« McCollum: mortgage fraud felons shouldn't be allowed back in business for 7 years | Main | Martinez: Let's debate »

Ros-Lehtinen: Just say No to Amendment 2

Miami Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is among those opposing Amendment 2 - the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment."

"In Florida, the term marriage is already defined as a relationship between a man and a woman," she said in a release sent by Florida Red and Blue, the group that opposes the amendment. "Amendment 2 will involve the government in our personal lives by dissolving locally recognized domestic partnerships, endangering the legal rights of unmarried couples and weaking business responsibilities such as healthcare and retirement benefits."

Read more here.


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


The law in Massachussetts also said marriage was between a man and a woman, until an activist state supreme court decided to ignore the democratic process and impose its leftwing agenda on the state. THAT is why we need a constitutional amendment -- to protect against judges who think they are a super-legislature.
And, NO, it doesn't impact local domestic partnerships or employee benefits -- those are shameful scare tactics.


Yes, 8:33, I am sure YOU'RE right and the 18 year member of Congress is wrong. She must have no idea what she's talking about.

Sorry to say I believe her a little more than an un-signed blog post. If she's a no, I'm a no.


READ the amendment and then THINK for yourself. Domestic partnerships are not the substantial equivalent of marriage and therefor are unaffected.
Here is the complete text: "In as much 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."
See? No affect.
Please tell Ileana.


ok, Jaguar, I am sure you're smarter than seven members of Congress and the Republican Florida Legislature - who all say that Amendment 2 could take away benefits from people who are not gay.

So, here's my question: If it won't take away benefits, what does a ban on anything that is "treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof" do exactly?

If it does not do anything, why is it in there?

If you wanted to ban gay marriage, you should have said, "Marriage is a man and woman" and leave all that other stuff out.

The comments to this entry are closed.