F'losrix
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 8180
Location: Michigan, Washtenaw County
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: Florida gay marriage opponents having it both ways |
|
|
Excerpts from this article, regarding the push to amend Florida's constitution to ban government recognition of gay marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships:
Florida4Marriage, which is tied to conservative Christian churches, has denied the amendment would do anything other than prevent same-sex couples from marrying. In its initial brief the group's lawyer, Liberty Counsel, said: "By casting their ballot in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, voters are not being asked to reject rights and protections for same-sex or unmarried couples."
In its brief, Liberty Counsel claimed that that the amendment would not disturb domestic partner health benefits offered by several municipalities in Florida because they are not the "substantial equivalent" of marriage.
However, Liberty Counsel took the opposite position when it challenged the City of Gainesville's policy of providing domestic partner health benefits to its lesbian and gay employees.
In that case they argued that the city's domestic partner benefits "mimics marriage" and "establishes a relationship that is the equivalent of marriage" in violation of state law prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples.
Liberty Counsel drafted the proposed anti-marriage amendment and are the attorneys for the group pushing the amendment.
This is exactly the kind of crap that gay marriage opponents tried to pull in Michigan. They went around claiming their ballot initiative was only about preventing gay marriages, then as soon as it passed they sued to eliminate domestic partnership benefits, claiming them to be a violation of the marriage amendment. Their initial claim was even a lie, since the amendment doesn't prevent those marriages from taking place - it only bans recognition of them by the government. Recently a lower court dismissed their claims and the judge in that case has refused to issue a stay of her decision, noting that health benefits are a benefit of employment, not of marriage, but her decision is sure to be appealed to the state's Supreme Court. |
|
