Posted on 10/14/2008 10:06:34 PM PDT by goldstategop
According to the Florida Supreme Court, Amendment 2 does just one thing. It defines marriage as between only one man and one woman into the Florida Constitution.
When an amendment to the Florida Constitution is submitted, it goes through an approval process that finishes with the court deciding whether the proposed amendment deals with only one subject. When Amendment 2 was submitted for review by the court, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the language. It argued the amendment dealt with more than one subject. When the case was heard, the ACLU attorneys asserted six times that Amendment 2 would not only affect marriage, but that it would also prohibit the recognition of domestic partnerships.
Amendment 2 was allowed to go on the ballot because the court disagreed with the ACLU's position. In its opinion, the court said, "the voter is merely being asked to vote on the singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to the union of one man and one woman."
The opinion went on to say, "Initially, a comparison of the proposed amendment with current law in section 741.212 of the Florida Statutes (the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA), demonstrates that the amendment essentially tracks the language of the current statutory provision. … The proposed amendment is essentially inserting this statutory scheme into the Constitution."
Legal precedent has already been established in Florida regarding DOMA and domestic partnerships. In Broward County, opponents of domestic partnerships used DOMA as the basis for their suit to outlaw them, saying that DOMA prohibited domestic partnerships. The 4th District Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that DOMA has no impact on domestic partnerships.
The Supreme Court said Amendment 2 would merely place DOMA in the Constitution. The appeals court said DOMA doesn't affect domestic partnerships. The connection is clear: Amendment 2 won't affect domestic partnerships or any associated benefits.
Opponents of Amendment 2 know they can't win this debate if they simply try to "validate" a need for same-sex marriage. In the first 27 states where marriage amendments appeared on the ballot they passed by resounding margins. Voters naturally recognize that for the benefit of society, and particularly for the welfare of children, marriage should be between one man and one woman.
This realization led them to another strategy. Now, the spokesmen for the groups opposing Amendment 2 won't even acknowledge that it's about marriage, even though the Supreme Court clearly said that marriage is exactly what it is about.
Instead, they are trying to frighten voters, especially senior citizens, into believing that they'll lose benefits if Amendment 2 passes. This is a total fabrication. There is the ruling from the appeals court.
They also say there's no need for Amendment 2 because there are already laws on the books that define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The response to that: Look what just happened in Connecticut, and a couple months ago in California, and a few years ago in Massachusetts. All of these states had laws protecting marriage. That didn't stop radical activist judges from imposing their will on the people of their states.
Our only option to keep those radical judges from imposing their will on the people of Florida is to pass Amendment 2.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Can a court rule an amendment unconstitutional? I know it is an oxymoron, but you never know.
This was over a week ago, and I have yet to hear from them . . . .
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Well the 9th and 10th amendments might as well be thrown away, the courts have made sure of that.
Correct. Lefties want to destroy the traditional family and usher in the new “parents” for the population: state and government. If Amendment 2 is needed, go for it FL. Don’t end up like MASS. and CA where they have robots who don’t think but do..
They did it in California.
I voted here in Florida last week, By mail.
Held my nose and voted McCain.
In regards to this amendment it is written on the ballot in such a way as to be very confusing.
If you do not read it correctly you think you are voting for it when you actually are voting against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.