Amendment 2 bad for South Florida business
BY HANK KLEIN
I'm a ''glass-is-half-full'' kind of guy. The way I see it, there are few places in the
nation that for decades have offered, and continue to offer, the opportunities for business growth coupled with the superior lifestyle we enjoy here in South Florida. That being said, our state currently is facing major challenges in regard to job growth, real estate, education and other key issues. The way we tackle those challenges will determine our well-being for years to come.
The solutions to our current problems will be determined by responsible public policy and an intelligent vision for the future that lights the way for private investment in our state. South Florida, and the state as a whole, must be able to attract new businesses as well as the best and brightest talent necessary to assure those businesses will succeed.
A proposed amendment to Florida's constitution on the November ballot could adversely impact our business development efforts. Florida Amendment 2, the so-called marriage protection amendment that seeks to define marriage as ''the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife'' and states that ''no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized'' is an example of unnecessary government intrusion in people's personal lives that could diminish Florida's ability to attract businesses to expand or relocate here.
INVITING LAWSUITS
If passed, Amendment 2 could make companies and municipalities that currently offer benefits to unmarried employees the targets of legal action. It could damage morale among current employees and dissuade new job candidates from moving here. The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic & Demographic Research, which looks at the economic impact of political amendments on Floridians, cautions that the proposed amendment may result in higher costs of providing public services and benefits and increased litigation costs.
On the educational front, Amendment 2 could impede hiring efforts at the state's colleges and universities, thus contributing to the alarming ''brain drain'' already underway.
Faced with extensive fall-out from the housing bubble, challenges to our educational systems on every level and the need to create long-range policies for transportation and the environment, among other crucial issues, we must ask ourselves what can be gained by supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage that may have many unintended consequences.
Companies considering expansion or relocation to South Florida want to know about market demographics, education, business opportunities, tax structure, incentives, cost of land and a host of other important facts that impact their bottom line. They look for critical information that Florida is a superior place to live, work and do business.
FOCUS ON POSITIVE
I've lived in Miami for 50 years, and I'm as certain as ever before that we will keep our perch as one of the most desirable places in the nation to do business. By defeating Amendment 2 in November and focusing instead on positive business development efforts, we send a clear message to potential new businesses that this is the place where they want to be.
Hank Klein is executive director for business development, Cushman & Wakefield in Miami. He is past chairman of Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, immediate past vice chair of Miami-Dade College Board of Trustees and on the boards of Goodwill Industries, Dade Community Foundation and the Performing Arts Center Trust.
© 2008 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Florida Times Union: Marriage Protection: Not Needed
Florida Times-Union
Marriage Protection: Not needed
May 29, 2008
In a nation that separates church and state, let the various religions
determine their sacred rules for marriage; let the states determine
how to recognize the legal rights involved in civil unions, which
could include both marriage and unmarried couples.
Protect the sanctity of marriage without impinging on domestic
partnerships and civil unions. The Legislature is the place to do that.
This is an amendment whose time has not come.
Marriage Protection: Not needed
May 29, 2008
In a nation that separates church and state, let the various religions
determine their sacred rules for marriage; let the states determine
how to recognize the legal rights involved in civil unions, which
could include both marriage and unmarried couples.
Protect the sanctity of marriage without impinging on domestic
partnerships and civil unions. The Legislature is the place to do that.
This is an amendment whose time has not come.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Saint Pete Times: Gay marriage ban cheats the future
Saint Pete Times
A Times Editorial
Gay marriage ban cheats the future
In print: Friday, May 23, 2008
In 1948, the California Supreme Court led the way in striking down a ban on interracial marriage. Now, 60 years later, the court has issued another groundbreaking decision on marriage that, whatever its flaws, is likely to stand tall in history's judgment.
By a 4-3 vote, the court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that the relationship of same-sex couples must be granted the same "dignity and respect" as heterosexual marriage. It would have been better if the same result could have come from political consensus instead of a decision handed down by a sharply divided court. California already was far along in extending equal rights to gay couples. Before the court ruling, same-sex couples in the state had virtually the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. The only real difference was that their relationships were not recognized by the state as "marriage.''
The ruling, and a similar one in Massachusetts in 2003, suggest that maybe before another generation passes, our society will largely come to view the legal barriers to gay marriage the way we do those of interracial marriage — as a relic of a more intolerant time. Meanwhile, the California ruling is sure to reignite the political debate over gay marriage and energize efforts to change federal and state Constitutions to ban it.
Through a citizens' initiative, Florida's voters will be asked this November whether they want to amend the state's Constitution to add a ban on gay marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships. No doubt, the California ruling will embolden proponents of this measure. Already a number of states have responded to the gay community's call for legal equality for same-sex couples by slamming the door shut with constitutional amendments. And there continue to be calls for the adoption of a federal amendment banning gay marriage.
The shift in public attitudes on gay marriage is being driven by young people, including some who identify themselves as political and religious conservatives. As opposed to earlier generations when gay people were largely relegated to the closet, people under 35 have generally grown up knowing gay-led families, gay neighbors, gay school classmates and having been exposed to popular culture where homosexuality is seen as part of our diverse society.
Florida will come to accept gay marriage at its own pace. The worst thing we could do is lock today's attitudes and prejudices into the state Constitution by passing the ban on gay marriage in November.
A Times Editorial
Gay marriage ban cheats the future
In print: Friday, May 23, 2008
In 1948, the California Supreme Court led the way in striking down a ban on interracial marriage. Now, 60 years later, the court has issued another groundbreaking decision on marriage that, whatever its flaws, is likely to stand tall in history's judgment.
By a 4-3 vote, the court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that the relationship of same-sex couples must be granted the same "dignity and respect" as heterosexual marriage. It would have been better if the same result could have come from political consensus instead of a decision handed down by a sharply divided court. California already was far along in extending equal rights to gay couples. Before the court ruling, same-sex couples in the state had virtually the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. The only real difference was that their relationships were not recognized by the state as "marriage.''
The ruling, and a similar one in Massachusetts in 2003, suggest that maybe before another generation passes, our society will largely come to view the legal barriers to gay marriage the way we do those of interracial marriage — as a relic of a more intolerant time. Meanwhile, the California ruling is sure to reignite the political debate over gay marriage and energize efforts to change federal and state Constitutions to ban it.
Through a citizens' initiative, Florida's voters will be asked this November whether they want to amend the state's Constitution to add a ban on gay marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships. No doubt, the California ruling will embolden proponents of this measure. Already a number of states have responded to the gay community's call for legal equality for same-sex couples by slamming the door shut with constitutional amendments. And there continue to be calls for the adoption of a federal amendment banning gay marriage.
The shift in public attitudes on gay marriage is being driven by young people, including some who identify themselves as political and religious conservatives. As opposed to earlier generations when gay people were largely relegated to the closet, people under 35 have generally grown up knowing gay-led families, gay neighbors, gay school classmates and having been exposed to popular culture where homosexuality is seen as part of our diverse society.
Florida will come to accept gay marriage at its own pace. The worst thing we could do is lock today's attitudes and prejudices into the state Constitution by passing the ban on gay marriage in November.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Gay Marriage- Elightenment in California; dark clouds in Florida
Gay Marriage
Enlightenment in California; dark clouds in Florida
May 20, 2008
Opponents of gay marriage make compelling arguments: Marriage has traditionally been between a woman and a man. State supreme courts that strike down gay-marriage bans, as in Massachusetts in 2004 and in California last week, are pre-empting lawmakers and the people they represent by imposing social policy. It's through the legislative process that most states have approved of civil unions that grant gays and lesbians the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But every one of those arguments misses a fundamental point. Under the U.S. Constitution, equal rights and equal protection are not matters of interpretation according to tradition, popular will or even pragmatic compromise, which is what the civil-union argument is based on. Equal rights means equal rights -- not equal with caveats, not separately equal, not equal until deemed uncomfortably so. Equal protections apply to human beings regardless of creed, color or sex. The country learned to extend equal protections for all creeds and colors. It hasn't yet learned to extend that protection to sex. The exceptions in Massachusetts and California should be the rule.
California's Supreme Court was right to compare extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians to the right of blacks and whites to marry each other -- a right first recognized by an American state shamefully late, in 1948 (California), and not recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967. Some interpretations of religion, some ideas of tradition and, most of all, sheer prejudice aside, there never was a good reason to keep whites and blacks from marrying, although for centuries offensive conventions and equally repugnant legal reasoning dressed up the bans as natural law.
Just as bans on miscegenation are now seen for what they were -- evidence of past ignorance finally unlearned -- bans on gay marriage will, one day let us hope, be seen in the same light. California and Massachusetts aside, they already are in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.
Florida, meanwhile, insists on treading backward. The November ballot will feature a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, even though state law already bans it, and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, in effect since 1996, gives states the right to deny recognition of gay marriages executed in other states. The amendment would not prohibit civil unions or laws that confer some rights and employment benefits to individuals in gay unions. It would only, in the discriminatory words of the yes2marriage.org, organization pushing the ban, forbid laws designed "to treat unmarried relationships as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof."
In other words, it would ban treating gays and lesbians as equally as heterosexuals, without reserve or conditions. Unmarried heterosexuals could be facing legal discrimination as well.
The reasoning behind the gay-marriage ban sounds as compelling as miscegenation laws once seemed. The motive is no less repugnant.
"The right to marry," California Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court's majority last week, "represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one's choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual." Compare those words to those of Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, the case that overturned Virginia's ban on interracial marriage: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Organizations like yes2marriage.org (formerly Florida4marriage.org), propose not only to define marriage for everyone, but also to ensure that the state will infringe on one of the most fundamental rights of being human. Which is just the point in the end: Opponents of gay marriage don't see gays and lesbians as equals. And come November, to vote for that misnomer of a "pro-marriage" amendment is to vote for a modern-day version of the separate-but-equal standard that once applied to blacks. It is to endorse the view that gays and lesbians are a lesser breed not worthy of equal protection.
Enlightenment in California; dark clouds in Florida
May 20, 2008
Opponents of gay marriage make compelling arguments: Marriage has traditionally been between a woman and a man. State supreme courts that strike down gay-marriage bans, as in Massachusetts in 2004 and in California last week, are pre-empting lawmakers and the people they represent by imposing social policy. It's through the legislative process that most states have approved of civil unions that grant gays and lesbians the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But every one of those arguments misses a fundamental point. Under the U.S. Constitution, equal rights and equal protection are not matters of interpretation according to tradition, popular will or even pragmatic compromise, which is what the civil-union argument is based on. Equal rights means equal rights -- not equal with caveats, not separately equal, not equal until deemed uncomfortably so. Equal protections apply to human beings regardless of creed, color or sex. The country learned to extend equal protections for all creeds and colors. It hasn't yet learned to extend that protection to sex. The exceptions in Massachusetts and California should be the rule.
California's Supreme Court was right to compare extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians to the right of blacks and whites to marry each other -- a right first recognized by an American state shamefully late, in 1948 (California), and not recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967. Some interpretations of religion, some ideas of tradition and, most of all, sheer prejudice aside, there never was a good reason to keep whites and blacks from marrying, although for centuries offensive conventions and equally repugnant legal reasoning dressed up the bans as natural law.
Just as bans on miscegenation are now seen for what they were -- evidence of past ignorance finally unlearned -- bans on gay marriage will, one day let us hope, be seen in the same light. California and Massachusetts aside, they already are in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.
Florida, meanwhile, insists on treading backward. The November ballot will feature a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, even though state law already bans it, and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, in effect since 1996, gives states the right to deny recognition of gay marriages executed in other states. The amendment would not prohibit civil unions or laws that confer some rights and employment benefits to individuals in gay unions. It would only, in the discriminatory words of the yes2marriage.org, organization pushing the ban, forbid laws designed "to treat unmarried relationships as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof."
In other words, it would ban treating gays and lesbians as equally as heterosexuals, without reserve or conditions. Unmarried heterosexuals could be facing legal discrimination as well.
The reasoning behind the gay-marriage ban sounds as compelling as miscegenation laws once seemed. The motive is no less repugnant.
"The right to marry," California Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court's majority last week, "represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one's choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual." Compare those words to those of Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, the case that overturned Virginia's ban on interracial marriage: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Organizations like yes2marriage.org (formerly Florida4marriage.org), propose not only to define marriage for everyone, but also to ensure that the state will infringe on one of the most fundamental rights of being human. Which is just the point in the end: Opponents of gay marriage don't see gays and lesbians as equals. And come November, to vote for that misnomer of a "pro-marriage" amendment is to vote for a modern-day version of the separate-but-equal standard that once applied to blacks. It is to endorse the view that gays and lesbians are a lesser breed not worthy of equal protection.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Palm Beach Post Editorial: How far, really, would 'marriage protection' go?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
You've heard Florida and Michigan mentioned together when the issue is Democratic presidential delegates. They are being mentioned again when the issue is bans on same-sex marriage.
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's 2004 man/woman-only marriage amendment means that counties and cities cannot offer domestic partner benefits. Opponents of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which goes before Florida voters in November, have argued that by placing in the constitution what state law already forbids, the amendment also would jeopardize those benefits for Floridians.
What are these?
Obviously, a Michigan court ruling has no power in Florida. Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment also note the differences between the two proposals.
The Michigan amendment read this way: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The Florida amendment reads this way: "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."
In Michigan, the key phrase for the court was "similar union for any purpose," which is not in the Florida amendment. By a vote of 5-2, the Michigan high court ruled that the amendment linked marriage and domestic partnerships. Backers of the Florida amendment point to a 2006 Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion that their proposal does not intend to eliminate domestic partner benefits along with same-sex marriage, and thus would not violate the state constitution.
Still, like the Michigan amendment, Florida's same-sex ban contains the word "recognized." In the Michigan case, a key portion of the majority opinion stated, "When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership."
The Florida advisory opinion was unanimous, but it's still just advisory. The court always notes that allowing an amendment on the ballot doesn't indicate an opinion about the amendment. In Michigan, a trial court judge ruled that the same-sex marriage ban did not apply to domestic partnerships, but was overturned. And, of course, there was disagreement among members of the supreme court.
As all lawyers know, there's no certainty with any jury or any court. There's also no certainty about the possible reach of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
You've heard Florida and Michigan mentioned together when the issue is Democratic presidential delegates. They are being mentioned again when the issue is bans on same-sex marriage.
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's 2004 man/woman-only marriage amendment means that counties and cities cannot offer domestic partner benefits. Opponents of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which goes before Florida voters in November, have argued that by placing in the constitution what state law already forbids, the amendment also would jeopardize those benefits for Floridians.
What are these?
Obviously, a Michigan court ruling has no power in Florida. Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment also note the differences between the two proposals.
The Michigan amendment read this way: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The Florida amendment reads this way: "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."
In Michigan, the key phrase for the court was "similar union for any purpose," which is not in the Florida amendment. By a vote of 5-2, the Michigan high court ruled that the amendment linked marriage and domestic partnerships. Backers of the Florida amendment point to a 2006 Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion that their proposal does not intend to eliminate domestic partner benefits along with same-sex marriage, and thus would not violate the state constitution.
Still, like the Michigan amendment, Florida's same-sex ban contains the word "recognized." In the Michigan case, a key portion of the majority opinion stated, "When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership."
The Florida advisory opinion was unanimous, but it's still just advisory. The court always notes that allowing an amendment on the ballot doesn't indicate an opinion about the amendment. In Michigan, a trial court judge ruled that the same-sex marriage ban did not apply to domestic partnerships, but was overturned. And, of course, there was disagreement among members of the supreme court.
As all lawyers know, there's no certainty with any jury or any court. There's also no certainty about the possible reach of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Florida Today: Don't fall for the hoax
Our view: Reject the bigotry
Florida Today, 2/10/2008
View article on Florida Today
Don't fall for the hoax.
Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.
That's baloney.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, and there is no threat of legislative action in Tallahassee to change that.
If anything threatens traditional marriage it's a high divorce rate and disappearing social taboos against bearing children out of wedlock -- problems a gay-marriage ban won't affect.
Worse, the gay-marriage ban attempts to slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values. But its intent is to harm and punish, solely on the basis of whom an individual chooses to love or live with.
Worse again, it puts at risk all unmarried Floridians' guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Here's why:
The broad language of the 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.'Behind the jargon, the proposal wouldn't just prohibit gays from marrying, but also from entering into civil unions that confer certain legal rights -- such as to hospital visitation.
It could also strip them of benefits such as health care coverage many employers offer workers in domestic partnerships, gay or straight, and their dependents.
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And it has already happened in states where constitutional same-sex marriage bans are in place.
In 2007, a Michigan court ruled the state's amendment meant employers such as cities or universities couldn't provide health care benefits to unmarried domestic partners.
Those benefits are also being challenged in Kentucky and Ohio.
Florida's large population of seniors -- some of whom depend on shared benefits from domestic partnerships -- could also see that safety net struck down in court if the gay-marriage ban passes.
That's why former Florida Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past AARP President Bentley Lipscomb opposes the ban.
So do Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze and NAACP national chairman and civil rights leader Julien Bond, who understand the amendment would trample the two great promises upon which the country was founded:
The Declaration of Independence's assurance everyone is created equal and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee all will be treated equally under the law.
Despite those violations of historic American principles, White House advisor Karl Rove successfully used gay-marriage bans as a wedge issue to draw hard-core conservatives to the polls in some states in 2004, helping to give President Bush an edge.
The same low-road strategy is at work behind this ballot amendment. The Florida GOP has supported it to the tune of $300,000.
Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the 'Florida Marriage Protection Amendment' and see it for what it is:
A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.
Florida Today, 2/10/2008
View article on Florida Today
Don't fall for the hoax.
Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.
That's baloney.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, and there is no threat of legislative action in Tallahassee to change that.
If anything threatens traditional marriage it's a high divorce rate and disappearing social taboos against bearing children out of wedlock -- problems a gay-marriage ban won't affect.
Worse, the gay-marriage ban attempts to slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values. But its intent is to harm and punish, solely on the basis of whom an individual chooses to love or live with.
Worse again, it puts at risk all unmarried Floridians' guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Here's why:
The broad language of the 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.'Behind the jargon, the proposal wouldn't just prohibit gays from marrying, but also from entering into civil unions that confer certain legal rights -- such as to hospital visitation.
It could also strip them of benefits such as health care coverage many employers offer workers in domestic partnerships, gay or straight, and their dependents.
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And it has already happened in states where constitutional same-sex marriage bans are in place.
In 2007, a Michigan court ruled the state's amendment meant employers such as cities or universities couldn't provide health care benefits to unmarried domestic partners.
Those benefits are also being challenged in Kentucky and Ohio.
Florida's large population of seniors -- some of whom depend on shared benefits from domestic partnerships -- could also see that safety net struck down in court if the gay-marriage ban passes.
That's why former Florida Department of Elder Affairs Secretary and past AARP President Bentley Lipscomb opposes the ban.
So do Florida NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze and NAACP national chairman and civil rights leader Julien Bond, who understand the amendment would trample the two great promises upon which the country was founded:
The Declaration of Independence's assurance everyone is created equal and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee all will be treated equally under the law.
Despite those violations of historic American principles, White House advisor Karl Rove successfully used gay-marriage bans as a wedge issue to draw hard-core conservatives to the polls in some states in 2004, helping to give President Bush an edge.
The same low-road strategy is at work behind this ballot amendment. The Florida GOP has supported it to the tune of $300,000.
Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the 'Florida Marriage Protection Amendment' and see it for what it is:
A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Palm Beach Post Editorial: Same ol' same-sex ban
Same ol' same-sex ban
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
From Florida Statute 741.212 (1):
"Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign ... or relationships between persons of the same sex, which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction ... or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (2):
"The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (3):
"For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term 'spouse' applies only to a member of such a union."
And just for good measure, Florida Statute 741.04 (1) prohibits any judge or clerk of the court from issuing a marriage license "unless one party is a male and the other party is a female."
All that restrictive language should be enough to reassure even the most skittish Floridian that gays and lesbians won't be exchanging vows or trying to transfer a marriage. But no. Last week, the Department of Elections confirmed that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida will go on the November ballot. To Article I, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment would add: "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."
So there. Same-sex marriage wouldn't just be illegal; it would be unconstitutional, beyond the power of some future namby-pamby Legislature or court that might want to turn parts of Florida into Cape Cod or San Francisco. Of course, it also would be the first part of the constitution to restrict rights, not grant them. It would make the Florida Constitution a document that protects pregnant pigs but not human beings who want to be part of what people who will vote for this amendment describe as the foundation of society. It could make things tougher for Florida companies trying to recruit employees. It won't deal with insurance costs, the tax system or the real-estate market, which are the state's real priorities.
Instead, it will create a noisy, well-financed distraction as Floridians vote for president. The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
From Florida Statute 741.212 (1):
"Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign ... or relationships between persons of the same sex, which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction ... or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (2):
"The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction ... domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship."
From Florida Statute 741.212 (3):
"For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term 'spouse' applies only to a member of such a union."
And just for good measure, Florida Statute 741.04 (1) prohibits any judge or clerk of the court from issuing a marriage license "unless one party is a male and the other party is a female."
All that restrictive language should be enough to reassure even the most skittish Floridian that gays and lesbians won't be exchanging vows or trying to transfer a marriage. But no. Last week, the Department of Elections confirmed that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida will go on the November ballot. To Article I, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment would add: "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."
So there. Same-sex marriage wouldn't just be illegal; it would be unconstitutional, beyond the power of some future namby-pamby Legislature or court that might want to turn parts of Florida into Cape Cod or San Francisco. Of course, it also would be the first part of the constitution to restrict rights, not grant them. It would make the Florida Constitution a document that protects pregnant pigs but not human beings who want to be part of what people who will vote for this amendment describe as the foundation of society. It could make things tougher for Florida companies trying to recruit employees. It won't deal with insurance costs, the tax system or the real-estate market, which are the state's real priorities.
Instead, it will create a noisy, well-financed distraction as Floridians vote for president. The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
