Columns: I'll take 'silly social issues' for $100, Alex

Okay, so we won't be voting this year on whether to control growth in Florida in a different way.

But we will be voting on whether to put a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The Hometown Democracy proposal - to put local voters in charge of major growth decisions - did not make this year's ballot. Maybe in 2010.

As for same-sex marriage, the group behind that amendment, Florida4Marriage.org, worked hard and qualified for the ballot at the wire.

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.

First of all, it should be noted that same-sex marriage already is illegal in Florida. The Legislature passed a "defense of marriage" law back in the 1990s. The question is whether to write the ban into the Constitution, too.

The part about "only one man and one woman" is clear enough. But the tricky part comes with the phrase, "the substantial equivalent thereof."

Does that mean that any kind of domestic-partner agreement or benefit would be illegal? Is this amendment an attempt to reverse what already has become commonplace and common sense in our society?

Absolutely not, says John Sternberger of Florida4Marriage.org. Marriage, he pointed out, is a "massive bundle" of legal rights, touching on something like more than 1,100 points of law. The phrase "substantial equivalent" is intended to mean any legal device that tries to convey the whole shebang, or something close to it.

As for benefits, rights or agreements between domestic partners, he argued, "All of these you can get with a good, durable power of attorney."

You can never predict how a court will rule. But when the Florida Supreme Court approved the wording of this amendment for the ballot in March 2006, it seemed to support Sternberger's position.

Opponents had argued that the marriage amendment was a Trojan horse that targeted not only marriage, but all rights and benefits. But the court rejected that argument.

Still, this will probably be the crux of the campaign against the amendment this year. It was the argument used in 2006 in Arizona, the only state to reject a same-sex marriage ban so far.

My own thinking is that civil marriage is just a legal contract, and it ought to be open to any two people who want it. It doesn't "threaten" my own marriage. Basically, it's none of my business.

But we are going to have the fight. It will be another silly social-issue diversion that both sides will use to whip up supporters. Too bad we're not debating Hometown Democracy instead.

So, am I promoting the Homer Sexual Agenda? Am I part of a Times plot to promote the baseball stadium, too? Will Charlie Crist's new love for gambling come back to bite him? Why not ask me to my face (or at least, to my keyboard) during today's live chat on TroxBlog?

I'll be taking reader comments and questions live from noon to 1 p.m. You'll find TroxBlog under the "Blogs" menu at www.tampabay.com.

Share your thoughts on this story

Read our guidelines for comments

Comments on this article

by Jay	02/06/08 05:22 PM
Look at Ohio's marriage amendment -- it's so strict they can't even prosecute hetero domestic partner abuse cases.

by rob	02/06/08 05:58 AM
Ban it. Discriminaton has nothing to do with it. If 600K voters signed the patition then it must not have been a "silly social issue" to then. And Marc english should be the offical language

by rick	02/05/08 06:40 PM
live and let live. we let the right wing nut jobs live and they supported slavery,segegration,womens rights,and every other evil.yet we let them multiply,could've sterilized em, but we let them live amoung us. maybe they should learn from that.

by Steven	02/05/08 06:32 PM
I am a gay man, been with my partner for over 8 years. I love my HUSBAND deeply and yes, I am entitled to protections under the law. Durable powers of attorneys are not going to cut it. They can be challenged. Dare I say, remember Terri Schivo

by Marie	02/05/08 04:50 PM
a durable power of attorney doesn't even grant marital rights to married couples

by Maran	02/05/08 01:51 PM
Banning a "substantial equivalent" is a clear attempt to prevent any kind of domestic partnership or civil union that could apply to same-sex couples. It's a clear attempt to enshrine descrimination in the state's constitution. Vote no!

by Teresa	02/05/08 11:36 AM
You can't seperate values from our country. We were founded on values. Value voters keep you safe and progress has NOTHING to do with values. Good character never goes out of style. Families falling apart because men dont know how to be real men. hm

by Inez	02/05/08 10:42 AM
The legislature needs to come into the 21st century and stop discrimination. It is discrimination and not wanting gays to have equal rights. Every American citizen should have equal rights in every way.

by Marc	02/05/08 10:22 AM
The marriage ban is a red herring issue, like making English the official language. It serves as a distraction from real issues facing our every day lives and as a rally to socially retarded "values voters". It's like saying, "Who needs progress?"

by Michael	02/05/08 10:01 AM
Can we ban social conservatives when they bring up non fiscal issues?

by Bob	02/05/08 09:52 AM
The joys of direct democracy where things like this and pregnant pigs can be put in the constitution by the voters.

by Steve	02/05/08 09:43 AM
Marriage = Union, any dirivation of that meaning, like stating that it can only be one man and one woman, is meant to descriminate and rule against those who see it like it is. a special union between 2 consenting adults. Vote No to Descrimination!

by Jason A.	02/05/08 09:08 AM
GREAT! We get to vote on an issue that DOES NOT EFFECT FL in anyway. Fl already ban same-sex marriage. Instead of dealing with something worth while like prop ins. we get this. Instead of trying to better florida, we get a chance to tear people down.

by Henry	02/05/08 08:42 AM
"A good,durable POA" doesn't mean squat for pensions,hospital visitation,and dozens of other situations.If it's no big deal,why are they pushing so hard to ban something already illegal? I'm tired of being thrown under the bus for others' gain.

by sj	02/05/08 08:37 AM
"civil marriage is just a legal contract, and it ought to be open to any two people who want it. It doesn't "threaten" my own marriage. Basically, it's none of my business." -- This is well put, I agree! This is supposed to be a FREE country..

by John	02/05/08 08:27 AM
I agree with you. These are the important issues of our times? I will vote against it and vote against the incumbents who make this their rally cry. There are too many other IMPORTANT issues to deal with than this!