Special offer

Flrodia Voters - Marriage Protection Ammendment On Your Ballot!

Reblogger
Real Estate Appraiser with AmcAppraisalsinc.com

My church was actually supporting "Vote yes on 2".  From the surface of what you hear in the news and blogs, etc - it all seemed worthwile if all the verbiage said was "marriage is defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman".  I would have no problem voting for that - as some have mentioned, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) already defines marriage as such.

However, it took listening to a guest on a conservative (local) radio show to change my mind.  This woman was supporting the opposition (vote NO on 2) - and explained in very thoughtful and meaningful terms - why this is bad verbiage in the amendment.

So I went to the web and looked at it for myself.  You know, I think "conservative" just got a new meaning.  I used the think I was "conservative" on many issues.  But now, it seems like the new "conservative" is the ULTRA right and somehow I have become "moderate"!

So despite even my own Pastor's recommendation to vote yes on 2....I will be voting NO.  The last line in there "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized" is what caught my attention.

Why is that even necessary?  If all one wanted to accomplish was to define YES to marriage being between a man and a woman - leaving this last phrase out of the amendment would have done the trick. Right?   So my "agenda" antenna are now up! 

Original content by Inna Hardison

Here is the full text of Ammendment #2 on Florida Ballots:

"Ballot Title:

FLORIDA MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

Ballot Summary:

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Financial Impact Statement:

The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

Full Text:

ARTICLE I, NEW SECTION

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

 

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." - taken from Flaglerelections.com.

Florida has never been a particularly open-minded or, as my friends on the other side of the fence would say, liberal State when it comes to most things, but I have a fundamental issue with Voting for or against something that will have no impact on my life, yet will have the capacity to injure someone else's. 

The fact that we call these Ammendments "Marriage Protection" as opposed to "Denial of Rights to Gays" ought to tell us something in and of itself. 

I will have been married for nine years, come January.  If my relationship with my husband was a crappy one for either or both of us, we'd go our separate ways, and no Legislature could save our marriage or make it last any longer.  If, on the other hand, we are fine, we'll gladly spend the rest of our lives together.  The State has absolutely no impact on the success or failure of my marriage.  However, the benefits in taxation, hospital visitation, property ownership and inheritance, to name a few, are certainly there for the hubby and I. 

Why would the people in this State, or any other for that matter, want to deny those same benefits to same sex couples is simply beyond me.  Chances are, this ammendment will pass, after all, it sounds so fabulously good - Marriage Protection.  The overt implication that the State can protect a sacred institution is in and of itself bizarrely unconstitutional sounding, but it's also blatantly false.  Worse still, in my opinion, it is worded deceptively, at best. 

The reality of the matter is they are not asking us to Protect Marriage. They are asking us to deny benefits and rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples to same sex couples. It is really that simple, and that black and white.  I simply wish they had worded it as such, so that at least the people voting yes on it would know exactly what they were voting for.  When our Constitution depends on the 75-word descriptor to explain the meaning of what we are voting for or against, I would simply prefer it if those words were plainly stated truths

Meanwhile, the optimist in me is hoping that maybe Florida is changing for the better, and maybe the people in this State will decide that it's non of their business what others do in their bedrooms.  Our rights as people shouldn't depend on the Good Book, - not in this country.  I am hoping Florida Votes NO on 2.

 Copyright (C) 2008, inna hardison. please, don't steal from the starving artists, it's illegal and well, just plain freakin' wrong!
:-)

Comments (2)

Inna Hardison
ha media group - Orlando, FL
Wordpress for Real Estate & Design, Print HaMedia Group

Richard, thank you for my first ever reblog.... I am flattered.:-)

Oct 23, 2008 04:47 PM
Greg Gorman
John R Wood Properties - Naples, FL
Naples Florida Real Estate

Richard - This amendment is bad for Florida and bad for Floridians no matter what your personal personal beliefs may be. Since the begining of our country, we have held a strong conviction to seperate church and state issues. It's ironic that churches are now using mis-using government to legislate from the pulpit.

Oct 25, 2008 10:30 PM