I am a woman who has been with the same man for 16 years. Our relationship and rights are being threatened by Amendment 2, the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment."

David and I, a retired nurse, met when I wanted to learn to ride a motorcycle and found his name after scanning the paper in search of an instructor. We are registered as domestic partners so we can make medical decisions for each other in case of emergency. I have multiple sclerosis. David has some health complications dating back to his service in Vietnam. As registered domestic partners, we know that we can be at each other's bedside in case of emergency. If medical decisions have to be made, we know that we can count on each other to carry out our wishes.

The vague language of the second part of Amendment 2 would put all that at risk. According to the Legislature's analysis of the proposal, unmarried couples of any age could lose family protections that an overwhelming majority of Floridians support. I find no comfort that the amendment's supporters insist that they would not attack domestic partnership benefits and registries. After similar amendments were passed in Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky, lawsuits were filed against universities and municipalities offering domestic partner benefits.

Through my nursing and David's work as a therapist helping juveniles face and conquer addictions, we have both tried to give back to our community. Now our rights are in the hands of the community. The U.S. Constitution employs amendments to grant rights, and it would be outrageous to use the Florida Constitution to take them away.

JEAN ZEIS

West Palm Beach

No sign of threat to marriage

Amendment 2 is called the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, but reading it on the sample ballot I found no reference to any threat to marriage.

The amendment consists of only two sentences. The first states: "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." The second sentence only makes the point that the amendment would cost very little in tax dollars.

I have two questions: With what is marriage being threatened to need protection? How would this amendment "protect" marriage from the not-named threat? In my opinion, the threat does not exist except in the minds of religious fundamentalists and homophobics who believe that they have the right to decide for others what their lifestyles should be. And the amendment would take away important rights the gays and lesbians should have, such as visitation rights when a partner is hospitalized. I am not gay, but I support basic rights of those who are different from me.

C. SNYDER

Lake Worth