Many people are asking, "If marriage between a man and a woman is already defined in Florida law, why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect it?"
Amendments should be minimized whenever possible. But, in a culture that appoints activist judges who tinker with every basic definition against common sense, sometimes they're necessary.
Codifying traditional marriage into the Florida Constitution finishes the protection process and is purely defensive. Relying only on a statute makes Florida vulnerable to redefining marriage against the will of the people.
Fifteen years ago we couldn't imagine voting to protect something so common sense as marriage. Traditional marriage is the basic social unit of society, the oldest institution known to mankind. We're out-thinking ourselves by redefining marriage: A man and a woman are the natural means of reproduction, propagation and normal child development. If we need changes in this country, this is not one of them.
Protecting marriage is best for children and the family. Studies show children have the best chance at being healthy and happy if they grow up with a father and a mother (The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts by the Heritage Foundation).
Deviations from the family structure of a man and a woman marrying, conceiving and raising children together increase the chances of emotionally sick children. They have poorer health, and are more likely to be depressed and repeat a grade in school (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health). The risk is high that children of homosexual parents will be no different.
In Canada, where gay marriage has been legalized, a government study found that "those who identified themselves as being gay, lesbian or bisexual ... experienced higher rates of spousal violence compared to heterosexuals." (Canada's 2004 General Social Survey, www.StatCan.ca)
The gay marriage experiment has occurred in Dutch and Scandinavian countries. Dr. J. van Loon, head of a research unit on culture and communication at Nottingham Trent University, wrote in a Dutch newspaper in July 2004, "It's difficult to imagine ... the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships not have any serious social consequences."
In Florida and the United States, we should hold off on redefining marriage until more data comes in.
Proponents of Amendment 2 are confusing people by saying that benefits of seniors or gay couples' visitation rights in hospitals will be denied. The truth is domestic partnerships, cohabitation laws and social security to seniors are unaffected. Amendment 2 is not against anyone, it's for something: marriage. If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.
The consequences of redefining marriage will, I believe, lead to an increase in hate crimes and a more litigious, hair-trigger society than ever. Elevating every minority group's desires into law is not freedom but entitlement. Fatiguing litigation would increase between states that recognize gay marriage and those that don't.
In Canada, pastors were restricted as to what they can teach and who they are forced to marry. U.S. society would be opened up to case law precedent for other types of unions to who knows what. Approval of gay marriage would expose Florida to the ways of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal and legislation was filed to require children in grade school to be taught about homosexuality.
Twenty-seven states have already passed marriage amendments into their constitutions. This indicates that traditional marriage is not only common sense but mainstream. Don't let Florida be an anomaly. Please vote yes on Amendment 2.
Scott Chandler is chairman of the Yes 2 Marriage campaign in Sarasota County.
Mr. Chandler, Mr. Stemberger and supporters of Amendment 2 want to amend our constitution with a vague and ambivalently worded Amendment, which they know very well is open to a wide range of interpretation by the courts. Sadly, I believe their so blinded of by their personal bias and prejudice of God's GLBT children. If Amendment 2 serves to further the agenda to deny and strip domestic partners benefits from gay couples. That the 300,000 unmarried heterosexual couples, registered as domestic partners, who will lose their domestic partners status are "acceptable collateral damage" to them. I find this disingenuous and deceitful for them to deny this could happen, when we've seen this happen in Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio. Let their no doubt that Florida will be next.
To scare voters, they claim the only way to protect marriage from radical activist judges or lawmakers, is to write it into our states constitution. I challenge Mr. Chandler to name one activist judge in the state of Florida, who would even consider granting same-gender couples the right to marry. I won't hold your breath for his answer, it could be the death of you.
I find the reproduction and propagation argument offensive and degrading. Basically it's saying that married heterosexual couples who are unable or do not wish to procreate, marriages are of less value then their counterparts that produce children, this is despicable..
As for protecting the children, from what? The 52% divorce rate, adultery, children raised in single parent homes, abusive parents, incest and child molestation committed by heterosexuals, the epidemic of teen pregnancy, promiscuity, dropping out of school and find homes for all the poor children bounced from one foster home to another. I suggest your time be better spent dealing with these issues that are truly harmful to children.
Instead you devote all your time, efforts and money to stripping domestic partners benefits, rights, and protections from heterosexual and gay couples. Have they no shame?
Zeke Fread
VoteNoOn2 Tampa Bay Steering Committee
VoteNoOn2
Depending on Pop-Up Blocker: Use Browser Back Button or Close Window to Return to Pride Tampa Bay's Website