We agree to disagree. In my opinion, the Amendment, as crafted, provides the basis for systematic analysis of action-and-effect for subsequent legislation/regulation and does not block any action.

If you are viewing the proposed amendment as an impediment to expansion of "gay rights," then you are not seeing this as one who writes legislation/regulations.

If the amendment passes, then Sections II-A & B can be used as the foundation for any bill or draft regulation to expand and/or clarify any topic (e.g, intestacy, property division, etc.) under state/local jurisdiction. Without the foundation language, everything becomes a matter of whether the state/local law/regulation-making bodies have authority to deal with the matter. It takes the "guesswork" away from state/local law/regulation-making bodies and keeps the courts from "law-making from the bench." What's wrong with that? ? ?

The Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment:

“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.”

I. The Purpose of the Amendment.

A. The Amendment defines and preserves marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

B. The Amendment prohibits any other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof from being valid or recognized as marriage.

II. The Amendment, Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions.

A. The Amendment does not prohibit the state or local government from passing laws which confer rights to unmarried persons as long as the laws are not designed to treat unmarried relationships as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.

B. The Amendment does not affect benefits offered or contracted in the private sector.

C. The Amendment prohibits any other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof from being valid or recognized as marriage.