Florida Today Editorial
September 23, 2007
Our view: Say no to bigotry
Florida's proposed same-sex marriage ban threatens
everyone's protections
When misguided religious and political groups attempt
to deny gays legal rights under the guise of protecting
marriage, you better watch out for your own rights.
That's what is happening in Florida, as supporters of
a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
try to get the issue on the November 2008 ballot.
Here's what the proposed amendment says:
"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."
Here's why -- behind the legalese -- the amendment is
dangerous and immoral, and should be rejected by voters.
• It would write discrimination into the Florida
Constitution, stripping gays of protections solely
because of whom they choose to love or live with.
That's wrong, and makes it unconscionable that U.S.
Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic, and state Rep. Ralph
Poppell, R-Vero Beach, have endorsed the amendment,
according to the Web site of Orlando-based
Florida4Marriage.org. which is pushing the issue.
The amendment is also supported by Gov. Charlie
Crist, the Florida Republican Party, Florida Baptist
Convention, Florida Catholic Conference and
fundamentalist Christian groups.
• It's unneeded, because same-sex marriage is already
illegal in Florida, as it is in most states.
Supporters of the amendment say constitutional bans
are necessary because anti-gay marriage laws can be
reversed.
Or struck down by judges, as happened in one Iowa
court in August.
But a Maryland court Tuesday upheld that state's law
banning same-sex marriage.
That give and take shows that legislatures are
exactly where the issue belongs.
And where it should continue to be debated as society
strives to make America's great promise of "equality for
all" more than a catchphrase.
• The amendment could have widespread consequences
for domestic partners of any stripe, and their
dependents.
That includes elderly Floridians of either sex who
live together for economic reasons, but are unmarried.
Because the amendment "makes no distinction between
heterosexual and homosexual, the only people conceivably
not left stripped (of protections) are certain married
couples," says Merritt Island civil rights attorney Mark
Tietig, who opposes the amendment.
For example, domestic partners who receive benefits
through some employers could lose them.
That's already happening in other states.
Ohio state Rep. Tom Brinkman has sued Miami
University, a public institution, for offering domestic
partner benefits, citing that state's constitutional
ban.
If his suit is successful, one consequence will be
that children of gay couples employed at the school will
lose health insurance coverage.
A Michigan court has also ruled public employers
can't offer benefits to unmarried couples, because of
that state's constitutional ban.
The amendment further jeopardizes basic legal
protections like inheritance rights, hospital visitation
and medical decision-making rights for anyone outside
its narrow limits.
It is, in short, a vengeful, bigoted proposal flown
under the false banner of a religious cause.
From:
http://www.floridatoday.com
back to Amendment 2 main page
|
