Florida residents should take a lesson from Michigan: Gay marriage amendment is about more than marriage

In 2004, Michigan was one of 11 states that faced a so-called Marriage Amendment. At that time, supporters of the amendment, like Gary Glenn of the American Family Association (AFA) of Michigan and Eric Doster a Republican attorney, told Michigan residents that the amendment was only about protecting marriage as an institution for one man and one woman.

Michigan voters believed them, and approved the amendment. The next day, Glenn was demanding that public employers in the state, such as colleges and universities, end their same-sex domestic partner programs. Costly litigation ensued when state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, who is running for the U.S. Senate against Carl Levin, D-Detroit, asked Republican Attorney General Mike Cox if the city of Kalamazoo could offer those benefits. Cox said “no,” the amendment barred them.

The court case ended up before the state’s high court and earlier this year it ruled that the amendment did indeed bar public employers from offering same-sex domestic partner benefits.

Now Florida is facing exactly the same amendment as Michigan did, and Florida residents are seeing and hearing the same lines.

And they are misleading.

For instance, from the Web site of the organization supporting the Marriage Amendment in Florida — also known as Amendment 2 as it was in Michigan — is found the following in the Frequently Asked Questions section.

I have heard that Amendment 2 will hurt senior citizens and take away benefits. Is this true?

No. This is a fraudulent scare tactic of our opponents and they make the argument with no proof or explanation. A YES vote on Amendment 2 will do one thing and one thing only — protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman but it does not prevent the government or private companies from extending benefits to whomever they wish.

You can also check out their lie in the television commercial on their Web site by clicking here. The ad is called “One Thing.”

Scare tactic my right toes.

If Florida voters want proof or explanation, they need only look north to Michigan. When the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on our amendment, it was clear that offering same-sex benefits was illegal under the amendment because of a nagging little clause at the end “…or for any other purpose.”

The Florida amendment is even more blatant. I could not find the language on the Yes2Marriage.com Web site, but I did find it on SayNo2.com, which is run by Florida Red and Blue, a group opposing the amendment. So here is the language:

“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.”

Now I may not be a lawyer, but I am pretty handy at reading and the language here is as plain as day. Supporters of the amendment focus on the first part of the amendment, the phrase BEFORE the comma. If the amendment actually stopped there, then their claims would be valid and truthful. But the amendment does not stop there. It goes much further. Not only does it bar any legal civil union movements, but it also bars anything substantially equivalent, like domestic partner benefits offered by an employer.

Having been on a public board that created a domestic partner program, I am more than a little aware of what partners are asked to do in those situations. There are a ton of hoops that an employee and his or her partner must jump through, including signing an affidavit that they are in a consensual relationship, provide proof of co-mingled bank accounts, and so on. That is substantially equivalent.

So take it from Michigan, Florida. Do not support this amendment. It is not just meant to keep the institution of marriage between a man and a woman; it is also meant to deny hard-working, tax-paying citizens of your state the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

It is designed to make LGBT citizens in your state second-class citizens. It is about dehumanizing the gay community.

It’s time to stand up and tell the folks at Yes2Marriage to stop lying to you. Or you will end up hurting thousands of your fellow citizens, friends, neighbors, relatives, their partners and their children who could all find themselves without health insurance.

Thousands will lose coverage. And that has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with denying gay citizens access to the most basic rights of a civilized society.