The people have spoken, and a super-majority of voters have enshrined the definition of marriage into the state Constitution.

Marriage is now defined in Florida as limited to between one man and one woman.

We had opposed this amendment for three principal reasons:

• It didn't belong in the Constitution - the compact between citizen and state. Besides state statute already banned so-called "gay marriage."

•It discriminated against a particular group -same-sex couples.

•It is divisive - and indeed we saw how families, friends and neighbors across the state passionately took sides.

Opponents of Amendment 2 knew promoting loving gay couples wouldn't sway the opposition or the undecided, and they argued that non-married heterosexual couples could be affected too - from senior citizens who are companions and choose not to marry to protect their benefits to common law couples.

These concerns are valid, after one considers the consequences of similar measures in other states. Consider:

•In 2005 an Ohio judge ruled that domestic violence laws cannot apply to unmarried couples because of the state's 2004 gay marriage ban. Two years later the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying the state had authority over marriage, not over limiting the definition of who was a victim of domestic violence.

•This year the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that governments and universities within the state could not provide health benefits to domestic partners of employees, because of the state's definition of marriage.

There are other issues of consequence from property and visitation rights to the right to make decisions for one's unmarried companion.

Two years ago during his gubernatorial run Gov. Charlie Crist said he held a "live and let live" attitude and believed civil unions for same-sex couples was fine.

Crist, who openly supported Amendment 2, now has a responsibility as the "people's governor" to ensure that all citizens' right are protected.

That would mean pushing for civil unions or a domestic partnership registry.

The Legislature should enact these protections to prevent disenfranchising citizens who have an inherent right to the pursuit of happiness independent of the state's policy on marriage.