Charlie Crist and Gay Families

Florida governor Charlie Crist has been in the news lately, first for his being named in the new Kirby Dick film Outrage, and now for announcing that after one term as governor he is throwing his name into the ring to run for Senate. Nate Silver has done a good job at looking at the impact of Crist and his stances on certain issues. One of these issues is his stance on gay rights. Nate writes:

Crist supports civil unions but not gay marriage, and was a somewhat lukewarm supporter of Florida's Amendment 2, which passed in November and amended Florida's constitution to ban gay marriage. Crist has also stated that he opposes any change to Florida's longstanding ban on gay adoptions.

I'd like to examine this stance a little further, because it is a little bit interesting to me.

So Charlie Crist (who happens to be an alleged closeted homosexual), supports banning gay marriage, but supports civil unions, but supports banning gay adoptions. Incidentally, gays can be foster parents in FL, just not adopt the kids. This actually tells me a lot about Crist. It tells me that he views civil unions as purely contractual agreements that couples are making and that he is ok with that. What he is not ok with is the idea of gay people as families. In fact, the article that mentions Crist being against gay adoptions states

Governor Charlie Crist has said he opposes any change to Florida's ban on gay adoption. He and other Republican lawmakers say a traditional family provides the best environment for children.

What strikes me as odd about this is: Aren't these children who are in need of adoption already not in "traditional" famlies? Is Crist (and his Republican cohorts) implying that children who are living with foster parents or in orphanages, with no sense of permanence or stable family life, are better off than being placed in a permanent home with two parents who really want them?

Furthermore, is this the weight that the gay marriage debate holds for Crist? If two people, regardless of sex and gender, are allowed to get married, which to the conservatives is an absolute synonym for "family," then the adoption ban would certainly be challenged.

It seems to me that Crist doesn't have a problem with gay people being together, he just has a problem with them being real families. Of course, I can't help but wonder if he really feels this way, if he is compensating for something, or if he is pandering to his party. He's fairly moderate, so I wouldn't guess the latter. Of either the first two, I'd guess that Charlie Crist is pretty self-loathing for his stances.

Charlie Crist and Gay Families

From Garden State Equality: Please call Senators Codey and Sarlo TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009

Starting at 9:30 am TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009 - this can't wait until after today - we ask each of you, no matter where in New Jersey you live, to call Senate President Dick Codey at (973) 731-6770 and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo at (201) 804-8118. It's got to be today and will only take moments of your time.

Here is your message:

"Has the Senator seen page 24 of today's Star-Ledger? The article reports that a country club tried to deny equal membership to a gay couple because they are not married and cannot marry in New Jersey. Tell the Senator to read page 24 and that I support marriage equality!"

Mention page 24 in your message. Senators Codey and Sarlo read the hard copy of the Ledger every day. Let's make sure they get to page 24. For your edification, here is the article:

The Star-Ledger, Friday, April 3, 2009
COUNTRY CLUB SNUB SPURS CALL FOR EQUALITY
Gay couple says marriage would have prevented misunderstanding
By Paul Brubaker

When Michael Norton responded to the Glen Ridge Country Club's advertisement for new members, all he wanted was a pool here he could keep cool this summer.

But when Norton asked if a membership would include his domestic partner -- the same way the club allows married members to include their spouses on their memberships -- a club administrator gave him the cold shoulder.

"It was unbelievable. I thought I was kicked in the stomach," Norton, 58, of Bloomfield said yesterday.

Barry Schrager, president of the country club's nine-member board, said Norton and his partner, Stewart D. Grossman, 62, were victims of an unfortunate misunderstanding that stemmed from the employee's error in stating the club's membership policy. The club abides by state law, which recognizes same-sex couples as civil unions and domestic partners, he said.

Grossman and his partner did not pursue a membership, but as the two men are preparing to file allegations with the N.J. Division of Civil Rights against the 115-year-old club, they say the problem is bigger than just one country club's gatekeeper. Their situation would have been avoided if state laws would allow them to say they are married.

"The equality is in the word," Grossman said. "If you tell people you're married, people know what that means."

Stephen Hyland, a Westwood family law attorney who has many gay and lesbian couples as clients, said the Glen Ridge Country Club incident could be attributed to the legal prohibition of the word "marriage" with regard to same-sex couples.

"If this couple had been able to marry, then there would not have been any need to explain anything further," Hyland said. "On the other hand, if you have to leave it up to an individual, then these things are going to pop up."

Norton e-mailed Amy Sikkerboll, the club's controller, on March 23 asking about membership fees for the club's house and pool, according to an e-mail exchange provided by the couple's attorney. He had read the club's advertisement in a community newspaper calling for new members.
Norton later sent a follow-up message asking if Grossman would be included in the membership.

Sikkerboll responded with an e-mail stating "Memberships include spouses but not significant others."

In a later message, Sikkerboll wrote, "This is a very old rule still in force that says couples must be married. There is ongoing discussion at the board level and hopefully it will be changed in the near future."

Sikkerboll did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Schrager, the club's board president, released a statement on Thursday saying the club's policy is to consider all applicants without reference to race, religion or gender. He added that the club recognized all couples sanctioned by state law, including domestic partnerships and civil unions.
"This has been and continues to be the policy of Glen Ridge Country Club," Schrager stated.

In a telephone interview, Schrager said that Sikkerboll's e-mailed statements about the club's policies were incorrect. "The truth is, this club is very different. It's a very welcoming environment. We welcome people of all backgrounds," Schrager said. "It's kind of ironic that this occurred."

David Wald, spokesman for the state Division of Civil Rights, said that authorities were aware of the situation. An investigation would not begin until a formal complaint was filed.

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said Norton and Grossman's experience at the country club was not unique, and that the organization has received thousands of complaints of discrimination against domestic partners. "This case is Exhibit A of why we at Garden State Equality are calling for marriage equality," Goldstein said. "This should be a wake-up call to every one of the 120 state legislators. Wake up and smell the inequality that same-sex couples endure."

Schrager said the Glen Ridge Country Club changed its membership policy more than a decade ago to include women.

Asked if the club ever excluded groups other than women from membership Schrager said, "There is no institutional memory. As the laws have evolved, we've evolved."

From Garden State Equality: Please call Senators Codey and Sarlo TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009

A Puzzlement: Why Aren't the Gays Headed for IOWA?

I am going to now rip off some of Wikipedia:

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Iowa was allowed for a short time from August 30 to August 31, 2007, in Polk County as a result of a ruling by Robert Hanson, a judge in the Polk County District Court, in Varnum v. Brien.
The ruling was made as a result of a suit brought against Polk County by six same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses. Hanson's ruling states, in part, that

Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex.

Polk County has appealed the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case on December 9, 2008.

So, my gay friends. While you are picketing the Mormon Church in New York as a result of an amendment that has already passed in California, there is an actual state Supreme Court hearing in less than a month in the state of Iowa. You know... the state that just swung hard for Barack Obama. And while this is not something that requires a vote by the people that we need to campaign for, it certainly seems like a more advantageous use of our time and effort to bring forth visibility there.

Don't let this opportunity slip through the fingers because we were too busy being dramatic about Prop 8!

A Puzzlement: Why Aren't the Gays Headed for IOWA?