Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle Talks About Democrats Against Gay Marriage

Florida's ballot measure to make it more difficult for judges to overturn the state's standing marriage ban has plenty of Republican supporters, but some prominent Democrats have declared themselves supporters of the measure. Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle is leading the pack of Democrats who support amending the state constitution to prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, The Miami Herald reported Wednesday.

"Democrats, Republicans, or independents -- marriage is a religious institution, and government should define it to be between a man and a woman," Naugle told The Advocate, which he mistook for a legal publication when he returned the magazine's call for comment on his opposition to marriage equality.

Naugle held a press conference Tuesday with a group of Democrats, including pastors and local activists, who agree with social conservatives leading the charge for Amendment 2. He mentioned that key blocs in the Democratic Party, such as Latinos, African-Americans, and Catholics, are showing support for the amendment.

"We also know that a majority of black Democrats are supporting this -- like 60% -- based on religious reasons," he said. He also said Latinos, many of whom in the state are Catholic, will be an important group of voters to pass the amendment.

Yes2Marriage, an organization supporting the amendment, is targeting various groups in Florida -- including Democrats, African-Americans, Latinos, young voters, and senior citizens -- that may boost the yes vote to the required 60% to pass the measure.

"Our internal polling indicates that Democrats strongly support keeping marriage defined between a man and a woman," Yes2Marriage's John Stemberger said in a press release. "This is an issue that many Democratic families understand, and we believe they will support Amendment 2."

The Fort Lauderdale city commission, which Naugle heads as mayor, failed to pass a resolution opposing the amendment on Tuesday, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Vice Mayor Charlotte Rodstrom reportedly asked for a resolution from the commission, but none of the commissioners would offer the motion for a vote.

The amendment proposes to ensure that marriage maintains a legal union between a man and a woman, providing that "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The opposition to the amendment says it would further limit arrangements like registered domestic partnerships, but Naugle says that won't happen.

"In Broward County we have a domestic-partnership ordinance, so [gay couples] can have many of the rights that straight couples have," he said. "No one's going to lose any benefits; seniors aren't going to be hurt. It just simply defines marriage between one man and one woman."

While some municipalities in Florida offer domestic partnerships, Florida does not offer a statewide registry.

In the past year Naugle has become a sharp critic of LGBT people. In 2007 he supported a $250,000 single-occupancy toilet, which he claimed would reduce gay sex in public restrooms. He also opposed moving the Stonewall Library into a city building. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate)

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Name: Frank Erdman
Date posted: 2008-10-09 4:29 PM
Hometown: Austin

Comment:

Mayor Naugle is mistaken. Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious institution. The Greeks and Romans had marriage a long time before Christianity entered the scene. Marriage can be a religious ceremony for different religions, but that is neither here nor there with respect to its civil definition. Marriage equality is about the civil institution of marriage, it says nothing about what different religions should do about it. So, Mayor Naugle, last time I checked we had separation of church and state. So if your religion has particular views about marriage fine, but these should not be imposed by the state, for then the state would be favoring somebody's religion, namely yours, and that is unconstitutional. The religious argument against equality is a red herring. Civil institutions including marriage are the jurisdiction of the state. Simple as that. We go down the Mayor's road and pretty soon we will have laws to ban people from working on Sundays, etc. etc.

Name: Bear
Date posted: 2008-10-09 2:30 PM
Hometown: Cordova, TN

Comment:

If memory serves me correctly, there is supposed to be a separation of CHURCH and STATE. Everybody is quick to jump on that bandwagon when it's convenient for them. My question, for all of the politcal genius' that are running this country and have such a hard time with the gay marriage concept, is this: Why do married (CHURCH) couples get so many laws (STATE and federal) that other couples can't have, if it's a Religious Institution??? Why can't I see my partner, while he's in the hospital, but a married man can see his wife, if it is a Religious Institution? What does religion have to do with taxes, medical, work, or any other benefits that married couples get, that we can't have. One word-HIPOCRACY!!! I got news for them. I'm going to Hell for a whole more than being gay.

Name: Chris Sullivan
Date posted: 2008-10-09 10:18 AM
Hometown: Chicago, IL

Comment:

Ft. Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle is a Democrat in name only and a total ass entirely. His campaign re public toilets and supposed rampant gay sex on beaches (which their own police admit was never a problem) is interesting in that it shows a preoccupation with gay people and gay sex. I wouldn't be surprised if this nutjob is found to be paying off a "male massage therapist" one of these days and gets outed for a self-loathig closet queen. I feel bad for Ft. Lauderdale - it's a great place actually, I think better than Miami - but they do seem to have a very ineffective political support system for GLBT people. How quickly they forget that GLBT people were the ones who kept pumping in a lot of revenue after their hurricane a few years ago. Perhaps when they lose enough money, they will wake up.

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

Error:Server capacity reached.

Error:Server capacity reached.