Alex Blaze

Charlie Crist doesn't support Florida's anti-marriage amendment

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 28, 2007 7:52 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, The Movement
Tags: Charlie Crist, closet cases, constitutional amendment, Florida, marriage, marriage amendment

Florida's anti-marriage amendment, which just got enough signatures a couple weeks ago to get on the ballot this November, can't even get the support of the state's Republican governor.

Thanks to Pam for finding this Palm Beach Post article that's one snap away from just calling Florida governor Charlie Crist a closet case:

To make matters worse, Florida now has a governor that is in no position to champion heterosexual marriage, either.

Three years ago, when the initiative started, Florida had a married governor.

But now we have Charlie Crist, whose one marriage lasted for six months, and who, despite his good looks, position of power and occupancy of a big, empty mansion in Tallahassee, can't seem to land a steady girlfriend.

Cough, cough, gay, cough, cough.

But on the amendment specifically:

He's no help at all. And even though he signed a petition to support the same-sex-marriage ban while he was running for office, he says he's not interested in pushing the issue anymore.

"It's not something that moves me," he said last week.

Sure, the amendment can move forward without the support of the state's top Republican, but it's not going to make it any easier.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

He's doing the Mitch Daniels tapdance. I'm not against it, but I'm not for it either.

Pshaw. If you can't stand up and say discrimination is flat-out wrong, you don't deserve to lead.

"Cough, cough, gay, cough, cough.

Being divorced & remaining single in spite of good looks = closet case?

Oh please....
Why do we always have to stoop to the lowest common denominator?

Not only does it distract from the real issue it makes us look bad.

Btw: I wanted to say that my comment was not intended to be personal. I just get frustrated with gay media and bloggers who jump to these assumptions.

For example: My mother's second husband also married once--to my mother--it lasted six months and he never remarried even though he's reasonably attractive. I am certain without doubt he is a card carrying hetero. So the assumptions made here seem a bit tactless.

While Charlie Crist says the amendment does not "move him", he did sign the petition to get it one the ballot. How much more supportive of something can you be than to sign a petition to get it on the ballot (during an election cycle? Hmm…)?

I hate politicians who want to have it both ways.

Being divorced & remaining single in spite of good looks = closet case?

No, but gay men saying they've slept with him a la Larry Craig & investigative reporting coupled with a buried story by the paper editors = probably a closet case. Throw in divorced & remaining single while avoiding anything remotely "gay" like it's on fire? I'd say there's a darn good chance.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with making judgements based on the information you have at the time. We do it all the time. If you see a big flamer walking down the street, you think "Gay." You might be wrong, but from experience you can make an "educated" guess. In this case it might be a guess, but there's a reason for it.

Being divorced & remaining single in spite of good looks = closet case?

Oh please....
Why do we always have to stoop to the lowest common denominator?

Um, no, I wasn't saying that that meant he was a closet case, I was saying that the writer was definitely implying that. Like I said in a comment to you on another post, I think readers who are paying attention can tell the difference.

And why is that the lowest common denominator? What's wrong with being gay?