RSS
Home
Florida’s constitutional amendment revisited
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In an earlier article I analyzed constitutional Amendment 2 approved by Florida voters which went beyond the California ban on the description of marriage. Florida voters approved an Amendment that read
"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]
There was a statute that defined marriage as a one man- one woman legal relationship that was the only marriage to be recognized in Florida. The reason for the Amendment, explained the proponents, was that someday a court might invalidate the statute and the Amendment would endure. (The fact that, if as many people believe, the federal courts will void contrary state laws and state constitutions because of the overriding Federal Constitution, was conveniently unmentioned.)
In fact, however, there was another agenda.
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. The two had been in a committed for many years and the public was patently upset with the unfairness and injustice of the situation.
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 health insurance 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 or pension benefits. Finally, committed persons in long-term relationships were allowed to freely visit their partners in hospitals and nursing homes and similar facilities.
There were still areas in which there were fewer benefits and rights, notably Federal income taxes. But this was an area that was evolving, slowly but at a steady pace.
Those of us, who opposed Amendment 2, primarily because of the ambiguous language the Florida Supreme Court let stand for future interpretation, assumed that the proponents of the measure had another idea in mind.
And now the other shoe has dropped.
Hillsborough County does not offer domestic partnership benefits to employees, although the city of Tampa does. A change to the County Charter would not affect city employees. Nonetheless, David Caton, executive director of the Florida Family Association, says he will seek a change to the Hillsborough County Charter in 2010 to pre-emptively ban same-sex benefits for county employees. As of now, Tampa officials state that there is no chance that the city will rescind its benefits policy, but Mr. Caton said he would seek to use the political momentum of a Hillsborough charter change to influence Tampa elections for City Council and mayor in 2011. With gay marriage bans getting passed in several states, he called same-sex domestic partner benefits the next frontier in the gay-rights battle.
So far, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio denies that the efforts of Mr. Caton will not pressure the city to change its policies. A majority of City Council members have said they would not seek to end same-sex benefits. "We are going to continue our domestic partner benefits," Iorio was quoted as saying, "It's the right thing to do." The County Commission has at least one Commissioner, Mark Sharpe, a conservative Republican, has been quoted as saying that Mr. Caton is seeking to address a problem that doesn't exist. In the meantime, the county is facing major challenges, he said.
"My focus is going to be 100 percent on solving some weighty issues: job creation, transportation," Sharpe said. "I'm going to spend the next two years trying to figure out how to bring people together to address quality-of-life issues."
But in the meantime, the voters of Tampa and Hillsborough County are in for another culture war.
Reference:
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
SLB has submitted her opening statement in which she takes issue with some of my views. To make matters clearer for the readers of these points of …
- Email criticisms and accolades to jstillman@iqzero.net
- Check out advertisers on this page
