FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

If you are NOT legally married you should read these articles....

Fairness For All Families, discussed the importance of focusing our efforts to defeat the “Marriage Protection Amendment” which will appear on the November 2008 ballot.

The specific amendment reads: “Inasmuch as a 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.”

The concern is that passage of such a vaguely worded amendment will lead to a ban of all recognition and benefits for unmarried couples, be they straight or gay. In states where similar legislation has been adopted the challenge to domestic partner benefits has already begun. This not only impacts many gay families, but also hundreds of thousands of straight couples who have chosen not to legally marry in order to protect their retirement/pension benefits.

So what can we do???
Our first step needs to be education. Visit the “Fairness” website (www.votenoflorida.org) to become familiar with the specifics of this issue, learn who is behind this amendment, and find a list of specific actions we can take as individuals and groups to help defeat the measure.



Secondly, we need to commit ourselves to having as many conversations as possible with those around us stressing the importance of defeating this amendment. We need to gather the support of family and friends of all those who, for whatever reason, live lovingly as life-partners.



And finally, above all else, we need to vote!!!! Our collective voice needs to be heard and this can only be accomplished when each individual steps forward on November 8th. Take yourself and all your friends to the polls on that day so we can put to rest this mean spirited amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Meaning and Purpose of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

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.

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

Great post. Thanks for the info.

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

Bump....

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

Thanks for the information. :agree:

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

I'm not so sure I understand what's considered "mean spirited?"

"Marriage" in this context is a term of legality for a specific contract upon which: the parties are clearly identified; there are legal procedures in place to nullify or terminate the contract should there be mutual agreement to terminate the contract or one parties breaches the terms and conditions - especially important in the settlement of claims and child custody/support circumstances. In addition, there is quite a body of jurisprudence to rely upon for reasonable decision-making.

Laws are not casual things. When you make one, you usually find yoursself knee-deep in side issues you didn't expect.

The Amendment as written takes a cautious approach, recognizes that "domestic partnerships" can be state-approved, and that such state approvals can require recognition for the purpose of such things as insurance benefits, et cetera, and that these recognitions will be clearly identified.

It is not "mean spirited" to recognize that the jurisprudence of the marital relationship has had several hundreds of years' development and refinement - and that refinement has come with much angst, error, change and adjustment. This is especially important in a transitory society like the US, where what's "legal" in one place is "illegal" just over the state line. Matrimonial law is more "national" than just about any other body of law where states have primary jurisdiction, and the inevitable problems of estate-division, custody, support (and alimony), et al when partners change jurisdictions need a legal "history" for proper applilation in courts.

"Mean spirited" - NO. Being cautious not to legally create havoc in courts - YES. Until the consequences and ramifications are recognized and accounted for (so that COURTS and JUDGES don't make law from the bench), the Amendment appears to me as a reasonable accommodation.

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

haven't read the rest of your post yet....but I posted this w while back before I new really what I was doing on here....I was not the author of this article....I got it from the Rainbow Family site here in TV's.....I was just passing it on....

Just to clarify that I am not the author and did not make any of these statements....

Although IMHO...I agree with most of it....

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

Ok...now that I have read your post in full....this time Steve...I completely disagree with you. But thank you for sharing!

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

Just a note...Having been through the Amendment 2 issue out here I just wanted to make a comment.

In the most recent past one political party has used this issue as a wedge..in fact the press now calls them wedge issues. Out here the proponents of Amendment 2 used the slogan No Special Rights. Some people not familar with Domestic Partner Healthcare benefits might not know they are taxed as an added benefit. The value of the healthcare premiums are added to the employees wages or salary. However, these added payments do not count into the Social Security or Pension final 5 years average salary.

Re: FLORIDA Vote NO on #2!! Gay or Straight
 

VERY TRUE....thank you for reminding us!

So is the primary issue really a "tax code" issue? Is the fix simply a matter of seeking a tax exemption by IRS amending the tax regulations? That can be initiated as a separate bill/rider and subsequent regulatory change. Are there Members of Congress willing to submit such a bill/rider?

Omnibus change is always difficult to muster. Piecemeal through separate bills/riders results in more rapid action and allows the legal system to adapt accordingly.

I believe that there are several issues...

Hospital Visitation Rights for Non Married Couples and Medical Decisions
Shared Property Rights and Inheritance Issues
Tax Issues

To name a few.

Which brings us back to a mixture of federal, state and local jurisdictional authorities. Each level of jurisdiction is unique, and a single "apply this to it" approach from on-high probably won't stand constitutional muster.

Estate law is a good one. The states (not the feds) own this one. Changes to estate/intestacy law must occur at the state level, and a fed "change" may be considered a "10th Amerndment" violation despite any argument espousing the "Equal Protection" clause. That's just one example of how messy things can get when the fed gets involved in state business. I don't thing anyone's goal is to place such matters in a protracted appellate situation, resulting in "law from the bench" to potentially occur.

As with any issue, emotion can cloud how to effect change. Legal objectivity, especially recognizing where jurisdiction for certain change exists, is paramount. THEN true change can be initiated, rather than emotional attempts at change which fail from the onset no matter how righteous the desired change may seem..

Fumar...with that comment it makes me FEEL that you would prefer to go backwords....women? blacks? I am not putting words in your mouth...I am just wondering what you meant by your comment...it makes me nervous!

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Yes..the State owns this....
 

Which is why we must Vote NO on amendment 2 in my opinion...this is a state law....that must be voted against! Ironically the state published information on their website on each amendment...and with attached websites for voters to look at...they ONLY published one website...the one that is FOR this law!! Doesn't seem right to me!! A little one sided...the "RIGHT" side...but the wrong things to do!

Thanks Steve..

I am in total agreement with you.......Our entire gov't, structure was never intended to recognize Illegal unions....

VOTE YES ON 2.....

Change is good....
 

There are a lot of things that were not legal at one point or another....and now are...because of smart, open minded, nonjudgemental, progressive thinking.....
Or were illegal and now are not....

Women can now vote! Blacks are not slaves!

If we were living the way our government was originally established...God help us all!!

Vote NO....

If our supreme court would interpet the constitution as it was written , we wouldn't be in the mess we are today !!!!

More information
 

Fumar....I am not sure what you meant in your last post...that perhaps women should not be voting? Blacks should still be slaves? I am not sure...however here is some information for you and all to look at.
Websites for you to educate yourself! This has nothing to do with GLTB marriage...it is only going to hurt ALL "unmarried" residents of the state.......you don't have any friends man and woman....that live together....like husband and wife...but are not legally married...mainly because of benefits and money issues...do you not know anyone in this situation? It could devestate them!!


http://www.fairnessforallfamilies.org/
www.sayno2.com


From the SAY NO 2 website....

6 Reasons to Say No 2

Taking Away Benefits
Amendment 2 could take away existing benefits from all unmarried Floridians

Hurting Seniors
Amendment 2 could force seniors to choose between important benefits like sharing health care and important government benefits.

"Gay Marriage" Bait & Switch
Amendment 2 claims to ban "gay marriage" but Florida already has multiple laws banning same-sex marriage
Massive Government Intrusion
Amendment 2 puts the government where it doesn't belong - regulating the personal relationships of Floridians

Hiring Expensive Lawyers
Amendment 2 could force unmarried Floridians to hire expensive private lawyers just to protect their basic legal rights

Dramatic Consequences
Amendment 2 could take away job benefits from university employees and be used as a defense to domestic violence - as in other states which passed similar amendments

In fairness to the righties out there....here is the other website...
http://www.yes2marriage.org/

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.

A Bit Narrow Minded, aren't we?
 

Wow Fumar, step out into the light from your cave. This is the 21st Century! There is a whole spectrum of different kinds of families and relationships that don't just consist of man, woman and child. Hello! Time to wake up and smell the change! ;)

That "smell the change" is profound! Reminds me of the lipstick remark?

Changed my mind...
 

At one point I thought that Fumar and Steve were open minded...willing to listen to others and not as right winged as some of our other friends on here. However, I have changed my mind. Think about your own lives...think about if your son or daughter could not marry the person they loved, would you care?

Steve...you talk about the freedom we are given here in the US because of what our troops have done in the past. How is it that only certain people have all Freedoms....

Shouldn't everyone have the Right to Pursue Happiness....whereever that happiness comes from.

I can't believe you are both so CLOSED minded about this situation.

This is just my opinion....and I am saddened today...thinking that there were two great opinions that I loved to read...and no longer will read them with the same eyes. :cry:

Not "closed minded" - pragmatic.

We live in a society of laws. All laws have multiple interpretations (the writer may interpret it very tightly, and the reader may intepret it very broadly), and that is normal. Once laws are passsed by legislatures, regulations then are drafted by the agencies responsible for enforcement and administration in order to make the law actionable by government and the public. If the laws and regulations are not so precise that disputes in interprettions still occur (which is almost always the situation), the courts get involved via lawsuits, resulting in courts (which also disagree) more fine-tuning things from the bench.

I gave my reasons why I think the Amendment makes sense, that being the foundation for future legal actions so that every county, state and federal judge at the various trial and appellate levels doesn't find him/herself playing Solomon on related issues, and the resulting decisions being inconsistent. I like predictability when it comes to legal actions, rather than "Oh, we'll worry about that when it happens." It ALWAYS happens, and it's always a controversy, and no one is ever satisfied when courts get involved in societal matters.

The Pursuit of Happiness is a concept contained within the Declaration of Independence, and not within the U.S. Constitution. The latter is the supreme law-of-the-land, while the former is the ultimate "press release" describing the reasons for the colonies' secession from Britain.

So, if it's "closed-minded" to expect that any modifications to the legal fiber of our society - at any level - go through the established legal process so that multiple interpretations (including the biases and personal mores of the interpreters) are avoided as much as possible, do not cause even more frustration and subsequently generate excessive litigation, then I guess I am.