This is the final installment in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Although gay marriage is already illegal in Florida, Amendment 2 would enshrine the prohibition in the Florida Constitution, making it nearly impossible for a judge to overturn.

Supporters, primarily conservative and Christian groups, say their goal is straightforward and deserving of constitutional shelter: to ''protect'' marriage by defining it exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Doing so, they say, would benefit children by promoting a traditional family with a mother and father -- not two moms or two dads.

''Children always fare better when they have a mother and father,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, which is promoting the Yes On 2 campaign. ``We should not, as a matter of law and public policy, create inherently motherless and fatherless homes.''

But opponents say the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment isn't a gay issue, but rather a measure that could negatively affect many heterosexual couples as well.

They point to particular wording in the amendment that they say could lead to unmarried couples -- gay and straight -- losing hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, and domestic partner health benefits provided by employers.

The proof, they say, is what has happened in other states where similar amendments have passed.

Since Michigan voters approved a ''marriage protection'' amendment in 2004, the state Supreme Court has struck down domestic partner benefits, including health insurance and pensions. A battle is also under way in Kentucky to eliminate domestic partner benefits for employees of state universities because of similar legislation.

''This amendment says that because marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else counts,'' said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization running the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. ``It could take away existing rights and benefits of Floridians.''

`AN OUTRIGHT LIE'

Davie Mayor Tom Truex, who is rallying for the amendment, said such claims are nothing more than scare tactics. ''It goes beyond misleading,'' he said. ``It's an outright lie.''

At issue is the wording of the amendment, which reads, ``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.''

Florida Red & Blue and a group of attorneys from around the state have criticized the wording, saying it is ''vague'' and could lead to lawsuits challenging shared health plans. The state's largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, voices similar concerns in opposing the amendment.

Critics object especially to the words ''or the substantial equivalent thereof'' as a catch-all phrase dangerous to civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York, agrees.

'The proponents put in the language `substantial equivalent thereof' for a reason, and the reason is that they do not think the law should recognize some other relationship that is not exactly marriage,'' he said. ``Insofar as domestic partnerships can be the substantial equivalent of marriage, then they are also covered by this measure.''

Join the discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@