The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, a ballot initiative long-sought by social conservatives in the Sunshine State, has received enough valid petitions to be put forward in 2008. The amendment, which would prescribe a change to Florida’s constitution, will be a legal obstacle to same-sex couples obtaining marriage licenses. It does not prohibit civil unions, or the awarding of benefit rights to same-sex couples on a piecemeal basis.
The Marriage Protection Amendment has been backed chiefly by an organization called Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage. A phone call on Saturday to the number listed on the website, Florida4Marriage.org, went to voicemail at a law firm in Orlando. Organizers thought that they had enough signatures to make the measure eligible for the ballot in December, but were deterred by a computer glitch that left them 22,000 petitions short; the threshold for a measure gaining ballot status in Florida is 611,009 petitions. The Coalition responded by having supporters gather approximately 92,000 signatures in 13 days in a short burst of activity, ensuring that it would be well within range of making the goal.
Aside from its face value for conservatives, the measure may significantly affect the presidential election. Florida, often a key battleground state in years past, has grabbed the spotlight early this year by moving its primary forward and hosting a slugfest between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain, who ultimately emerged the victor with help from military and senior citizen voters. If McCain is unable to effectively energize the evangelical base, they may turn out to defend marriage - and if the Democrats come together on a polarizing candidate like New York Senator Hillary Clinton, many conservatives may feel compelled to vote for McCain, even if he is not their ideal choice. Huckabee as veep would make this much more palatable for many.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:21 am
You say that this does not prohibit civil unions or awarding of benefits, however the proposed amendment reads as follows:
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.
So the amendment itself contradicts your reporting. Why are you trying to mislead your readers?
James
more info: http://www.fairnessforallfamilies.org
February 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Austin, as expected, we differ in our analysis on this issue. I posted a lengthy blog about it, but the crux is this: the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment is a shocking attack on the freedom of individuals to contract. And it’s a classic wedge issue. But we’ve seen a similar measure defeated in Arizona. Florida is a lot like Arizona.
http://ageeklawyer.blogspot.com/2008/02/protect-this-marriage.html