures come, they may be the first to go down.
My 19 yr old daughter said it right at breakfast this morning, It seems the only thing that changes these closed-minded bigots is when one of their children comes out of the closet.
Popcorn anyone?
March 27th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Mr. Chatty Chippy on facebook so where do you stand on gay marriage. You sticking with your party and Truex? Lots of voters in Victoria Park want to know where you stand.
March 27th, 2013 at 11:17 pm
@where is chippy get your districts right, Victoria Park is in Tim Ryan’s district!
I love how the same 3 or 4 people keep making all of the stories about LaMarca in the comments.
You people need lives!
March 28th, 2013 at 8:57 am
I guess Beavis didn’t get the memo from the RNC!
March 28th, 2013 at 9:54 am
Buchanan’s analysis is incomplete. The GOP has at least two possible courses of action, each with accompanying consequences.
The first option is to follow the Truex policy of advocating bigotry and disrespecting the Constitutional rights of others. The consequence is that the gay community and its straight allies will maintain and intensify their outrage and continue to pummel the GOP, both in court and on Election Day.
The second option is to do the unthinkable – to actually accept the Constitution and all of the civil rights and liberties it provides. That means understanding and accepting that the First Amendment is not there to protect popular speech (since popular speech needs no protection) – it exists solely to protect unpopular speech (flag burning, etc.). And it means accepting that the freedom to marry is a fundamental human right for everyone, regardless of whether or not the resulting family is politically popular.
Social conservatives don’t have to sit at the back of the bus, but they do need to learn that it’s absolutely not OK to assault the other passengers!
March 28th, 2013 at 10:31 am
Victoria Park isn’t in Chip’s district. He will swirl some wine and stay quiet.
March 28th, 2013 at 10:57 am
One thing is seems to be certain, LaMarca is against gay marriage. Try and confuse the issue all you want crying about who is saying what about Chip, by not answering the question his position is clear.
March 28th, 2013 at 5:50 pm
I’m trying to find out which state voted on gay marriage and gay marriage won. Anybody have the answer to that one?
March 28th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/what-is-the-fiscal-impact-of-gay-marriage-.html
What Is the Fiscal Impact of Gay Marriage?
[…] There’s been a surprisingly large amount of research into this question, and the answer is that same-sex marriage would probably improve governments’ fiscal situations a little. […] Marriage is a structure through which people depend on each other, so they don’t have to depend on the government. For gay men and lesbians to take advantage of that fiscally friendly option, the government has to make it legal for us to marry.
March 28th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Perhaps Mr. Ceasar sould look at his own party first. Senator Bill is opposed to gay marriage.
March 29th, 2013 at 3:37 am
@14 – here are two:
——-
http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/vermont-marriage-relationship-recognition-law
On April 7, 2009, the Vermont legislature enacted SB. 115 over Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto, providing marriage equality under state law for lesbian and gay couples. The law took effect on September 1, 2009.
——-
http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/new-york-marriage-relationship-recognition-law
As of July 24, 2011, same-sex couples may obtain marriage licenses in New York. The New York State Legislature passed the “Marriage Equality Act” of 2011 on June 24, 2011 and Governor Cuomo immediately signed the bill into law.
March 29th, 2013 at 3:45 am
@14 – one more:
——–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire
Same-sex marriage became legal in the U.S. state of New Hampshire on January 1, 2010, replacing civil unions. […] Legislation for same-sex marriage was signed into law by the governor on June 3, 2009.
——–
And two states approved pro-SSM referendums in 2012:
——–
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage
Voters in Maine and Maryland approve same-sex marriage
March 29th, 2013 at 7:45 am
modeengunch,
Your answer is Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted on gay marriage and gay marriage won..
Minnesota rejected an amendment to its state constitution banning same-sex marriage. So the public voted which is the equivalent of the public approving it to stay as law to allow.
March 29th, 2013 at 10:04 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington_State
Same-sex marriage in Washington state has been legal since December 6, 2012.
On February 13, 2012, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed a same-sex marriage bill that had been passed by both houses of the state legislature. Voters approved the legislation in a referendum held on November 6, 2012. The law took effect on December 6. […]
March 29th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
So you BF’s have 3 out of 50 states where you are welcome by a small majority of voters. Get moving. We’ll miss ya.
March 30th, 2013 at 1:05 am
@21 – Not a chance. The Rodstrom campaign already experienced the force of those who oppose bigotry in Florida. She had to make way for a dedicated fighter for equality in Florida. More to come! 🙂
March 30th, 2013 at 7:50 am
@hahaha
while I support freedom to marry, as a Republican and constitutionalist, I don’t think the first amendment or the constitution guarantees such a freedom. Sure you can bring me your constitutional arguments, but who knows for sure? But how many times have you seen an outcome like: “Everybody is equally able to marry anybody of their choosing within the definition, just as anybody else. Everybody is restricted from marrying in the same sex and all allowed to marry opposite sex.”
Sometimes the right thing to do is just the right thing to do.
March 30th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
@23 – The First Amendment is only tangentially related to marriage. I cited it only in the context of flag burning, as an illustration of how constitutional rights work.
——–
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZS.html
Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397)
United States Supreme Court
June 21, 1989
[…] Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted, “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” […] a principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. […] If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. […] If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. […] the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message […] The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. […]
——
As for marriage itself, I refer you to this very, very well written explanation:
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-8-4-PerryvSchwartzenegger-Decision.pdf
March 30th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
@23 – see also Lawrence v. Texas…
—–
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (539 U.S. 558)
United States Supreme Court
June 26, 2003
[…] the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” […]
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. […]
March 30th, 2013 at 4:10 pm
I personally heard Lamarca say he is not against gay marriage. He is Catholic and said his church opposes it but he thinks gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals. This was during the Giuliani campaign for the GOP nomination, cannot imagine his views have changed. Pretty sure he voted in favor of benefits for domestic partners for Broward Employees as well.
March 30th, 2013 at 5:10 pm
@22 – I didn’t see that as a big issue. Course I guess the gays vote like the blacks.
March 30th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
1. Broward Commissioner Chip “foreclosure” LaMarca was against gay marriage when he was a Lighthouse City Commissioner. He had the “marriage is between one man-one woman” like on his Facebook page and freely expressed his views back then.
2. Broward Commissioner “I drive a new jag while my house is in foreclosure” Chip LaMarca hasn’t voted for domestic partner benefits for broward employees because the vote was 10 years ago.
I’m a gay republican broward employee for 14 years. This guy is a joke and will not be reelected unless he draws no opposition. Having been around politics for more than 14 years, I predict he goes down in 2014.
March 30th, 2013 at 7:07 pm
A lot of people are in the process of changing their minds. Like, for example, President Obama. When he first ran for President in 2008, he was AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. When he ran for re-election in 2012, he changed his mind and now he was FOR GAY MARRIAGE.
March 30th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Hmmm, LaMarca supporter who knew him from Rudy, aware of his catholic views and knows what he voted on at the County. Sounds like a sermon from a future priest if you ask me. Maybe Chip should say somthing on Facebook if he feels this way.
March 31st, 2013 at 3:22 pm
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/03/florida-miscellany.html
Public Policy Polling – Florida
March 20, 2013
[…] 75% of Florida voters support at least civil unions for same sex couples, compared to only 23% who think there should be no form of legal recognition for them. 80% of independents, 74% of Republicans, and 72% of Democrats support either gay marriage or civil unions.
When asked about the specific domestic partner bill that was recently introduced in the Florida legislature though, 60% of voters said they had no opinion, with 23% supportive of and 17% opposed to it. Those numbers mostly reflect the average voter not paying much attention to the legislature. […]
March 31st, 2013 at 3:36 pm
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_320.pdf
[…] When asked about their views on legal rights for same sex couples, 38% of Florida voters think gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, 37% think gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry, only 23% think there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship and 2% were unsure.
More specific to Florida, 23% of voters support the domestic partnership bill in the Florida legislature while 17% oppose it (60% of the voters were unsure of the legislation).
“Florida voters support moving forward on the issues of immigration and gay rights,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “There’s pretty strong support for a path to citizenship and for civil unions.”
PPP surveyed 500 Florida voters from March 15th to 18th. The margin of error is +/- 4.4%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. […]
2012 Vote All Voters Obama
Gay marriage 38% 60%
Civil Unions 37% 18%
No Recognition 23% 18%
Not Sure 2% 4%
2012 Vote Romney Not Sure
Gay marriage 13% 59%
Civil Unions 59% 8%
No Recognition 28% 33%
Not Sure 0% 0%
March 31st, 2013 at 10:45 pm
@22 Rodstrom did not lose because of bigotry, she lost because she quit her seat after getting elected 2 weeks before. This caused a $225000 election.
Some in the gay community voted for Trantalis because he is gay. The smarter, educated voters voted for him because he was the better of the two candidates.
April 1st, 2013 at 7:08 pm
@33 – Trantalis won by a margin of exactly 20 votes, 1,545 to 1,525. Here is just ONE example of how Mallory Wells of Equality Florida Action PAC hammered Rodstrom:
——-
Friend,
Can you spare two hours of your time for Equality?
On March 12th the City of Ft. Lauderdale has an opportunity to elect a City Commissioner who has spent a lifetime as a leader for LGBT civil rights and equality. We need volunteers on Monday, March 11th to help elect Dean Trantalis to the Ft. Lauderdale City Commission, District 2.
This race is incredibly important for the entire LGBT community and our allies in Broward County. No matter where you live, we need your help. Click here to sign up.
We’ve identified hundreds of gay and pro-gay voters in Ft. Lauderdale and we can help Dean Trantalis win this election but we can’t do this without you. […] With one final push we know we can make a difference in this race.
Please join Equality Florida on Monday, 3/11/13 from 6PM-8:30PM and help us get out the equality vote in Ft. Lauderdale.
This race could be decided by a few votes and Broward County’s LGBT community could make a defining difference.
Onward,
(signed)
Mallory Wells
Equality Florida Action PAC, Chair
Why Dean Trantalis?
We have an opportunity to elect one of our community’s leading advocates to the Fort Lauderdale City Commission. Dean Trantalis began his LGBT activism in 1990 as part of the effort to add sexual orientation to the Broward County human rights ordinance. As an attorney, Dean co-wrote the ordinance that passed in 1995 and later helped to write the ordinance that created Broward’s landmark domestic partnership registry in 1999. In addition to his LGBT advocacy, Dean has been an active member of the Broward community. For five years he served as a member of the Ft. Lauderdale Citizen’s Review Board, and previously as the Ft. Lauderdale District II City Commissioner. Currently, he is a board member of the Broward House and the Oakland Park-Wilton Manors Chamber of Commerce.
Paid political advertisement, paid for by Equality Florida Action PAC,
P.O. Box 13184 St. Petersburg, Fl 33733
Approved by Dean Trantalis
———
Note the bold-printed sentence above, which was written back in February and proved to be exceedingly prescient!
Now here is the post-election victory announcement from Equality Florida Action PAC:
———
Equality Florida Action PAC endorsed and openly LGBT candidate for Ft. Lauderdale City Commission, Dean Trantalis won his race Tuesday night in a nail biting victory by 19 votes! For weeks, Equality Florida Action PAC has been working hard to mobilize support, volunteers and voters in Dean’s district to help him clinch this important victory for Broward County.
Dean began his LGBT activism in 1990 as part of the effort to add sexual orientation to the Broward County human rights ordinance. He co-wrote the ordinance that passed in 1995 and later helped to write the ordinance that created Broward’s landmark domestic partnership registry in 1999. As City Commissioner, Dean will continue to be an outspoken advocate for equality.
——–
The evidence is clear: the 20-vote margin of victory was a direct result of the highly effective volunteer and voter mobilization efforts of Equality Florida Action PAC.
Some voters were directly endorsing the idea of electing an outspoken advocate for equality. Other voters came indirectly as a result of the efforts of the campaign volunteers that Equality Florida Action PAC mobilized, and those voters were influenced by those campaign volunteers to vote for Trantalis for other reasons (including all the ones you listed).
Either directly or indirectly, Equality Florida Action PAC unquestionably delivered enough votes to Trantalis to cause Trantalis to win the election – an election he would otherwise have lost.
April 4th, 2013 at 7:22 pm
@16 Here ya go…
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/bill-nelson-changes-position-supports-gay-marriage/2113230
Bill Nelson changes position, supports gay marriage
Alex Leary, Times Staff Writer
Thursday, April 4, 2013 5:29pm
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson reversed his opposition to gay marriage on Thursday, joining a swell of moderate Democrats to do so recently as public support for gay marriage has grown.
April 11th, 2013 at 3:20 am
FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted that just before His return as Judge, there will be a strange, spontaneous, mind-twisting fad – a global steamroller notable for its speed, boldness, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He called this worldwide craze the repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). By helping to fulfill this worldwide mania quietly coordinated by unseen spirit beings, gays are actually hurrying up Christ’s return to earth and making the Bible even more believable!
They’ve actually invented strange architecture: closets opening not on to bedrooms but on to Main Streets where kids can see naked men having sex in “Madam” Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco Brothel District. We wonder how soon S.F.’s underground saint – San Andreas – will get a 10-point jolt out of what goes on over his head (see the dire prediction about cities in Revelation 16:19)!
What’s really scary is the “reprobate mind” phrase in Romans 1:28. A person can sear his conscience so much God turns him over to S, the universal leader of evil who can turn such a person into Mr. Possessed with a super-human strength that many cops together have trouble restraining.
Remember, gays don’t have to stay bound to their slavery. Their emancipation is found in a 5-letter name starting with J – no, not James or Julia. As soon as they can find out the all-powerful J name, gays will really start living!