It's about marriage, period
- by: Terry Kemple 10/15/08
According to the Florida Supreme Court, Amendment 2 does just one thing. It defines marriage as between only one man and one woman into the Florida Constitution.
When an amendment to the Florida Constitution is submitted, it goes through an approval process that finishes with the court deciding whether the proposed amendment deals with only one subject. When Amendment 2 was submitted for review by the court, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the language. It argued the amendment dealt with more than one subject. When the case was heard, the ACLU attorneys asserted six times that Amendment 2 would not only affect marriage, but that it would also prohibit the recognition of domestic partnerships.
Amendment 2 was allowed to go on the ballot because the court disagreed with the ACLU's position. In its opinion, the court said, "the voter is merely being asked to vote on the singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to the union of one man and one woman."
The opinion went on to say, "Initially, a comparison of the proposed amendment with current law in section 741.212 of the Florida Statutes (the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA), demonstrates that the amendment essentially tracks the language of the current statutory provision. … The proposed amendment is essentially inserting this statutory scheme into the Constitution."
Legal precedent has already been established in Florida regarding DOMA and domestic partnerships. In Broward County, opponents of domestic partnerships used DOMA as the basis for their suit to outlaw them, saying that DOMA prohibited domestic partnerships. The 4th District Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that DOMA has no impact on domestic partnerships.
The Supreme Court said Amendment 2 would merely place DOMA in the Constitution. The appeals court said DOMA doesn't affect domestic partnerships. The connection is clear: Amendment 2 won't affect domestic partnerships or any associated benefits.
Opponents of Amendment 2 know they can't win this debate if they simply try to "validate" a need for same-sex marriage. In the first 27 states where marriage amendments appeared on the ballot they passed by resounding margins. Voters naturally recognize that for the benefit of society, and particularly for the welfare of children, marriage should be between one man and one woman.
This realization led them to another strategy. Now, the spokesmen for the groups opposing Amendment 2 won't even acknowledge that it's about marriage, even though the Supreme Court clearly said that marriage is exactly what it is about.
Instead, they are trying to frighten voters, especially senior citizens, into believing that they'll lose benefits if Amendment 2 passes. This is a total fabrication. There is the ruling from the appeals court.
They also say there's no need for Amendment 2 because there are already laws on the books that define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The response to that: Look what just happened in Connecticut, and a couple months ago in California, and a few years ago in Massachusetts. All of these states had laws protecting marriage. That didn't stop radical activist judges from imposing their will on the people of their states.
Our only option to keep those radical judges from imposing their will on the people of Florida is to pass Amendment 2.