|
Thursday, 15 May 2008 15:18
|
 True Intent of Amendment 2 Backers Revealed
By William Butte
On May 7, every unmarried Florida couple in a registered domestic partnership got a chilling preview of what passage of Amendment 2 could mean to them. The proposed marriage amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot, which aims to ban recognition of same-sex marriages and “the substantial equivalent thereof,” could curtail the few benefits those partnerships now afford them.
In a 5-2 vote, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Great Lake state’s marriage amendment, which only recognizes “the union of one man and one woman in marriage . . . as a marriage or similar union,” makes it illegal for public employers to provide health insurance benefits to domestic partners of their employees.
With another state's Supreme Court ruling that domestic partnerships are “similar” to marriage, it is entirely conceivable that under a successful Amendment 2, the Florida Supreme Court would one day rule that domestic partnerships are the “substantial equivalent” of marriage, thereby invalidating domestic partnership benefits across the Sunshine State.
Markham acknowledged the “buyer beware” nature of amendment campaigns when he acknowledged that brochures distributed by the Michigan amendment’s supporters conveyed an inaccurate message about its potential impact.
His opinion noted that the lawyer representing the coalition of religious activists that drafted Michigan’s amendment and collected the signatures to place it on the 2004 ballot “apparently asserted that the amendment would not prohibit public employers from providing health insurance benefits to domestic partners.” And, he wrote, “Supporters of legislative and constitutional initiatives often tend to downplay the effect of such initiatives.”
Markham then remarked that voters who wanted to know the full effect of the marriage amendment should have read the newspapers.
As expected, John Stemberger, the Florida lawyer representing the coalition of religious activists that drafted Florida’s proposed marriage amendment and collected the signatures to place in on the 2008 ballot also downplayed the ruling’s significance. He asserts that “we crafted the language” of an amendment that would ban recognition of the “substantial equivalent” of marriage “specifically to protect, not exclude, domestic partnerships.” Of course, Stemberger didn’t explain how he crafted the language specifically to protect domestic partnerships, since the amendment’s language is specifically “crafted” to have the opposite effect. Attempting to ban the “substantial equivalent” of marriage is not without meaning.
The proof of the true intent of the backers of Amendment 2 was revealed last month by the Tampa Tribune. It reported that David Caton, executive director of the Florida Family Association and a major backer of Amendment 2, had made public records requests to the city of Tampa about its domestic partnership policy, which provides health benefits to Tampa’s police officers, firefighters and other municipal employees. Apparently unable to wait at least until Amendment 2 is voted on, Caton admitted to reporters that he and other organizations he wouldn’t name are looking for a domestic partnership policy “to challenge the one that costs taxpayers the most.”
In response, Barbara DeVane, a board member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and co-chairwoman of Fairness for All Families, an organization that opposes Amendment 2, sent out an e-mail concerning Canton’s plan to challenge domestic partnerships. Highlighting the Michigan Supreme Court ruling, she wrote, “Despite what they say publicly, those backing Amendment 2 know it will take away essential health benefits from unmarried Floridians.”
David Caton’s actions and admission speak louder than John Stemberger’s words. And yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court that marriage is a constitutional right that same-sex couples cannot be denied will spur proponents to pass Amendment 2. If that happens, expect its backers to immediately challenge the state’s domestic partnership registries.
|
Advertisements
Home 
Columnists 
