The next time an opportunity presents itself in a conversation you may have with a family member or friend, ask them if they have been approached or contacted to add their signatures to place the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” on the November 2008 ballot.  Next, ask them what their understanding is of this proposal.  Ask them to consider who and what this amendment really protects.  Your questions and their answers will generate an even deeper conversation, bringing a deeper understanding of the issues and how they affect the quality of everyone’s lives. 

As you read this, you may be asking yourself three questions:

1.         Who is promoting this amendment to our Florida constitution, and what is their motivation?
2.         What truths are being hidden behind the words and phrasing of the amendment?   
3.         How will this amendment affect my life and the lives of my family, friends, and the citizens of our state?

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”  To emphasize “self-evidence,” Jefferson went on to list and to clarify each truth in this important document.  When you examine the proposed amendment, you will find that the truth is not as evident as its proponents want you to believe.  In fact, what they hope is that you do not ask any questions at all.  They are hoping that you will sign their petition to get it on the November 2008 ballot and then to vote for this amendment on Election Day. 

“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, exactly who is being protected and why do we need this “protection”?  Do our families, children, and friends need to be protected?  What about our elderly citizens?  Do they need “marriage protection”?  How about the Florida public, particularly taxpayers? Do they need an amendment to “protect” their marriages?  What about those unmarried persons sharing a home, or the various combinations of domestic partners?  Will we be protected from them by this amendment?  The phrase “substantial equivalent” is the real goal of the amendment’s proponents.  But they don’t want you to know that.  They are hoping that you are looking the other way, while they slide this “curve ball” right past you. 

Let’s stop and think for a moment about the motivation behind the proposed amendment.  If there is a law already on the books that defines marriage, why would we need an amendment to protect it? This is not the question that proponents really want you to ask because they do not want to be questioned as to their true motivation: fear, mean-spiritedness, bigotry, and pure unadulterated hatred.  If you push the question, they will hide behind what their leadership has repeatedly tried to assert -- namely, that the amendment will once and for all prohibit same-gender marriage in the state of Florida.  What they won’t tell you is that the amendment isn’t just about marriage; that is just their red herring.  The amendment is really their “back-door” attempt to use government to intrude on our lives in a more malicious and catastrophic way.  Rights and privileges that we have now are sure to be rolled back, which includes the loss of health insurance and the loss of hospital visitation rights for unmarried senior citizens. For seniors and domestic partnerships, it will limit Social Security incomes, and children of domestic partners will lose their medical insurance.  In short, the amendment does not give anybody anything; it takes away much more than we should be willing to give up.

In its “Report on Implications of Florida’s Proposed Marriage Ban,” the ACLU characterizes the proposed amendment as “a threat to domestic partner benefits and other important rights.”  The report states the following:

On its face, the proposed constitutional amendment appears to be directed at prohibiting same-sex marriages. However, the effect of the language of the amendment is much more sweeping. In reality, the practical consequences of the proposed constitutional amendment could move considerably beyond banning same-sex marriage. Rather, the amendment could provide a legal basis to challenge domestic partner benefits—affecting not only gays and lesbians, but also unmarried heterosexual couples and children.

Domestic partner benefits are employee benefits that are provided by employers to qualifying families. Such benefits may include medical and dental insurance, as well as life, long-term disability and accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and survivor benefits. Often these benefits provide the only source of health coverage for those not living in traditional mixed-gender marriages.

The effect of this amendment could extend beyond employee benefits to cover such basic issues as whether a person could take leave to care for a sick partner or even to attend a loved one’s funeral. It could affect other important rights that many of us take for granted, including the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, make medical decisions if a partner is incapacitated, or make burial arrangements if a partner passes away.

Let’s go deeper.  In a USA Today editorial (June 24, 2007), we can see how the proposed amendment can really hurt everyone:

States that prevent public employers from offering benefits to unmarried couples are hurting themselves. Governments, like private sector employers, are in competition for the best and brightest minds. Policies that drive away gay workers needlessly make recruiting and retention harder. This is particularly important at universities, hospitals and other centers of research and innovation where competition for talent can be intense.

So, yes, we may think and even strongly believe that the amendment is only aimed at gay and lesbian couples, and that it will prohibit same-gender marriages and unions.  But, the truth is that the bottom line of the amendment is its proponents’ ulterior motive: an attempt to make discrimination a part of our Florida constitution.  I ask the question again: the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment -- protecting whom, protecting what?