This year’s ballot asks voters to decide a half-dozen amendments to the Florida Constitution, and the most contentious one is the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.

Also known as Amendment 2, the ballot language reads: “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.”

Amendment 2 proponents say this is simply a ban on same-sex marriage.

Amendment 2 opponents say the vague and undefined ballot language goes much further, threatening the health care and pension benefits of thousands of Floridians living together in domestic partnerships.

The wording fails to define “substantial equivalent thereof.”

Supporters reject that argument, yet the Michigan Supreme Court this year ruled that the state’s similarly worded gay marriage ban prevents public employers — local governments, schools and universities — from offering partner benefits to same-sex relationships.

Many Florida companies, colleges and universities offer domestic partner benefits.

The Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research, charged with looking into the economic impact of amendment proposals, found that Amendment 2 not only threatens health and other domestic partner benefits and rights, but also could be raised as a defense in domestic violence cases, bringing fewer convictions.

Some in the business community fear passage will impair Florida’s ability to recruit new companies and employees to the state and impede hiring in higher education.

Four existing Florida statutes already define marriage as a union of a man and woman, or prohibit same-sex marriages. So why should we ingrain this in the Constitution?

Supporters maintain that judges could overturn those statutes or legislators could change the law.

But this is not simply a ban on gay marriage.

Leaders of Florida Red and Blue, a bipartisan coalition formed to fight the amendment, say that had the issue’s language only stated “inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife,” they would not stand opposed.

This is a case of unintended consequences, one that imperils domestic partner benefits, domestic violence cases, and business recruitment and retention.

We do not support passage of Amendment 2.

Amendment 1: YES

Amendment 1 asks voters to erase an obscure provision of the Constitution that prohibits people ineligible for U.S. citizenship from owning property in the state. Listed as the Declaration of Rights on the ballot, this measure is sponsored by the Legislature.

The alien land law dates back to 1926, specifically targeting Asian immigrants. A few years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress took various actions declaring various Asian groups ineligible for naturalized citizenship and denying them entry into the country. Florida and other states then adopted related laws.

Since then, every state except Florida has repealed those statutes. Florida’s has remained in the Constitution for lack of enforcement and subsequent court challenge. This discriminatory law should be eliminated from our Constitution. We support repeal.

Amendment 3:  YES

Amendment 3 benefits property taxpayers who improve their homes with hurricane protections or renewable energy projects, prohibiting assessors from using those improvements to increase the residence’s taxable value.

The wordy ballot title states the case as only a lawyer can: “Changes And Improvements Not Affecting The Assessed Value Of Residential Real Property.”

Current state law allows wind-hardening improvements and renewable energy source devices to be considered in property tax assessments. Potential savings to homeowners looks relatively small.

This ballot issue only gives the Legislature the authority to adopt those measures and does not compel action. This may or may not apply to all residential property, or only homesteads, depending on legislative action. But it cannot apply to non-residential property.

Any measure that promotes storm-hardening projects and renewable energy improvements, offers homeowners a small payback and has little impact on local governments’ ad valorem revenue is a winner. We encourage a yes vote on Amendment 3.

Coming Tuesday: Our thoughts on the other three amendments on the ballot.

Depending on Pop-Up Blocker: Use Browser Back Button or Close Window to Return to Pride Tampa Bay's Website