Gay-marriage foes get several victories

BY JENNIFER MOONEY PIEDRA, jmooney@MiamiHerald.com

Florida was one of three states that approved constitutional amendments invalidating ``all legal unions that are treated as marriage.''

Opponents of gay marriage scored a state-referendum sweep Tuesday, bringing some solace to social conservatives, and anger and sorrow to gay rights activists.

Voters in Florida, Arizona and California -- which just six months ago granted same-sex couples the right to marry -- approved state amendments that ban such unions. Thirty states nationwide now specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman in their constitutions.

The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was supported by more than 62 percent of voters statewide -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification.

Supporters of Florida's Amendment 2 -- mostly conservatives and Christian groups -- spent months campaigning for its passage. They argued it was needed to protect the ''traditional'' institution of marriage and families by promoting homes with a mom and a dad -- not two moms or two dads.

''This was not about being against anyone,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, which led the campaign to pass Amendment 2. ``We're talking about a universal human social institution. It is undeniable how important that is.''

While supporters said the amendment's only purpose was to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that it would not infringe on the rights of any Floridian, the opposition disagreed.

They argued that gay and straight, unmarried Floridians risked losing domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make end-of-life decisions.

But proponents say that won't happen because the language in Florida's amendment does not prevent companies or the government with domestic partnership registries -- such as Miami-Dade and Broward counties and North Miami -- from giving benefits to anyone.

In Miami Beach, for example, any couple from anywhere in the world can visit the city and register as domestic partners. The registry, created in 2004, gives domestic partners many rights, including hospital visitation, participation in healthcare decisions and emergency medical notification when they're in Miami Beach.

Now, the city's legal department is looking into whether the domestic partner registry will be affected by the amendment's passage, said city spokeswoman Nanette Rodriguez.

Critics of the amendment also expressed concern that its wording was ''vague'' and could possibly lead to lawsuits challenging shared health plans.

''Our message was incredibly complex and required attention,'' said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization that ran the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. ``The yes argument was wrong, but easy to understand.''

Sandy Allen, who lives in Northeast Miami-Dade with his partner of 5 ½ years, said he was disappointed that the majority of voters supported the amendment.

''I thought we had done enough of a grass-roots campaign,'' said Allen, 51. ``I thought we had a convincing message.''

Allen called the amendment's passage ``a step backward.''

Allen and his partner, Stephen Kuttner, hoped to marry some day -- in Florida.

Those hoping for the amendment's defeat were disappointed by the outcome, but knew they were up against several challenges.

Among them: A hotly-contested presidential election that dominated the attention of voters.

''There's no question that hurt us,'' said Newton.

Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics.

Monroe County -- home to a large gay and lesbian population in Key West -- was the only county statewide where more people voted against the amendment than for it. The final tally: 52 percent against it, 48 percent for it.

In Miami-Dade, 58 percent of voters supported the amendment, while 42 percent of voters opposed it.

It was closer in Broward, where 52 percent of the voters were for it, 48 percent against it.

Given the trend that many states are passing gay marriage ban, Florida's approval of the measure did not surprise Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond.

Traditionally conservative leanings in Arizona also proved favorable for the amendment's passage in that state, he said.

''California is the real surprise,'' he said.

For years, California has been at the forefront of the gay marriage debate.

Eight years ago, voters there approved a referendum that read ``Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.''

But in May, the state Supreme Court ruled that it violated the state's constitutional equal protection clause.

Gay marriage was then legalized in California. Connecticut and Massachusetts also recognized gay unions.

Since that ruling, about 17,000 same-sex couples were married in California.

But opponents of gay marriage continued their fight, arguing that such unions would lead to schools teaching students about homosexuality.

Proposition 8 popped up on the ballot again this election season, prompting a heated and well-financed campaign.

The measure, which contained the same wording from the amendment approved in 2000, passed with more than 52 percent of voter support.

The language on Arizona's Proposition 102 is similar to that in California. It reads ``only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.''

Voters in Arizona rejected a gay marriage amendment two years ago, making it the only state ever to shoot down such a proposal.

That proposal, however, was broader and was interpreted to apply to marriage alternatives such as civil unions and domestic partner benefits.

Tobias, the University of Richmond professor, said the results are proof that the issue is not based on party affiliations, but more so on emotions.

''This tells us that people are not ready'' to accept same-sex marriage, he said. ``There just isn't yet broad acceptance in specific states or in the country for this.''

Miami Herald staff writers Steve Rothaus and Marc Caputo, Sacramento Bee reporter Aurelio Rojas and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments

[Mbuckingham]

yes that is a very good decision, as our faith will last much longer now!