Voters won't have to decide until November, but the debate about banning gay marriage is heating up now – or perhaps just remaining on the low boil it's already reached.
The folks who gathered the required 611,009 signatures to put the proposed amendment on the ballot later this year will sponsor a debate at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 25 at the Florida A&M University Law School inOrlando.
Chief advocate for the same-sex marriage amendment – John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council – will join Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jeff Ventrella to make the case for the idea of requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.
On the other side will be ACLU lawyer Glen Katon and Eric Smaw, a philosophy professor at Rollins College.
Conservative religious activists worked the sidewalks for four years to get the proposal before voters. Though Florida statute already bars same-sex marriage, advocates say a constitutional amendment is needed to head off any judicial action or future consideration by lawmakers.
Those opposed, which include gay-rights groups and seniors advocates, say the amendment represents prejudice against homosexuals and threatens more than gay people's rights. For instance, men and women who are not married but are able to share employment benefits as long-term companions, they argue, could have their perks threatened by the amendment.
Similar amendments passed in 11 states in 2004, when the last presidential election prompted their placement before voters. The Feb. 25 debate is sure to be lively and … just the beginning.
One opposition group, Florida Red & Blue, makes its online case at http://www.floridaredandblue.com.
Stemberger's Florida Family Policy Council has its own Web site that was home to the initiative drive. The amendment's proponents put forward their arguments at http://www.florida4marriage.org.

I assure you I am not alone in this. I got into journalism specifically because there wasn't much math required. (Here's a paradox for you -- I tested out of the only math requirement I faced in college.) Readers see the fruits of this every day in silly math mistakes, poor statistical analysis and gullible recitations of suspect polling data in the morning paper.
Neither are reporters at large alone in this. The general population is pretty innumerate, too. That's no excuse, just context.
So, Floridians face a vote Jan. 29 on a constitutional amendment about property taxes. To understand it requires a certain amount of math knowledge, along with a familiarity with property taxation methods. We in the Florida Capital Bureau have been working on a series of stories and graphics to try and explain the proposal.
The proposed $9.3 billion tax cut requires 60 percent for passage. That's three out of five voters (see, I can do this).
Our work has necessitated revisiting our SAT-prep days, when there was no more frightening phrase than "word problem."
Consider, for example, the actual language of the change to the constitution that is proposed. You can take a look at the whole thing here.
This portion from the actual language is about portability – taking Save Our Homes benefits with you to a new home. This is, in part, what you're voting on.
"1. If the just value of the new homestead is greater than or equal to the just value of the prior homestead as of January 1 of the year in which the prior homestead was abandoned, the assessed value of the new homestead shall be the just value of the new homestead minus an amount equal to the lesser of $500,000 or the difference between the just value and the assessed value of the prior homestead as of January 1 of the year in which the prior homestead was abandoned. Thereafter, the homestead shall be assessed as provided herein.
"2. If the just value of the new homestead is less than the just value of the prior homestead as of January 1 of the year in which the prior homestead was abandoned, the assessed value of the new homestead shall be equal to the just value of the new homestead divided by the just value of the prior homestead and multiplied by the assessed value of the prior homestead. However, if the difference between the just value of the new homestead and the assessed value of the new homestead calculated pursuant to this sub-subparagraph is greater than $500,000, the assessed value of the new homestead shall be increased so that the difference between the just value and the assessed value equals $500,000. Thereafter, the homestead shall be assessed as provided herein."
Yeah, me neither.
I am assured that what this says – and we struggle mightily to come up with new ways to state this as plainly as possible – is:
· You can take your Save Our Homes tax shelter with you, up to $500,000, to a new home.
· If you downsize, take the same proportion of SOH with you. If half of your current home is protected by Save Our Homes, half of your new home's value will be tax protected.
The good folks at the Department of Revenue have put together their own cheat sheet.
Here's what that document's section on portability says:
"Currently, if you are a Florida homesteader and you buy a new home and make it your homestead, your new home will be assessed at market value the first year you own it.
"If the amendment passes, some or all of the difference between your old homestead's assessed value and its market value can be applied to the assessment of your new home in the first year you own it. "Then the "Save Our Homes" limit will apply each year after that.
"How much of the difference between assessed and market value ("Save Our Homes difference") can be applied depends on how the value of your new home compares to the value of your old home.
"If the new home's market value is the same or greater than the old home's market value: the entire difference will be applied to your new home, so that the difference between the market and assessed values of your new home will be the same as the difference between the market and assessed values of your old home.
"If the new home's market value is less than the old home's market value: the entire amount of the difference will not be applied to the new home.
"Instead, the new home's Save Our Homes difference will be the same percentage of its market value as the old home's difference is of the old home's market value. For example, if the old home's Save Our Homes difference is 40% of its market value, the new home's difference can be determined by multiplying 40% times the new home's market value. Then subtract that amount from the market value to arrive at the assessed value."
Trust me, that's pretty close to as straightforward as you can get while covering all the bases.
Then the DOR report offers examples. Boiled down here are a few of the scenarios it offers, with calculation on what that means to the pocketbook based on a statewide average millage:
· Current home worth $250,000 with an SOH assessment of $175,000. New home costs $250,000. Portability saves $1,203.
· Current home worth $200,000 with an SOH assessment of $150,000. New home costs $300,000. Portability saves $802.
· Current home worth $300,000 with an SOH assessment of $100,000. New home costs $500,000. Portability saves $3,209 in taxes.
· Current home worth $250,000 with an SOH assessment of $150,000. New home costs $200,000. Portability saves $1,283.
· Current home worth $600,000 with an SOH assessment of $300,000. New home costs $300,000. Portability saves $2,407.
Do you get it? Can you figure out how it would work for you?
How about this: The longer you've lived where you are, the sweeter the deal. The shorter you've lived in your current homestead, the more upset you'll be about neighbors paying less in taxes than you.

On Jan. 29 Florida voters will be asked to approve a $9.3 billion property tax cut plan. Gov. Charlie Crist's behind it and the campaign he's heading up has raised a bunch of money to convince you to get behind it, too.
Crist has hit the road and the phones to raise dough for the campaign, including an NYC trip for a fundraiser at The Donald's pad there.
Florida Capital Bureau Chief Jim Ash has written about the fundraising portion of the horse race in stories like the one linked here. Jim's reporting includes other stories that update some of the tidbits from the Amendment 1 campaign fundraising efforts, like this story about proposed electric transmission line legislation that throws in the more-than-interesting fact that Florida Power & Light has plunked down half a mil for the governor's campaign.
But why should journalists like Jim have all the fun?
You can follow the money yourself. The Yes On 1 campaign is posting its accumulated contributions regularly on its Web site. Check out the latest version here.
All this will eventually get officially submitted in campaign finance reports made to the Florida Division of Elections, but those can take a while to show up. Why not take a gander yourself?
What stands out? Perhaps that there aren't more surprises.
Real estate folks, Republican folks, chamber folks.
Today, the Vote Yes On 1, Save Our Homes Now campaign sent out a solicitation over Gov. Crist's signature, seeking small individual donations. "Give $10-to-1" is the name of it. "If each of us gives just $10 to Yest on 1, we can make a huge difference," Crist's come-on read.
Twenty-six days until the election.

The Florida Legislature's fourth special session of the year is going on now and, like its predecessor, Special Session C, it's running smack into 'Noles football fans.
The Miami Hurricanes come to town Saturday for a rivalry showdown with Florida State. Lawmakers won't be around, even if they haven't concluded the business of their property-tax special session.
"We wouldn't meet over the weekend, we just wouldn't do that," said House Speaker Marco Rubio Wednesday afternoon while trying to fill members in on the schedule ahead.
A flurry of amendments has upended the ready-made agreement reached by Rubio and Senate President Ken Pruitt last week. New proposals this week, including extending Save Our Homes protections to all property owners and swapping some property taxes for a penny increase in the state's sales tax, have postponed the done-deal vote that was expected as early as today. Instead, negotiations continue.
But even working Wednesday required certain sacrifices of Rubio and his family.
"Today's my ninth wedding anniversary," Rubio said. "This isn't how we planned to spend it."
As Wednesday ends, both House and Senate plan to come back into full session no earlier than 10 a.m. with no promises about when they'll work things out. The official proclamation for this special session says it could go as long as Oct. 29.
A similar conflict arose during the budget-cutting session earlier this month. Special sessions in January and June didn't have to worry about football games.

The budget revision has been published, setting up a formal vote on Friday to fill a $1.1 billion shortfall in the state's $71 billion-plus spending plan.
Legislative negotiators on Monday settled minor differences between the House and Senate to come up with the final plan. Now the budget and its implementing bill are published and the required cooling-off period can begin.
Here's what secretary of the Senate Faye Blanton sent to lawmakers Tuesday morning:
"In compliance with Article III, Section 19(d), State Constitution, and Joint Rule 2, copies of the Appropriations Conference Committee Reports on SB 2-C and SB 4-C have been furnished to each member of the Legislature, the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and each member of the Cabinet. Delivery was completed October 9, 2007 at 7:57 a.m., EDT. "
Like lawmakers, you can study the detailed document yourself.
The budget itself is here http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2007C/senate/appbills/pdf/conference_report.pdf
And the implementing bill is here
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2007C/senate/appbills/pdf/conference_report.pdf
The Legislature remains in recess from its 10-day special session. Lawmakers will be back on Friday to take the foregone-conclusion vote.