News Detail
Pennington shareholder, Samuel P. Bell III helps educate voters on Amendment 2, one of the many constitutional amendments on the November ballot.
(09/29/2008, Tampa Tribune )
Campaign rhetoric from both political parties confirms that voters this November are looking for change. Certainly Floridians are looking to our leaders to propose effective solutions to pressing issues involving the real estate debacle, taxes and education, among others.
On some issues, you can inadvertently vote in ways that will bring unintended negative consequences. That's the case with Amendment 2, Florida's so-called "marriage protection amendment," which does nothing to protect marriage and has the potential to threaten Floridians' existing rights.
As it is written, the first part of the amendment needlessly duplicates existing state laws banning same-sex marriage. Three existing laws in Florida already make gay marriage illegal, and another blocks same-sex marriages in other states from being recognized here. The second part of the amendment would add new wording to the state's constitution, stating that any relationship "treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof" will not be "valid or recognized." Therein lies the problem.
Supporters of Amendment 2 mislead us by claiming it merely reinforces existing laws without having further ramifications. In fact, this vaguely worded amendment puts existing domestic partnership rights at risk. Legal battles have been waged in other states where similarly worded amendments have been passed.
The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, charged with reviewing the economic impact of potential amendments on Floridians, cited ways in which existing rights and benefits could be put at risk, including the following: threatening the specified rights and benefits such as health insurance that are currently offered to registered domestic partners; challenging local governments that currently extend health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners; and raising it as a defense in domestic violence cases where the couple is not married, as occurred in Ohio.
The people in domestic partnerships may be elderly widows and widowers who cannot jeopardize their pension and health insurance benefits by remarrying. Others may be young mothers receiving survivor benefits from deceased spouses. They may be young or old, gay or straight. The Amendment 2 debate needs to be about all the real people this could hurt and not about moral platitudes.
Hundreds of attorneys throughout Florida are concerned enough about the vague language and potentially damaging consequences of the proposed amendment to add their names to Florida Red & Blue's SayNo2 campaign.
Amendment 2 is a dangerous diversion at a time when we need our state's full focus on creating wise public policy to solve our current challenges and lead us into the future. We need to tell our lawmakers to stop fooling around with existing rights and get back to business by voting NO on Amendment 2.
Samuel P. Bell III is a resident of Tampa and a shareholder with the law firm of Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar.