Florida’s GOP Senate Candidates Say No To Gay Marriage


Florida’s four major Republican candidates vying for a U.S. senate seat made it known at a Florida Family Policy Council and West Orlando Tea Party sponsored debate Saturday that they are all opposed to gay marriage, civil unions and LGBT inclusive hate crimes laws.

The four potential U.S. senators include former Ruth’s Chris CEO Craig Miller, former U.S. senator George LeMieux, former state Rep. Adam Hasner, and retired Army Col. Mike McCalister. Interestingly, while their approaches on the issues may have been slightly different, all four found much to agree on, especially when it came to the topic of gay marriage. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they’re not fans, and three of the four said they definitely want to see a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage recognition.

From the Miami Herald:

The candidates – former Sen. George LeMieux, former state Rep. Adam Hasner, retired Army Col. Mike McCalister and former Ruth’s Chris CEO Craig Miller – all said they oppose embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and civil unions, providing gays and lesbians protection under hate crime laws, Internet gambling and the recent deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

“I do not see the need for hate crime legislation, every crime is hateful,” said LeMieux. “You don’t need a special category for anyone.”

“I’m opposed to same sex marriage whether it’s in New York or Florida or elsewhere,” Hasner said. “In every state where the voters have the opportunity, even in California, they’ve defended an institution of marriage between one man and one woman.”

McCalister was the only candidate to take a slightly different approach on this issue wherein he said that while he opposes gay marriage, he is a proponent of state rights to choose, indicating that while he might not support a federal marriage amendment, he would certainly advocate keeping the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in place.

More from Tallahassee.com:

When asked about New York’s recent legalization of gay marriage, the four Republicans said they supported the federal “defense of marriage act,” which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

“I think that’s how God intended it to be,” said Miller. “This direction, this slope we’re on, takes our country in a direction that we need not go.”

McCalister said that, as a 10th Amendment advocate, he would prefer to leave marriage to the states “but it has to be protected.” He said variations of the issue have been on the ballot in 32 states — including Florida, which outlawed gay marriage in a 2008 referendum — and that “tens of millions of people have voted” to define the union.

As well as opposing gay rights, the four senate hopefuls vowed to vigorously oppose abortion and to block federal funding of Planned Parenthood. The majority did however concede some ground on abortion in instances or rape and incest, or where the mother’s life was in danger, but how that was to translate into policy was left largely undisclosed.

The senate hopefuls were also of like mind to prevent the United Nations from, as they perceive it, interfering or imposing an agenda on America, and specifically they all agreed on blocking either UN environmental or financial initiatives from being enacted in America.

Hasner said, “The United Nations is a corrupt organization.” McCalister went further, saying America’s relationship with the UN needed to be seriously amended and perhaps America should “get out” of the UN because he said America does not “need the UN, or any other countries, trying to tell us how to run this place.”

One of the other big talking points that drew applause from the 200 or so in the crowd was opposition to appointing “activist” federal judges, with Miller returning to the issue of abortion, saying: “Activist judges dominated the court and we ended up with things like Roe vs. Wade,” — a reference to the 1973 case that legalized abortion.

The four were also of a consensus that there needs to be a balanced budget and, as one might expect, they all wanted to see a cuts in federal spending.

Related Reading:

VT Gov. Presides Over Same-Sex Marriage

Maine Gay Marriage Push Gets OK

Bachmann Would ‘Probably’ Bring Back DADT

Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to netsu.


Glen P.
Glen P6 years ago

Typical right-wing Republican scum. What else is new.

gardenia moore
gardenia moore6 years ago

This fight is getting a little to old. We got Earthquakes, Hurricanes, and other issues that are becoming prominent "now" and the love between to homosexuals is the biggest talk of the town? I swear sometimes I would get a better judgement from a new born. At least they know love's purity.

Daniel French
Past Member 6 years ago

What a shame :(
I didn't vote for any of them !

Maitreya L6 years ago

Sigh, Republicans trying to suppress romantic/sexual freedom. What else is new. Amazing how so many can take a few Biblical passages out of context, then try to force others to obey laws based on their ignorant, twisted interpretations. Plus not everyone even cares what the Bible says, because not everyone is Christian. At least honor seperation of church and state for crying out load.

Lyn V.
Lyn V6 years ago

I sincerely wish people would just learn to live and let live what right have any of us to FORCE our thoughts and beliefs on another person.

I do not believe any true religion condems people for living their own lives.

Christopher C.
Chris C6 years ago

Suzanne...I would like to add not only is the bible written by MEN as you said, but probably ones who were high on the local herb of their day...hence the burning bush! Who was hallucinating that day...LOL!!

Suzanne M.
Suzanne M6 years ago


FYI: I believe in a higher spiritual being. You may call him God, I don't refer to him/her by any name, and I don't believe He/She would want you to kill your children, even if they "cursed" you (PS, YOU may want to use the word cursed as in (from Wiki)"To place a curse upon (a person or object)", but FYI again, it can also mean (from Wiki)"To use offensive or morally inappropriate language." YOUR interpretation isn't always the correct one).

Suzanne M.
Suzanne M6 years ago

Vernon C.

How can you presume my beliefs based on a page of writing? I never said I reject God, I said I turned away from Christianity. Christianity is but one religion that worships God, however they also follow the teachings and the word of Christ...a MAN. Oh, let me say that again...yes he was..oh wait..thats right...a MAN. Oh but even better, the whole bible was written by MEN. That's right you heard me, MEN. Not God, MEN. The whole book can be seen as hearsay. God never wrote a single word of it. So, SURPRISE, you are also following the teachings of MEN. Buddha was a man, but he is considered a prophet, just like Jesus. So who's to say his teachings aren't the real deal?

So basically your whole argument is bullcrap. You are saying that (quote) "God say (sic) that homosexuality is wrong", but until you meet God himself and hear His words for yourself, you cannot presume to know what God wants. You are merely regurgitating the words of men, words written down ages ago by their hands, hands of men, not the hand of God. Christianity is only ONE of MANY religions, and the bible is only ONE of MANY religious teachings, many that presume to have the words of the SAME God as you, but they are all different.

Go read another book and stop poisoning your mind with that one, you sad, sad individual.

FYI: I believe in a higher spiritual being. You may call him God, I don't refer to him/her by any name, and I don't believe He/She would want you to kill your children, even

Suzanne M.
Suzanne M6 years ago

Charlene R.

I think you've misunderstood me. I totally agree that MEN wrote the bible and not God. I'm for gay marriage and AGAINST bible bashers. Please read again, thanks.

Christopher C.
Chris C6 years ago

Also read about what was said in St. Paul: PTL...Poor old St. Paul is so misunderstood. Two-thousand years ago St. Paul condemned gay sex as "against nature" and his viewpoint has been taken for justification for centuries of persecution against gay people. A careful reading of St. Paul"s Epistle to the Romans, shows Paul was condemning straight Christian men and women who were having sex with temple prostitutes of the same sex in pagan Rome. The unnatural action was trying to teach the Roman Christians to lead a moral life and worship God in some measure of purity, "decently and in order." Paul was not writing about gay people having sex with gay people. He probably never heard of same sex people whose natural state ws sex with people of the same gender. He never heard of same gender people being in a relationships with each other. He never conceived of gay people wanting to marry other gay people. The word homosexual was not invented till the 19th century. Certainly the words gay and lesbian are a tad more recent in usage than was the case in St. Paul's time in the first century. Paul was condeming unnatural behavior among straight people. Taking Paul's words out of context is a favorite tool of Christian fundamentalists as well as Biblically illiterate critics of Christianity. The fact that people down through the ages lead on Paul's words to condemn homosexuality is no excuse for the intelligent to do the same in making their case for the rights of homosexuals.