Charlie Crist | Florida | Gay Marriage | News | Republican Party

BigGayDeal.com

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist Against Funding Gay Marriage Foes

Florida Governor Charlie Crist today said that the Republican Party should not spend any more money funding groups pushing for a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in that state.

CristSaid Crist: ''I just think [the Republican Party's] money can be better spent on other things that may be more pressing, like elections, for example. I think that the people care about issues like insurance premiums. They care about property taxes. They care about public safety. And I think it's important that not only those of us in government -- but the party -- focus on those issues, too.''

Crist, who has both signed the petition opposing gay marriage and publicly endorsed it, expressed conflicting opinions on the topic in the run-up to the November elections.

There may be other reasons why Crist is trying to turn his party's focus away from gay issues. During Crist's recent campaign for governor, his independent opponent Max Linn called on Crist to come out of the closet, saying ""it is common knowledge in Tallahassee that Crist is gay."

Crist has denied the claims, telling a reporter for Florida's New Times that he has "never" had sex with a man.

And Florida's previous governor Jeb Bush deflected questions about sexuality on Crist's behalf last November, telling a reporter who dared to ask the question: "Put a smile on your face and don't be such a horse's ass."

Max Staver, an attorney who argued for the amendment before Florida's highest court, told the Miami Herald: "Charlie Crist has his priorities misplaced if he thinks it's not money well spent. It's one of the most important issues government can face. It deals with the marriage and the family."

Of course the reason he's decided marriage doesn't deserve protection may be that Charlie Crist's first priority is to protect himself.

Crist: Issues 'more pressing' than gay marriage [miami herald]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Color me shocked, shocked I say, at a politician whose first (and usually only) instinct is to protect himself. Crist is obviously homosexual in the Foley/Huggard mold. (Emphasis on mold.)
    Crist is trying to have it all ways and is playing the word parsing game by stating he "never" had sex with a man. Remind you of another politician? I guess it depends (in his mind) on the definition of 'sex' or 'man'. Sooner or later the video of him in The Keys (contradicting his statement) will appear. Mark my words.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 13, 2007 12:19:51 PM


  2. Andy--I started reading this story feeling sympathetic towards the guy (a politico with sense in FLORIDA of all places--he can't be FROM there!), and ended up feeling contempt towards him. This just goes to show you choose to run complex, nuanced, real-world, multi-viewpoint stories. Thanks...

    Posted by: stony_curtis | Feb 13, 2007 12:27:34 PM


  3. Andy--I started reading this story feeling sympathetic towards the guy (a politico with sense in FLORIDA of all places--he can't be FROM there!), and ended up feeling contempt towards him. This just goes to show you choose to run complex, nuanced, real-world, multi-viewpoint stories. Thanks...

    Posted by: stony_curtis | Feb 13, 2007 12:28:33 PM


  4. Opportunist--like any politician.

    I think it is a wise move on his part, though it seems he's trying to placate the gay voters who want to out him.

    Posted by: dc-20008 | Feb 13, 2007 12:31:02 PM


  5. I hate to say this but as a liberal Democrat in Tampa, Crist is all right. His statement may be political sounding but he is doing what the people have been asking for, which is issues that have been hurting the middle class. He is a 100% change from future VP candidate JEB. No comparison, JEB was the worst governor that any state could be afraid of. Crist is better than we could have hoped for.

    Posted by: gay is the new straight | Feb 13, 2007 12:41:49 PM


  6. "Charlie Crist has his priorities misplaced if he thinks it's not money well spent. It's one of the most important issues government can face. It deals with the marriage and the family."

    Wow, what a world-class first-degree bullshitter that guy is.

    Posted by: FML | Feb 13, 2007 12:46:12 PM


  7. presuming if they shift their spending, then gay people may stop spending so much money on such a stupid representation of travel or a larger picture -- i believe that they call them cruise lines or a bump or a toke(n) of your appreciation. travel?? they ask. oh yes, a t-shirt in every port...yes, it fosters such in depth understanding beyond other global or domestic calamities. much as i'm sure someone pissing on bourbon street encapsulates the entire story of new orleans -- pre and post. but, on that story, funding hate campaigns -- tunnel vision -- that's why some people pummel homeless people with crobars.

    Posted by: ricardo | Feb 13, 2007 1:03:19 PM


  8. As Mr. Slave would say: "Oh, Jesus Crist!"

    Posted by: anon | Feb 13, 2007 1:30:58 PM


  9. Charlie Crist is probably a good governor on an objective basis, however, his inability (what else would you call it?) to face the world honestly creates this situation where he has to run between the raindrops on key issues to appease those who support him while not antagnozing (too much) those who would expose him.

    People. It's 2007, live in the truth. It's so much better for the skin.

    Posted by: hoya86 | Feb 13, 2007 2:57:21 PM


  10. I only wish that everyone would come out and face the world. I believe it is obvious that Crist is playing the middle and HOPING that no one calls him on it! I am trying to give him his space, but he is making it very difficult.

    Living in the closet only hurts the individual and no one else. The truth will set you free and I should know. My life began at 35!

    Posted by: RB | Feb 13, 2007 6:28:28 PM


  11. Is marriage a religious institution?

    Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop our belly aching about the issue of “gay marriage” until our work is done, and we have all the same rights that we deserve. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that even many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
    We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.

    We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. Besides many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. Does that then mean that married couples with children are less married? Or does it mean that they shouldn’t have sexual relations even though they know it will not produce children. I wonder then why God would make sexuality very pleasurable. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable if it were only for the purpose of having children. Beside we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.

    Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

    Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.

    Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408

    Posted by: aaron silver | Feb 13, 2007 7:41:48 PM


  12. Holy Shnikey, Aaron, that was a mouthful!!! I agree, but your beloved constitution is transgressed daily by everyone, especially by those in power, those pigs they call politicians. They simply are too far gone. America is (or has become) a trainwreck. The only thing left to do now is that when government or homophobes trangress your rights, smash a slate of the constitutional rights right on their heads = separation of church and state. That'll be a painful reminder that they are breaking the law.

    Posted by: Nikko | Feb 13, 2007 10:39:10 PM


  13. Wow, just when me and Ted Haggard were looking for a "3rd" for our Valentine's hoedown!! Perfect!!

    Posted by: Ray | Feb 13, 2007 10:48:32 PM


  14. Some of you are really disgusting. If he was a Democrat, you'd be calling his office asking where to donate. But because he's a Republican, you despise and mock him. The gay thought police lives!

    Posted by: Cyd | Feb 14, 2007 12:23:26 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Olympic Swimmer Michael Phelps: Ahead by a Hair« «