« Party producer: Care Resource head 'mistreated and disrespected' me | Main | Gay Equality Ride to visit Palm Beach Atlantic University »

154 Florida lawyers warn voters about Amendment 2

News release from Florida Red & Blue’s SayNo2 campaign:

Legal Community Agrees Amendment 2 Could Threaten Existing Rights in Florida

As the old joke goes: “How do you get three answers to one question?  Ask a lawyer.” 

So it’s amazing when 154 lawyers agree on anything.  Yet that’s just the case when it comes to opposition against Amendment 2, the so-called Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.

Today, Florida Red & Blue released a letter signed by 154 Florida lawyers that warns voters about Amendment 2,

Signers include former Florida House Speakers Peter Wallace and Richard Pettigrew and former President of the American Bar Association, Dean of Florida State University College of Law and President of Florida State University, Talbot ("Sandy") D'Alemberte.

Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR), charged with reviewing the economic impact of potential amendments on Floridians, stated three ways existing rights and benefits could be put at risk:

  • "If domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance."
  • "Some local governments that currently extend health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners may be impacted."
  • "By invalidating any union or ‘substantial equivalent thereof,' this amendment could be raised as a defense in domestic violence cases, resulting in fewer domestic violence convictions."

Currently three Florida Statutes [741.212 (1), 741.212 (2), 741.212 (3)] prohibit marriages between persons of the same sex while the state's Defense of Marriage Law (codified as s. 741.212) also makes same-sex marriage illegal in the state.

###

Fellow Floridians:
We, the undersigned Florida attorneys, sign this letter to publicly share our concerns about the vague language and potentially damaging consequences of the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 and urge our fellow Floridians to join us in opposing its inclusion in the Florida Constitution. Amendment 2 is called the “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment” and is often referred to by the media as a “gay marriage ban.” The proposed amendment is:

"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."


Florida Law Already Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage

References to ‘marriage protection’ or ‘gay marriage bans’ are misleading as four existing Florida statues [FS 741.212 (1), 741.212 (2), 741.212 (3) and 741.04] already define marriage as the union of a man and a woman or otherwise prohibit the creation or recognition of ‘same-sex marriages.’ The legality or recognition of ‘same-sex’ unions in Florida will be no more or less illegal in Florida regardless of the outcome of the proposed amendment.

Ambiguity in Amendment Language Will Likely Result in Unanticipated and Serious Economic and Legal Repercussions

Our chief concern is the section of the proposed amendment which states: “…no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
We agree with the 2006 report of the Florida Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) which concluded: “The amendment provides no definition for the phrase ‘substantial equivalent thereof,' which lends to the ambiguity of the wording of the proposed amendment.”
Adding such vague, untested and undefined language is likely to deliver unanticipated repercussions and could substantially alter our state both economically and legally. Quoting the EDR report on Amendment 2 again, it warns, "Depending on actions taken by the Legislature, the courts, and Florida businesses, financial obligations between individuals are expected to change in complex ways…”

Potential Loss of Existing Legal Protections and Benefits for All Floridians.

  • Alimony: In 2005, the State Legislature adopted new law designed to prevent a loophole where a former spouse receiving permanent alimony opts to cohabitate with a new partner rather than remarrying and continues to receive permanent alimony. Under this relatively new divorce law, a former spouse’s alimony obligation may terminate if the recipient spouse enters into a “supportive relationship” with another person. Florida case law defines a supportive relationship as one that provides “support equivalent to marriage”. Clearly, “support equivalent to marriage” is dangerously similar to “substantial equivalent to marriage”. The portion of Florida Statute 61.14 recognizing a relationship providing “support equivalent to marriage” could be held unconstitutional under Amendment 2. As a result, every former spouse who is either Court Ordered or who signed an agreement to pay permanent alimony could be required to continue paying alimony despite the fact that the receiving spouse has found a new partner. At the very least, these individuals will face a costly Court battle trying to uphold their agreements and to terminate their alimony obligations.
  • Domestic Violence Protection: Other potential impacts include using Amendment 2 as a defense to domestic violence on an unmarried partner (a similar amendment was used as a domestic violence defense in Ohio). Quoting the EDR again, "By invalidating any union or ‘substantial equivalent thereof,' this amendment could be raised as a defense in domestic violence cases, resulting in fewer domestic violence convictions."
  • Private Property Arrangements and Estate Planning: Without examining every potential consequence in great detail, it is possible that Amendment 2 could also have profound implications on the ability of citizens to share property or pass on assets, establish trusts or other legal arrangements or even remarry. Especially likely to be impacted by this outcome are Florida’s senior citizens and retirees who remain unmarried by choice and share pension benefits or other government benefits they have earned.
  • Domestic Partnership Registries: This vague and broad language could also risk termination of the several established domestic partnership registries which are currently accessible to millions of Floridians. These registries allow unmarried Floridians to share benefits or other protections such as hospital visitation, burial rights and health care benefits. The non-partisan and independent EDR report again sites this concern in finding: “If domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance."

While no one can know the full impact of the proposed amendment, litigation will result as vested interests challenge shared health plans, defend domestic abusers or governments seek clarity to the undefined language in the proposal. Even if every warning and potential outcome proves unfounded, the years of uncertainty and sheer legal expenses would be costly and unnecessary. As attorneys, our legal education and experience make us hesitant to support the vague and untested language in Amendment 2. Adding such a provision to our Constitution is unwise, especially when adopting the amendment will not alter our state’s current laws banning ‘same-sex marriage.’
As Floridians, we are concerned by the range of impacts Amendment 2 could have on us and our neighbors. It’s simply not worth risk that Amendment 2 could take away existing legal protections and benefits from even a single Floridian.
Accordingly, we strongly oppose the adoption of Amendment 2 and ask our legal colleagues and all Florida voters to join us in speaking out and voting against this dangerous provision. With regards and thanks for your attention.

Ramon Abadin

Lawrence Abramson

David Ackley

W. Cleveland Acree, II

Angie Angelis

Mary Merrell Bailey

Greg  Baldwin

Patricia Baloyra

Lori Barkus

Jeff Battista

David Jay Bernstein

Margaret Bettenhausen

Garry Bevel

Brian Bilzin

Michael Birnholz

Edward Blaisdell

Jonathan Blecher

Stacy Borisov

Susan Bozorgi

Rutledge Bradford

Mark Brandt

Nancy Brodzki

Kenneth Bryk

Jeffrey Buak

Peggy Smith Bush

O. Kim Byrd

Taysha  Carmody

Jerry Chasen

Edward Conrad-Waggoner

Leslie Cooney

Eric Copeland

Penelope Crandall

Earl  Crittenden

Chad Cronon

Thomas Cushman

Talbot  D'Alemberte

David da Silva Cornell

Patrick Daugherty

Jacqueline Kelley Davis

Shelbi Day

Deirdre Dibiaggio

Roger Dodd

Karen M. Doering

Michael  Dolce

Robert  Dougherty

D. Michael Elkins

Sarah Engel

Michael Feiler

David  Finkelstein, Attorney and CPA

Beth Fountain

Fredrick "Rick" Freedman

Rick Freedman

Ellen Freidin

Jaime Generazzo

Judd Goldberg

Michael Gongora

David Goroff

Mark Grant

Sandra Greenblatt

Ron Gunzburger

Robert Hasty

William  Hill

Donald Hinkle

Mary Hoftiezer

Patrick Howell

Yosbel Ibarra

Harry Jacobs

Russell Jacobs

Kathryn  Kasprzak

Ken Keechl

Kristyne  Kennedy

Georg Ketelhohn

Robert Kohlman

Judith Koons

Joel Kopelman

Jeremy Korch

John Kozyak

Benedict P. Kuehne

Edward Lack

Stephan Lampasso

Shawn Libman

Peter Lichtman

Joanne Linley

Lisa London

John Lord, Jr.

Sheryl Lowenthal

Wallace Magathan

Chris  Mancini

Shana  Manuel

David Marko

Lee Marks

Yery Marrero

Michele Martin

Natalie Maxwell

Liz McCausland

Blaine McChesney

Nicole  McLaren

Carrington Mead

Mary Meeks

Jeffrey  Miller

Richard  Milstein

Sa Mollica

Regine Monestime

Michael Morris

Gregg Morton

Anthony Niedwiecki

Anne O'Berry

Lynn Overmann

Patsy Palmer

Marshall Pasternack

Andrew Patten

Richard Pettigrew

Laura Pichardo

Lorene L. Clemans Powell

Sam  Rabin

Brett Rahall

Oliver Ramos

Patricia Rathburn

Mycki Ratzan

Gary Resnick

Philip Richardson

Miriam Richter

Joel Robrish

Robert Rossano

John Ruffier

John Ruffier

Mauro Santos

David  Schauer

Scott Schlegel

Warren S.  Schwartz

Mark Scott

Joseph Seagle

Larry Smith

Scott Sokol

Neal Sonnett

Kelly Spegon

Robert Spohrer

Helen Spohrer

Carey Stiss

Kimarie Stratos

John  Sumberg

Matthew Tabakman

Jeremy Thompson

Jonas Urba

Matthew Walker

Philip Wallace

Peter Wallace

Roberta Watson

James Weinkle

Patricia Welles

Crystal Whitescarver

Mitchell Widom

Marva Wiley

Camille Worsnop

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b26169e20105356d06ba970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 154 Florida lawyers warn voters about Amendment 2:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.