Ok it’s time for me to stake out a position on the Florida Marriage Amendment. Florida4Marriage.org has gotten enough signatures to get this proposed Amendment on the Nov 2008 ballot.
“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.”
As far as I understand it has passed all the usual challenges and WILL be on the ballot.
Let me first say that I did NOT sign the petition even though I had an opportunity to do so. The reason I did not sign is that I thought this was TOO STRICT. I firmly believe that we need a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as “legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife”. This is to prevent the Florida courts from doing what was done in Massachusetts, which is to read into the constitution a meaning that was never intended. This is badly needed.
However, the 2nd part of the amendment does not limit the courts; it limits “the people” as represented by their legislature. It would prevent any kind of “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership” from being created or recognized in Florida. Even if was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor (and therefore supported by a majority of the people). This is what I think is too strict. Don’t get me wrong, all things being equal, I would only vote for representatives that would promise to vote against this sort of law. But do I have a right to stop a future majority from defining marriage as they see fit? (More on this later)
One reason I did not sign the petition is that I don’t think it will pass, mainly because it is too strict like I said. I even emailed the organization pushing for this asking them to rewrite the language of the amendment. Doing so would increase the chances of it being passed. We are in desperate need of passing a amendment to define marriage and control the courts, there is not as much of a need to control the legislature because it is more directly controlled by the people.
Even with the amendment, we are not fully restricting the will of the people in the future to pass any given law. They simply would be required to pass another amendment to allow Civil Unions or even “gay-marriage” if they have a 60% majority. In a way, this is good because it prevents the legislature from quickly passing a law like this without real public debate on the issue.
So I have to decide how to vote for this. On the one hand I think it is desperately needed to be a check on the power of the courts. On the other hand I think it is a little bit too strict in that it prevents a mere majority (50.1%) of voters from establishing “Civil Union” type relationships. However, it would not prevent a large majority (+60%) from doing so, and it would require enough time and public debate that it would only pass if people really supported it.
When I started writing this I was thinking I would end up saying I was going to vote against this amendment. Not signing the petition was in a way a “vote against” it, so I was leaning towards actually voting against it. But I’m not so sure now….
MarriageProtection.orgOpposition Groups
Florida Red and BlueNews Stories
Florida to vote on gay marriage ban amendment
10 comments:
Why did you delete your comment? I was just about to respond to it...
In general I agree, but I do think society is allowed to give minor rewards or benefits to people to encourage certain behaviors. (Getting married, car pooling, charitable donations, etc)
Major benefits should be available to everyone, but not necessarily automatically.
Sorry for the premature deletion. I was trying to preview my post and I posted it by accident. I was not happy with what I wrote so I deleted it with the intention of posting it later after I polished it up a bit.
Anyway, my general point (if I remember correctly) was that I feel that government should not be in the business of telling anyone who they can have sex with, who they can marry, etc. For instance, I don't even like the fact that the government approves of my heterosexual marriage. Its none of their business. So I am strongly against the amendment.
I agree that major benefits should be available to everyone. But I think that the issue of benefits is a separate issue all-together and should be independent everything else.
I think that is a good summary of my original 2 cents.
Just to be clear (this is why I deleted the original post - to avoid follow ups to clarify points), when I say the government should not be in the business of telling me who I can marry or have sex with, I mean specifically consenting adults. I was once accused, by an incredibly religious conservative who tried hard to convert me, of supporting marriage and sex with kids and animals. This was an obvious distortion of my views.
Adults are free to live however they want to live. They can have sex with whom ever they want, share a house or pool resources with whom ever they want. But getting married is not something the couple does themselves.
Marriage is the recognition of a relationship by society given to the couple. The couple is free to live the exact same way with or without that recognition. Since marriage is something done by society and not the couple, then society should be able to set the rules. A couple should not be able to force society to recognize their relationship as a "marriage" if society is unwilling to.
"A couple should not be able to force society to recognize their relationship as a "marriage" if society is unwilling to."
But what if society IS willing to recognize gay marriage?
A Majority of society is (or should be) free to define marriage however they want. They can do that now if they get a 50%+1 majority of both houses of the legislature and a Governor willing to sign it. If this amendment passes they simply would be required to pass another amendment to allow Civil Unions or even “gay-marriage” if they have a 60% majority.
And that is the question I'm asking myself for deciding how to vote on this issue. Do I want to allow a few hundred people in Tallahassee to decide this issue for me, or do I think the definition of marriage or any similar unions should only be changed by a direct vote of the people.
...I'm leaning towards the latter...
Again, good points. I am leaning towards the latter also.
Hey wow, I almost agree with you again! Amazing.
I agree that the part about the no equivalents is a bit foggy, and restrictive, but that is why I expressly voted for the 60% rule when it came up. If 60% think that there should be no equivalents then so be it. As you have pointed out, it will only take 60% to change it back.
However, as you also pointed out, I think it will make it harder to pass.
I am leaning towards voting for it based on the fact that the objectionable parts can be overturned later if society so desires.
Of course I have an upcoming appointment with Eric to discuss the amendment and I'm sure he will do everything in his power to convince me to vote against it
DB
Dear Writer,
I am contacting you on behalf of Yes2Marriage.org, the campaign to p rotect marriage between one man and one woman in Florida. Thank you for posting support of Amendment 2 in the past on your blog or writing an editorial supporting Amendment 2. This will be a very close vote in Florida and we need a lot of help and support from writers and bloggers like yourself if the truth about Amendment 2 is going to get out to Florida voters.
We are organizing a “Blog and Editorial Writing Team” to help get accurate information about Amendment 2 out to the public. Would you please consider serving on the Yes2Marriage.org Blog and Editorial Team? Can you please provide me with an email address so we can send you breaking news and updates during these final 2 months of the campaign? Our opponents have close to 3 million dollars to spend spreading misinformation and lies about the Marriage Protection Amendment. That is why we must work strategically with you and other bloggers to correct that deception and make sure people understand that Amendment 2 does one thing only: it protects the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
I hope to hear from you soon because I want you to be one of the first to hear and report on some of the exciting developments with the Yes2Marriage.org campaign in the coming weeks. You will also want to visit www.Yes2Marriage.org regularly for vital updates. Thanks again for the important role you play in getting the facts and truth out to the public. You can contact me at rappelo@aol.com.
Assistant to yestomarriage.com Grassroots campaign director, Rachel
Post a Comment