>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 19:22:13 -0500 >From: "Doug Dankel" >Subject: Gay Rights Issue in FL The following was taken from the _Gainesville Sun_ on Monday 1/10. It is going to be real interesting to see what happens in the court. doug ---- Court Hears Argument in Proposed Amendment Gay-rights advocates launched a broad legal attack Friday before the state Supreme Court on a proposed ballot measure to exclude homosexuals from state civil-rights laws. Their first line of offense was, by their own admission, unusual. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Florida Bar Section on Public Interest Law and others argued the proposed constitutional amendment was so hostile to fundamental rights it should not even be put to a vote this November. Suzanne Goldberg of New York City said she realized it was "extraordinarily rare for this court ever to address constitutional issues regarding an initiative prior to an election." "Rare?" responded Justice Parker Lee McDonald. "It ain't ever been done." The conservative American Family Association of Florida, which is running the petition drive, must collect nearly 423,000 names by mid-August to make the ballot. The state Division of Elections already has 52,000 signatures in hand. The measure was before the court because all petition drives must be reviewed on two issues: whether they deal with a single subject and whether the ballot summary clearly explains the amendment. Goldberg said the court was not prohibited from considering constitutionality before election, and that if there was ever a measure that warranted such a review it was this one. This initiative would entirely change the type of citizenship that there is in Florida, and in doing so would put the fundamental rights of citizens up to popular vote," she said. Should the amendment make the ballot and be approved, only some citizens would be able to petition elected representatives to "seek redress of their grievances," she said. "What this initiative interferes with is the very right to participate in the process." Chesterfield Smith, a former president of the American Bar Association, argued the amendment failed to meet the single-issue and ballot summary requirements. AFA attorney Scott Thomas denied it would take away basic rights. "Fundamental rights of all people are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions," he said. "Those are not changed by this. It's additional rights that have been granted by law." David Caton, head of Florida's AFA group, said he wasn't optimistic. "We're very concerned that the court's going to take out on opportunity to blow out a technicality for what they perceive fitting in their own political agenda," he said. ---- Anti-Gay-Rights Law: Ballot and Amendment The ballot initiative sponsored by the American Family Association is titled "Laws Related to Discrimination Are Restricted to Certain Classifications." The language that would go on the ballot: Restricts laws related to discrimination to classifications based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, ethnic background, marital status or familiar status; Repeals all laws inconsistent with this provision. The language that would be added to the state constitution: The state, political subdivisions of the state, municipalities or any other governmental entities shall not enact or adopt any laws regarding discrimination against persons which creates, establishes or recognizes any right, privilege or protection for any person based upon any characteristic, trait, status, or condition other than race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, ethnic background, marital status or familiar status. As used herein, the term "sex" shall mean the biological state of being either a male person or a female person; 'marital status' shall mean the state of being lawfully married to a person of the opposite sex, separated, divorced, widowed or single; and 'familial status' shall mean the state of being a person domiciled with a minor, as defined by law, who is the parent or person with legal custody of such minor or who is a person with written permission from such parent or person with legal custody of such minor. All laws previously enacted which are inconsistent with this provision are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency. This amendment shall take effect on the date it is approved by the electorate.