Jim Stillman
NevarFlorida voters approve Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
November 7th 2008 10:33
The substance of this article has been published at EXAMINER.COM
Florida voters went “blue” and chose the Democratic candidates, as anticipated due to the vote along the I-4 corridor and especially in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties on the west coast. At the same time, the voters approved a Constitutional amendment
"In as much 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." [Emphasis supplied]
As had been explained in an earlier post, the emphasized phrase has created confusion and has, in effect, forced subsequent review and clarification by the courts. This is a development that is ordinary anathema to Conservatives. Florida already has a statute, § 741.212, Florida Statutes enacted in 1997, provides, in relevant part
Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, not recognized for any purpose in this state. . . [T]he term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
So why was the amendment so important to its supporters and why does it bother many day and heterosexual people? Why did it pass in a state that has turned “blue?” Perhaps much can be explained by the material offered by each side.
The proponents of the amendment advertised it as one to prevent same-sex marriage in the event a future Florida Supreme Court invalidated § 741.212. Those opposed to the amendment cited the “substantial equivalent” wording as to forbid contractual granting by governmental agencies and private employers of survivor pension rights and extended medical insurance coverage to gay and unmarried heterosexual couples.
In 2001, City of Tampa police officer Lois Marrero was killed in the line of duty; her ten-year relationship partner, Tampa police Officer Mickie Mashburn, was denied surviving pension benefits. Three years later, the City of Tampa joined with a number of Florida cities and counties and private companies, such as Walt Disney World, the St. Petersburg Times and others in extending benefits to unmarried individuals in committed long-term relationships.
Moreover, especially in Florida, many seniors, now widowed, elect to live together unable to marry without loss of social security benefits.
The issue will likely have to be resolved in the courts by those “activist” judges who are the bane of the far Right.
| 100 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
if there was already a passage specifying "man and woman" it seems rather redundant to even suggest an amendment anyway
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
I guess, looking at how far the women's lib movement has come, and how far it has left to go should be indicative of how much longer same-sex couples will have to fight to achieve equal rights... *sigh*
Comment by Garrett Mickley
Survive, Today!
Digital Product Reviews
Separation of Church and State, I say.
Marriage is a legal document. Nothing religious at all.
Whether they get married in a church or not, should be up to the church its self. That would be the only religious aspect.
Comment by Jeff Musall