By Denise Hank, October 2008

Tracy Miller is enamored and excited about the prospect of getting married.
“I’m definitely ready,” she said. “I’m 37 years old, and I’ve never felt this way before.”
However, the destiny of Miller’s nuptials does not rest in a question or a ring from her longtime lover. Instead, it hinges on a decision by Florida voters during this November’s election.      Miller’s partner Pamela Ellis is in the same gender category as Miller. Although they are registered domestic partners, as Gainesville currently allows, Floridians will vote on an amendment that will void domestic partnership registry arrangements.
Amendment 2, also known as the “marriage protection amendment,” adds a clear definition of marriage to the Florida constitution.
“Inasmuch 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.”
If enough Floridians vote “yes” to Amendment 2, it could take away the rights of couples, gay and straight, who are registered as domestic partners. According to Miller, she and her partner have “next of kin” privileges through their domestic partnership registration.
Regardless of gender, the registry allows partners to make health decisions, funeral arrangements, hospital visits and other basic necessities a married couple would share. Provisions also allow health and life insurance through the registry, although some insurance companies will provide to families without marriage or formal registration.
Although the domestic partnership registry is not statewide, it’s fairly common, said Derek Newton, campaign manager for the bipartisan Florida Red & Blue campaign. Miami-Dade County, Broward County and Palm Beach County are among some of the areas providing domestic partnership registry.
If Amendment 2 passes this November, Newton predicts “a flood of lawsuits against the cities and counties to have courts throw out plans that extend benefits for those who are unmarried.”
Newton said this could mean more than 5 million Florida couples will lose valuable rights and it will leave “many questions unanswered” regarding the fate of Florida families.
Little has been reported about the amendment on the ballot, and a common fear is that voters will not know what they are voting for. Does “yes” mean no same-sex marriage or does “no” mean no same-sex marriage?
There is concern about where the amendment is located on the ballot.
“It’s all the way on the bottom of the ballot,” Newton said. “And so many people will go to vote for the president and leave the rest, not having a voice on this amendment.”
Throughout most of the United States, same-sex marriages have been banned altogether in state constitutions. Some of those states have taken extra steps to ban or reject domestic partnership recognition.
In Florida there are already four statutes banning same sex marriage. Adding Amendment 2 to these statutes, as other states already have, hints at a broader agenda of taking rights away from all unmarried couples; a very un-American way of forcing doctrine on everyone.
Newton said the marriage protection amendments are “clearly religious.” He said Amendment 2 proponents are “candid about being part of a national agenda to push these issues down into state constitutions and restrict rights for those who are not married.”
During this election year, the nationwide push to define not only what it means to be a family but the ability to choose when to start a family has been strong. During this year’s Republican National Convention in Minnesota, the catch phrase, “small-town values,” was heard in speeches and interviews. These values were often linked to marriage but only between a man and a woman.
Although Christianity plays a role in the push for this amendment, it will ultimately benefit the business of law if Amendment 2 should pass.
Miller said, “We will have to spend our money to get these [basic] rights legally confirmed.” Rights that are automatic in a marriage. She and Ellis would have to fight for rights that are not only basic but also necessary as they co-parent Ellis’ son.
While the issue of family is at stake for both those who oppose and those who are advocates of Amendment 2, Miller said the defeat of the amendment would provide the validation all families need.
“It would help decrease the pressure of stereotypes,” which she said is especially important while their son is in school.
Her biggest fear is the wider social implication. Miller said if Amendment 2 passes, “We’ll be going backward instead of forward.”