Daytona Beach
News-Journal
April 23, 2008
Amendment 2 Erodes Rights, Protects No One
by George
Griffin
 Same-sex
marriage has been prohibited in Florida since the 1997
Defense of Marriage Act was passed. Marriage is defined
by law as the legal union of one man and one woman only.
A same-sex marriage performed in another state or
country is not recognized in Florida, period. Yet, the
proponents of the so-called "Marriage Amendment,"
(Amendment 2) to the state constitution, and the media,
continue to refer to this amendment as a "gay marriage
ban."
An accurate and honest reading of the
wording of the amendment, which only recently garnered
the necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot
after a failed attempt in 2006, shows that this is
untrue and is completely misleading. The amendment
threatens not only gay people but all Floridians who
have set up joint households instead of getting married.
While the amendment makes reference
to the legal definition of marriage in the introductory
clause, the true impact of the amendment comes later,
where the "substantial equivalent" of marriage is
banned.
This pre-emptive attack against
establishing civil unions in Florida is not well
understood and needs to be made clear to voters. The
majority of Florida voters, including Gov. Charlie
Crist, have expressed support for civil unions, which is
a way to provide some legal protections for unmarried
couples. And in states where the similar loose language
of "or the substantial equivalent thereof" has passed,
civil unions and existing domestic partnership health
insurance and other protections have been permanently
blocked.
The wording of the amendment is vague
and broad enough to cause problems for many Floridians,
both gay and straight. What exactly will be determined
to be the "substantial equivalent" of marriage? Numerous
government employers in Florida, including cities,
counties, school districts, hospitals, and half of the
Fortune 500 corporations have already established
domestic partnership arrangements to extend health
insurance and other employee benefits to straight and
gay couples without being married. My own daughter was
able to add her uninsured fiance to her policy under
such an arrangement and many retirees -- who risk losing
pension benefits if they remarry -- have entered
partnership agreements to maximize their benefit
opportunities.
Further, unmarried couples could lose
the right to visit each other in the hospital or make
crucial emergency medical decisions on each other's
behalf. These are the serious consequences of enshrining
the loose language of "substantial equivalent" in our
constitution.
The Florida Legislature's Office of
Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) reviewed the
potential problems with this amendment and its report
lists, among other problems: health insurance being
denied if Domestic Partnership registries are deemed the
"substantial equivalent" of marriage; people in "common
law marriages" may be forced to marry or lose health
insurance and other benefits; a reduction in domestic
violence convictions; both public sector and private
sector litigation; and the loss of health insurance
benefits for employees of local governments.
This is a mean-spirited amendment
that will adversely affect gay, straight and retired
couples. It would put the government squarely where it
does not belong -- regulating the personal relationship
between two consenting adults. I urge you to vote NO on
Amendment 2 in November.
Griffin is president of the Volusia/Flagler Chapter of
the American Civil Liberties Union.
back to Amendment 2 main page
|
