Protest, however, is part of Impact-Florida’s plan on Dec. 12, when the once-divorced governor of Florida marries Carole Rome.

When Crist won the gubernatorial election in 2006, surviving a brutal primary with an opponent who resorted to gay-baiting, I wouldn’t have imagined gay rights demonstrators picketing his wedding. He was a moderate Republican seeking to succeed Jeb Bush in Tallahassee.

But Crist seemed the moderate in 2006 not because of his positions on gay rights or choice or a host of other social issues, but because his opposition in the primary seemed so far to the right.

And now the governor — a potential presidential candidate in 2012 — is facing gay rights demonstrators, who will “respectfully” picket outside his wedding ceremony at the First United Methodist Church and the black-tie optional reception at the elegant Renaissance Vinoy Resort in St. Petersburg.

Crist will say “I do” inside First United. He’ll exit the church, where he will find demonstrators in pink T-shirts. “After the positive congratulatory observance, there will be a candlelight vigil close to the [Vinoy] in downtown St. Pete to mourn the loss of gays’ right to get married,” read a statement from Impact-Florida, the group organizing the protest.

Why the demonstrators?

Because Crist endorsed Amendment 2, which changed the Florida Constitution to state, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Amendment 2 passed with 62 percent of the vote on Nov. 4.

Charlie Crist, with all his Sunshine Start charm, didn’t work the crowds on Amendment 2. He didn’t stump for the measure — in fact, during a question-and-answer session with the press as recently as early August he needed an explanation of the proposal before he said, “I support it.”

But Crist did endorse Amendment 2, and I don’t think it simply coincidence that at the same time he was scoring points on the right he was getting mentions as a potential running mate for John McCain.

Crist, as any regular viewer of “Saturday Night Live” knows, didn’t get chosen as a political mate in 2008. But he did find a domestic partner and is about to enter a relationship that legally entitles him to 1,000-plus rights and benefits withheld from those who are not married, including gays and lesbians who cannot marry.

Crist is about to enter a relationship that provides him security and stability that Amendment 2’s passage withholds or takes away from many other Floridians. An estimated 400,000 Floridians who are gay or straight are in domestic partnership relationships. And with the broadly written language of Amendment 2, those in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships may lose partnership benefits or find it increasingly more difficult to secure them.

Today, Dec. 8, were Crist to seek domestic partner coverage of some kind for his significant other, Amendment 2’s existence might be used to turn him down. After Dec. 12 and his wedding, no question, no problem.

Florida law severely curtails gift-giving to a politician, even on his wedding day. Crist’s wedding invitations went out with an enclosed card that read, “No gifts please, due to Florida law.”

But even without the law, I don’t think the governor would be getting Tiffany’s from his gay constituents. He’ll be getting what he deserves on Dec. 12 — demonstrators.

But the final figures released by Browning show that the measure passed with less than a two percent plurality.

The official count was 4,890,883 to 3,008,026. That was 61.9 percent of the vote for the amendment. Florida requires that constitutional amendments must have more than 60 percent to be approved.

In addition to banning gay marriage and civil unions, the amendment also could be used to deny partner benefits to unmarried couples who live together.

The amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida already had a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but supporters of the amendment said the law could be overturned in court.

The state was one of three this month that approved constitutional bans on gay marriage.  The others were California, where same-sex marriage had been legal, and Arizona.

Florida Red & Blue, which fought against the proposed amendment, filed a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission alleging that Florida4Marriage – the organization behind the measure – encouraged donors to give money to Florida Family Action Inc., a not-for-profit agency that then turned money over to Florida4Marriage.

By donating to the non-profit, donors do not have to be identified. People giving money directly to Florida4Marriage would be required to have their names filed with the commission, making the names accessible to the public.

Red & Blue called for an investigation by the commission and criminal charges.

Last year, it was discovered that the state GOP was bankrolling the amendment effort.

An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times into funding for the Florida4Marriage found that, of the $193,000 that had been raised by the group, $150,000 came from a single donor – the Florida Republican Party.

Still waiting, of course, on the big gun: California’s prop 8.

The Mason-Dixon poll also indicates that though the number of undecided voters is shrinking, they will still decide the outcome of the measure, known as Amendment 2.

The survey, taken Monday and Tuesday this week, shows that 57 percent of likely voters support the amendment, just shy of the 60 percent required for passage.

Thirty-six percent oppose the amendment and seven percent are undecided.

”While the current support level remains below the 60 percent threshold, it still has a good shot at voter ratification,” Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker told the Miami Herald.

A similar Mason-Dixon poll taken earlier this month found that 55 percent of likely voters supported the gay-marriage amendment, while 34 percent were against it. Eleven percent were undecided.

The proposed amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida already has a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned in court.

Opponents of the proposed amendment say that in addition to barring gay marriage, it would bar civil unions and would be used to deny partner benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried couples who live together.

Earlier this week, Florida Red & Blue, which is fighting the proposed amendment, filed a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission alleging that Florida4Marriage – the organization behind the measure – is encouraging donors to give money to Florida Family Action Inc., a not-for-profit agency that then turned money over to Florida4Marriage.

By donating to the non-profit, donors do not have to be identified. People giving money directly to Florida4Marriage would be required to have their names filed with the commission, making the names accessible to the public.

In its complaint, Red & Blue cites an email sent by Florida4Marriage leader John Stemberger to supporters last month, encouraging opponents of gay marriage to donate to the non-profit so their names would not become public.

Red & Blue called for the commission to investigate and press charges.

Florida is one of three states with proposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the ballot. In California, the only one of the three which currently allows gays and lesbians to wed, a poll released Thursday shows the amendment losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent. But when the margin of error is factored in, it is almost a dead heat. The third state is Arizona.

The Amendment’s proponents say it’s a necessary step to ensure the defeat of gay marriage in the State. In reality, it’s a broad attack on every couple who chooses to not tie the knot.

But this isn’t the first time Florida has taken a stand on gay relationships. That state legislature really doesn’t like its gay people.

Four different statutes define marriage as between a man and a woman and ensure that gay marriages from other states are not recognized, “for any purpose” in Florida. Judges can’t issue marriage licenses before ascertaining that “one party is a male and the other party is a female.” And any claim arising from a same-sex relationship (think divorce proceedings etc.) will not be enforced by the Florida government or its agents.

The courts echo their legislators.

In Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services (2004), the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed a decision that stated that a State policy prohibiting individuals “known to engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity,” from adopting and/or fostering children had a rational basis.

Why?

Because homosexuals are not as capable as heterosexuals at guiding children during their sexual development, homosexuals are less able to create stable home environments and because homosexuals are less likely to eventually establish a married household (the preference for foster families in Florida).

So what can we learn from this overview of Florida’s gay politics?

Well, it’s probably more infuriating to be gay in Florida than say, Massachusetts. And it’s a miracle that Amendment 2 is seeing real opposition in the state.

I hope that this push is a change in the tides.

So far, Florida’s track record on gay rights is downright dismal

The ad campaign, called “One Thing,” says that Amendment 2 only defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. “That’s it,” it says. “No one loses benefits.” Those against Amendment 2 say it may allow discrimination against unmarried heterosexual couples.

One of the tv ads features Alveda King, a conservative niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who says “Everyone’s civil rights are safe” under Amendment 2.

More on Amendment 2 here.

Michael Kenny, deputy campaign manager for the Say No 2 campaign, said announced the group would be running its own ads next week. He told the News-Press that there is no way of knowing how courts might interpret amendment language that bans any arrangement that is “the substantial equivalent” of a man-woman unit.

“An amendment worded like this has far-reaching consequences,” he said. “It’s bad for our families, bad for the business community, bad for the universities and entire education system and has even been proved harmful to victims of domestic violence.”