|
By Charles D. Jamieson, Esquire
West Palm Beach, Florida - October 22, 2008 - On November 4, 2008, voters will be voting in the current presidential election. Florida voters will be voting on a series of proposed constitutional amendments. Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 is entitled, euphemistically, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. This proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the legal union of only "one man and one woman as husband and wife." If passed, it would ban gay marriage and civil unions and would endanger publicly recognized domestic partnerships if they are deemed to be "substantially equivalent" to marriage.
References to "marriage protection, or gay marriage ban" are misleading as four existing Florida statutes already define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and/or otherwise prohibit the recognition of "same-sex marriages". The legality or recognition of "same-sex unions" in Florida will be no more or less illegal in Florida regardless of the outcome of the proposed amendment.
This vague and broad language could also risk termination of several established domestic relation partnership registries which are currently accessible to millions of Floridians. These registries allow unmarried Floridians to share benefits or other protections such as hospital visitation, burial rights and health care benefits. Currently, Miami Beach, Gainesville, West Palm Beach, Key West, as well as Miami/Dade County, and Broward and Palm Beach Counties all have domestic partner registries. In addition, most Florida universities and more than half of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partnership benefits. These benefits would be placed at risk, if not outright abolished, if this amendment passes. The non-partisan and independent Office of Economic and Demographics Researchagain cites this concern in finding: "that domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits such as those related to health insurance". The wording of Amendment 2 is similar to the constitutional amendment that Michigan passed in 2004, which the Michigan Supreme Court later ruled prohibits employers like universities and cities from extending benefits to domestic partners.
As Floridians, we should be concerned by the range of impact Amendment 2 could have on us and our neighbors. It is simply not worth the risk that Amendment 2 could take away existing legal protections and benefits from even a single Floridian. Accordingly, I request that the readers of this blog oppose the adoption of Amendment 2 and ask their friends and neighbors to join us in speaking out and voting against this inappropriate provision.
For more information about this topic, or to schedule a phone interview or an in-person interview with Mr. Jamieson at his West Palm Beach office, call Doris Johnson at 561-478-0312 ext 309, or e-mail her at djohnson@cjamiesonlaw.com.
|
