Rod Smith - Florida Baptist Witness

Rod Smith

Aug 22, 2006

Related Coverage:

2006 Primary

Rod Smith (D)

SMITH

Why do you want to be governor?

2006 Primary Election
Special Report
About this report

Gubernatorial Candidate
Charlie Crist
Tom Gallagher
Rod Smith
Senatorial Candidate
Katherine Harris
Will McBride
LeRoy Collins
Editorial
It’s our Christian duty to vote on Sept. 5

I was state attorney for a couple of terms and then state senator for a couple terms and I really I have reached the point where I think that the changes that I would like to see happen in Florida, the difference that I believe I can make in Florida such that it’s served by me being governor. I entered this race – my family and I talked about it and prayed about it and made the decision that this was our opportunity to lead Florida in a direction that we think is important for the state. I believe whether it’s in public education or health care, whether it’s in our universities, or now the insurance crisis, or law enforcement these are the areas that people want us to respond to and I think that I’m prepared by my background to do that.

Tell me about your personal religious faith, if you don’t mind.

I’m a Baptist. My mother is a much better one, and I think would term me – I think the term we used to use is persistently backsliding, but I’m a Southern Baptist. I was baptized in the First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach. To the degree that I attend church now, I attend church at Forest Grove Baptist Church which is just outside of Alachua, Florida. It’s a small church about two miles from my house.

As a Baptist you would understand these next two questions that I’m going to ask – someday all of us have to give an account before God. When you die, do you know for certain that you’re going spend eternity with God in Heaven?

Well, I certainly believe that. When people ask for certainty – if I remember my verses well, it’s through a glass darkly right now – but I certainly believe that to be true. Yes.

When you die, if you were to stand before God and He were to ask you, “Why should I let you into Heaven?” What would you say?

That’s a scary question for all of us because I think that I’ve always known that and believed that the first thing is that we’re all unworthy of God’s grace, but the second thing is that it’s amazing grace that we all are allowed to share. My hope is and my belief is that on balance I will meet the test. But, once again, that will be a decision that God will make on the course of my life and I hope that decision and pray that decision is one that what I believe is true is true. But, you know, we all are yet to know that eternal truth.

How does your faith impact that way you would govern?

I believe very strongly in the separation of our church and our state, but there’s no way that you separate your – certainly you separate the prism of how you see things from your beliefs and you shouldn’t. That is not say – my son-in-law is a minister, but he’s a Lutheran and we see things differently. My friends in the Senate, some of which are extremely Orthodox and practicing of their faith are Jewish. We bring all those contexts to public life and we ought to remember that our faith is something we hold personally, but the way we govern, we govern for people who don’t share our faith. And so, I’ve believed that’s the separation is so important. I kind of remind my Baptist friends once and in while actually Madison when he was such a great proponent of separation of faith, one of the reasons was because he was a person who represented the Baptists in Virginia who really were feeling that there was too Anglican influence in the decisions that were being made at that day. I think that’s it’s critically important that we always remember that our faith and our beliefs and the system of morality that has guided us throughout our life will never be separated from our decisions, but we have to remember that we govern for people in a nation that is so diverse and that every one of those faiths, every one of those beliefs, in terms of public policy has to be given consideration.

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

I believe that it’s critical that everyone in a democracy participate because all those diversities that we hold in our backgrounds, in our economic status, in our religious views make up the fabric of our democracy and if any one group does not participate in, if any one group really tries to separate themselves from our democratic system, that would be wrong – just as it would be wrong for any one group to try to exclude any others in terms of consideration in the way we set public policy for our state and nation. I believe that it is not only important that we honor our faith, but to use the words of Christ, I think we also render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and I’ve always believed that meant that we have our civil responsibilities and our responsibilities as a citizen and that those are very important. And that to shy away from participating in democracy would be really inconsistent with the commands of our faith.

Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

I don’t know that I understand entirely all the repercussions of that, so that I’ll try to be more specific. I don’t believe in discriminating against anybody and I would hope that that would not occur. If you’re saying, do I believe that ought to be expanded to marriage, I do not. I want to be very clear on that. I don’t believe in discriminating against anyone in terms of the workplace. I don’t believe it’s anyone’s business as you execute your rights to school and work and to be left alone. But I do support marriage as being between man and a woman. I don’t know if that answers your question.

Let me re-phrase the question. The homosexual lobby in Florida and across the United States is seeking to amend civil rights laws to add “sexual orientation,” as they would put it, in the code. Do you support that?

To the degree that I understand that it is to stop discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation, I would support it. To the degree that it would elevate the status of anyone in some other areas that I wouldn’t agree with and I’ve already outlined – marriage – I would not.

In the legislative session the last couple of years there have been a lot of discussion about the ban on homosexuals being able to adopt in Florida. Do you support a repeal of that ban?

I support a limited repeal of that ban and I have and that has to do with foster care placement. I have believed that any family that we place children with – and this state places children with single parents, people who aren’t married and people who are gay, that if we entrust them with children and they are willing to give those children permanency, yes I support that adoption and I have supported it for years. I just believe that there are so many of these kids in foster care who are being taken care of that have come from such abused backgrounds that I am in favor of if they are placed that the sole standard be the best interests of the child and that be left to the judge on a case-by-case basis in terms of foster care placement.

So then in the case of the foster care system, which is often cited as a rationale for repealing the ban for adoptions on the part of homosexuals, you believe the permission or the ability of homosexuals to serve as foster parents is okay and that should stay in place. Is that correct?

Yes, because I absolutely believe that we have a – I was a state attorney and I always tell people I think it really changes your views in one way and that is that you see kids come from such horrible circumstances and it’s always easy to place – I don’t how to say this clearly – but, it’s always easy to place young children that are not scarred. It becomes very difficult to place children that are older, multiple siblings, some of which have special needs, and I just don’t believe we have the luxury of discarding anybody who’s willing to take care of children. And on this I know that my church does not agree with me, but I believe it’s the right thing to do.

Do you support or oppose the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment?

Putting it in the constitution?

Yes, the state constitutional amendment.

I do not believe there is a necessity to do that. Florida has a protection of marriage act. It’s been in effect since 1992. I am in the legislature. I can tell you right now that there is an overwhelming majority in the Florida Senate and the Florida House in support of the current law as it relates to restricting marriage to people to man and wife. I believe that to – I believe and I still believe that to put it in the constitution now, there’s no showing to me that that was anything other than frankly driven by some politics that was about turning out people’s base vote. I believe that we have a law. It’s in place. It’s working. And there is no indication of a willingness in the legislature to change that law and that we don’t need to put it in the constitution. In fact I headed-up a select committee on protecting the constitution. I believe the constitution ought to be harder to amend, not easier to amend. I think it ought to be harder to amend by the legislature and the public. I am not a person that thinks we ought to codify everything just because it could be into the constitution. Unless there is a real and pressing need, I do not see it and I don’t think we need to put that amendment into the constitution. … You know, the United States Constitution requires a much higher threshold and it’s rarely been met, and there’s a reason. A constitution is a statement of the immutable principles of your government. It’s the framework against which your laws are to be judged. We’re changing the constitution now on subjects that by anybody’s standard are not of constitutional gravity. I really do believe that’s the wrong thing to do. …

Setting aside the public policy issues related to abortion, I want to ask you, do you believe abortion is a moral evil?

I am a person who has always believed that the choices should be made by the mother. Having said that, I believe you will not find, or you will rarely find anyone who believes abortion is in the best interest of our community or of our country. I think that the debate ought to be about ways to avoid people getting into those circumstances. I still believe in choice. ... I would hope in my family we would never have the choice for abortion. But have seen circumstances in my life, both as a prosecutor and as an attorney in which I understood the decisions that were made and I was sympathetic to them. It just wouldn’t be one I would hope we would ever have to make. But ultimately, the only choice is whether government makes the decision or individuals make those decisions. I believe that individuals make the better decisions. I hope we reach a day, I think we hope or I certainly hope that we all hope that we reach a day when this debate is one in which there is understanding of both sides and the fact of the matter is that abortion is an option rarely ever employed. I think that would be my statement of how I feel about it.

What I’m trying to ask is the ethical issue before the public policy issue.

Let me try to answer you in a different way, because my son-in-law who is a wonderful person – he’s created the pride of my life, my one granddaughter – he and I differ on this. He is very pro-life. Democrat, but very pro-life. My daughter is I won’t say strictly pro-life, but is largely pro-life. I would say that she would have circumstantial exceptions. And we’ve talked about the moral and ethical choices. For me, I have always believed that that morality was not as clear to me as the circumstances that arise that would make me say, well, you know, I would prefer not to have abortion, I would prefer the choice not to be for abortion, but I understand the circumstance of that case... .

I would assume then, if you were governor and a bill like what was passed in South Dakota that limited virtually all abortions

I would not favor that.

You would obviously veto that, I would assume.

I would, yes.

What limits on abortion do you support, if any?

I think that, I crafted the parental notification compromise that became the law of Florida. I think with some exceptions, one of which I just kind of outlined to you, with some exceptions I think parental notification and including family in decisions for young women in distress is important. I know we have crafted what I considered to be a fair compromise on some extraordinary circumstances, but those are pretty rare and hopefully almost never. I support a ban on late term abortions, but I would still leave an exception for the health and life of the mother. I think those would be the two things that I support, at least that come to mind. I may be missing something. But those are the two that I have voted on and I would vote on again. Actually, there was also a clinic safety compromise that it had some limits on the operations of clinics that I believe once it was done it wasn’t to try to stop availability, but it was to set some standards that were reasonable. I didn’t necessarily agree with the particular bill, but I think there are clinic safety issues. I just don’t want clinic safety limited only to issues of abortion. I think clinic safety ought to be a much larger issue.

What was your view of Gov. Bush’s efforts in relation to the Terri Schiavo situation?

I thought he was wrong for two reasons. One was kind of a legalistic reason and that is that 19 courts had looked at it and I really did believe that our separation of powers demanded that we not intervene once the matter had gone to court so many times and had been ruled upon. The other one was based upon the circumstances of my own experience in life with my father. My father was a profoundly religious man. His church was the centerpiece of his life. I remember when – he had a very painful form of cancer called multiple myeloma – it’s the one that’s most prevalent with farmers and it’s probably from pesticide exposure many years ago when we didn’t practice like we do today. After a long and painful battle it was clear at the end of his life that he was going to lose his battle. I remember saying to me and made it very clear to me, he said, “I don’t want to be hooked up to anything. Make sure I sign whatever needs to be done.” He said, “I have lived my life with the belief that my soul is forever going to be with God. And I know where I’m going from this hospital room. And I welcome that. And I know that my life of pain is about to be over.” And I can’t tell you that that was not a very important factor in my decision. I believe that – I remember [State Senator] Dan Webster, a person I have profound differences with, but great respect for, I remember we talked about it and we both talked about what was driving us in our various views. I have to say, I could never forget my father saying, “I don’t want to be hooked up to anything. I have earned my eternal rest. I don’t want to be kept here longer than my life.” And I believed it then and I believe it now.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, she died as a result of food and water being withdrawn from her. She was not in the process of dying. Do you think Florida’s statutes are where they ought to be when a person in that circumstance can be

I thought of Terri Schiavo – I wanted to be right on that case. I wanted to be clear in my mind. And so I called the court and I had them send me the file. And, by the way, I have to tell you this, I was told, I don’t know if it later turned out to be true or not, I was told at the time that I was the only legislator who had asked for public records, to have the file. I read that file closely. I know – I knew then, and I think the autopsy vindicated my beliefs subsequently, this was a person who was in a persistent vegetative state for which there was no legal or medical reason to believe there would ever be anything but the continuation of an artificial life. I did not believe that was – first of all, I believed the court had made the decision on the validity of her request, that is a factual question the families had litigated... .

The one other question related to this, you then do not have a problem with the definition of food and water as being defined as extraordinary care. In her case, that’s what it came done to, that it was extraordinary care, food and water was withdrawn and she died.

My problem in that case was one in which I believed she was being kept alive against what the courts have found to be her stated will and I thought that she was being artificially maintained. The question about food and water, I have to tell you, I’m not as familiar with that distinction. I don’t remember that being part of the debate that we ever focused on because I think the court had already ruled that she was being artificially maintained. ... But I can’t tell you, Jim, that I ever dealt with this definitional problem with food and water as it related to the existence of Florida Death with Dignity law. I do not remember that and I’d have look at it and call you back before I could answer that. That was not ever part of the debate in front of us as I recall. And I recall those circumstances pretty well.

On the issue of embryonic stem cell research you’ve been very publicly in favor of that, you’ve put out a television commercial —

I will tell you, and I have always said and I believe that whether those who agree or otherwise, I have believed that God’s messages of health and healing have been deciphered by man through science and medicine. I was a sponsor of a bill that said the following: Number one, you do not harvest. Number two, you do not clone, that there are felony consequences for that. But that if a couple has provided the material and if it is otherwise to be destroyed or if it is to be maintained and they don’t want it maintained any longer, they can make the judgment to allow that to be turned over for scientific research. Beyond that, the University of Florida testimony was, the scientists at the Brain Institute, that there are ways now for embryonic stem cell research that may never even make us go to the issue of the destruction of the embryo itself – that the science is moving in a direction so much so that the debate we had two years ago may not even be the debate of today’s technology. But I believe in my heart of hearts that we are supposed to do that which is required to alleviate pain and suffering and that that has always been done through science and medicine and that those advances are there because that is revealed knowledge to man. I think that God gives us the knowledge He intends us to have and he expects us to use it. I believe that’s been the history of mankind. Once again, I can’t separate entirely the personal from the political. My mother is a lifetime diabetic. I’m sure you’ve known lifetime, type one diabetics, but enormous suffering in her life. If there’s something that can be to make sure the following generations don’t suffer from that, to me it’s no different than anything else that we’ve advanced in science and medicine, particularly when I’m not sure given the evidence in front of us that we even have to delve into the issue of embryonic stem cells, necessarily destroying the embryos. I think that the technology may surpass that by the time we ever make the decision.

Let me ask you about a comment in the Gainesville Sun. You said, “There have always been people who have been scared of knowledge. It’s time that we get out of the age of Galileo and go to next the millennium where we help people in Florida.” For those Floridians who have a moral objection to embryonic stem cell research, do you think that statement is very sympathetic with their moral concerns?

I think that statement is – I believe that statement is consistent with my idea that I really do believe that some people have always been afraid of the next generation of knowledge. We don’t have less faith today than we did a thousand years ago. The Christian community has grown. And let’s not forget the Copernican revolution and the age of Galileo were greatly feared for their impact on the importance of church and faith and dogma. And the truth of the matter is it hasn’t done anything to diminish our beliefs and our faith. I believe there is a realm of knowledge and science and there is a realm of faith and I think they can be and always have been accommodated. And I do not agree with those who – with due respect – I do not agree with those who say to me that they believe we would do something that we would turn our back on health and healing. I only remind you that our gospel is full of the great references to the healing miracles of Christ. I absolutely believe that we learn that which God – I believe that knowledge is the revealed knowledge of God that has driven man throughout the ages. I believe that, once again, some day I know if I was right or not. I hope that statement was taken in the context of saying that I don’t think we turn our back on knowledge because it has never, it has never set back the cause of faith.

Do you think there’s too much or too little or just enough state-sponsored gambling in Florida?

I would leave that to local communities. I don’t want to see us to go into pure casinos in Florida. I am troubled by, however, that we’re about to lose pari-mutuels that we’ve had since the 1880’s. My district is one that is very dependent on the equine industry. We’re about to lose the pari-mutuel industry that we have used and attacked for 140 years because the Native American tribes have such a gambling capacity. I remember for years saying I wish we wouldn’t expand gambling in Florida. I have to tell you, I have a different view of that now because I’ve been down to the Hard Rock Casino. Here we have gambling – it’s not going away. We have these boats off to nowhere. We don’t receive any revenue from them. And the people of Broward and the people of Dade – I would let the local communities decide what they want. I would not support casino gambling expansion or gaming outside pari-mutuel facilities.

Did you support Amendment 4 (to allow Broward and Miami-Dade to vote on slots) in 2004 or oppose it?

I believe I supported it, but you’d have to check my vote on that. I think I voted yes. And the reason why is that I think by then I had become convinced, as I am now, there’s a certain real inconsistency in what’s going on. We have huge casinos in this state and we’re killing our local industry for no revenue to our state because people are going to the tribal lands. You’ve seen them, I’m sure, they’re huge casinos and I really don’t want to kill the pari-mutuel industry, if that’s what the local community wants to have.

What message to have to Florida Baptists about why this election is important? Why should they be concerned about this election?

We’re going to elect a new governor. We’re going to elect a new legislature. We’re talking about setting the direction of this state for the future of our public schools, our law enforcement. The great issues of the day will be dictated by who is governor. I believe that the next generation of leaders are about to emerge. By that I mean, particularly for Democrats, we had a generation of leadership in this state that was marked by Askew and Chiles and Graham and there are names I’m sure I’m missing some, and now the stage is open for a new generation of leaders to come forward. I think it is so important that people of all faiths, people who see the world very differently, with great respect for one another’s beliefs, participate in choosing the next direction and leadership of Florida. And I hope that everyone, certainly from the Baptist community, the Catholic community, the Jewish community, all the communities that make up the diversity of Florida, I hope they all participate and that they all recognize how critically important the crossroads is. ... This will be the first governor elected entirely in a new century, a new millennium. It really is symbolic. ... It’s a starting point for the next century of leadership in Florida. I hope everybody will participate. I hope people will look at all the questions, the difficulty there are that they make up. I hope they will look at the backgrounds of the people who are seeking the office and they’ll make the appropriate decision. Nobody, I’m sure, is going to perfect on all the issues. What I try to bring to the table is a willingness to listen to everybody, a willingness to acknowledge that I don’t always get it right, a faith that we are always to try to get it right in the context of my background and in the context of my beliefs, but recognizing wide respect for others who don’t agree with me. I hope that’s what everybody looks at when they make this decision.

Related Coverage:

2006 Primary

Email this Article Print this page

Login ID:
Password:	Forgot password?