Union for Reform Judaism urges its members in Florida to vote NO on Amendment Two

Union for Reform Judaism urges its members in Florida to vote NO on Amendment Two on November 4^th and DON’T HURT FLORIDA’S FAMILIES

 

 

The following discussion was taken from a document prepared by the Jewish Community Relations Council of the greater Miami Jewish Federation:

 

Amendment 2, also known as the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, will appear on the November 4^th general election ballot, and requires 60% of those voting to pass.  Florida4Marriage is the official sponsor of the proposed amendment to Florida’s constitution.  The group’s pronounced sole focus is to protect the union of marriage as one that consists of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

       

The proposed amendment to the Florida constitution reads as follows: 

 

“In as much as a 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.”

 

The intent of the first part of the amendment is to ban same-sex marriage. However, the second part of the amendment would further prohibit the State from recognizing any other legal union that is treated as marriage or is the equivalent of such a relationship.

 

The amendment, if passed, could have far-reaching consequences if used as the legal basis to challenge benefits currently provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions, for both same sex and opposite sex partners. According to the U.S Census Bureau, of the roughly 426,000 unmarried partner households in Florida in 2006, about 377,000, or almost 90%, were comprised of opposite sex couples.

Consequences:

The Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic & Demographic Research, the research arm of the legislature that provides objective information in support of the policy making process, has drawn the following conclusions:

• 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.

There are domestic partnership registries in Broward County, Key West, Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach County, and West Palm Beach.

• Some local governments that currently extend health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners may be impacted by the amendment.  There are six cities and two counties in Florida that currently extend benefits directly to, or in assistance of, domestic partners. The benefits are of two types: (1) health insurance benefits; and, (2) family sick and bereavement leave. The affected governments are Tampa, Wilton Manors, Miami Beach, West Palm Beach, Key West, Gainesville, Broward County and Monroe County.

Several state and community colleges, as well as municipalities, also offer benefits to domestic partners.

• 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.

States outside Florida: When opponents of Amendment 2 argue that its passage will be used as the basis for future challenges to the provision to domestic partners of health care insurance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making authority, or family protections, they cite the following examples in which legal protection has been threatened or negated.

• Kentucky's marriage protection amendment is the focus of a battle brought by its supporters to take away benefits from public employees at the University of Kentucky and the University of Frankfort.

 

• In Michigan, that state's amendment is the basis for dissolving domestic partnership registries used to provide health care benefits and pensions. This ruling was upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court.

 

Ohio's amendment was used as a defense against a domestic violence charge. The defendant used the amendment's strict definition of "marriage" to argue that his relationship with his longtime live-in girlfriend didn't meet the standard, and therefore no domestic violence charge was valid. A lower court upheld that defense, and for several years it was argued until a higher court dismissed it as a defense. 

Marriage Equality for Same Sex Marriages Background

Married couples receive more than 1,100 legal protections; benefits and responsibilities from the federal government. Same-sex couples in committed relationships are denied access to fundamental protections such as medical decision-making authority, inheritance rights, tax rights (especially regarding the transfer of property), the right to make burial decisions, the ability to adopt as a couple, divorce protections, the presumption of parenthood, and access to Family Court orders of protection from domestic violence that are provided for heterosexual married couples.

Recognition of same-sex couples to marry would have no effect on religious marriage. Any clergy who chooses not to marry same-sex couples would continue to be free to refuse. It would, however, allow couples to enter into a legal marriage distinct from a religious marriage.

Modern American history has seen dramatic changes in rights to marry. Prior to 1967, many states banned interracial marriage. However, this move toward liberalization hit a roadblock in 1996 with the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricted access to federal benefits to marriages between one man and one woman. Since that time, forty-five states have passed state Constitutional Amendments or state-level DOMAs that define marriage for state purposes to exclude same-sex couples. 

Position of the Reform Jewish Movement

The Reform Movement has consistently affirmed its commitment to welcoming gay and lesbian couples into congregations and, in 1997 the Union for Reform Judaism expanded that support with a resolution supporting full equality under the law, including legal recognition of same gender relationships.

Additionally, in June 2004, the CCAR adopted a resolution to:

1. Reaffirm our commitment to upholding the integrity of the United States Constitution, particularly concerning its guarantee of equal protection for all citizens, its prohibitions against discrimination and its safeguarding of religious liberties;

2. Reaffirm our commitment to pursuing full civil marriage rights for same-gender couples; and

3. Oppose any proposal to amend the United States Constitution or any state constitutions, or any state legislation that would limit these rights, and

4. Call upon CCAR members to play a leadership role on the federal, state and local levels on this issue, and to join coalitions and other efforts in local communities.

Talking Points

• The civil right of marriage should be available to all.
• Religious marriage and civil marriage are different, and each religious group would be free to define religious marriage in its own way.
• Recognition of same sex couples right to civil marriage would have no effect on religious marriage. It would, however, allow couples to enter into a legal marriage distinct from a religious marriage.  Any clergyperson who refuses to marry same sex couples would continue to be free to do so.
• Married couples receive more than 1,100 legal protections, benefits and responsibilities from the federal government.
• The religious movements represented today support full equality for same sex couples under the law, including legal recognition of these relationships.
• We urge all state legislators to co-sponsor and vote in support of legislation supporting marriage equality and to oppose legislation