Anti-gay marriage amendment wording likely legal
Anti-gay marriage amendment wording likely legal
BY BILL KACZOR
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE - Florida Supreme Court justices had difficulty during arguments Wednesday seeing why a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage should be kept off the 2008 ballot.
The justices will decide at a later date whether the proposal meets constitutional requirements that citizen initiatives cannot cover more than one subject and ballot summaries must be clear and unambiguous.
Mathew Staver said he was pleased after arguing for the amendment on behalf of its sponsor, Florida4marriage.org.
''I think the justices saw directly to the heart of the issue,'' said Staver, general counsel for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group that advocates for religious freedom and traditional family values.
The amendment, endorsed by such organizations as the Christian Coalition of Florida and the Southern Baptist Convention, failed to receive the 611,000 signatures needed by the Feb. 1 deadline to get on the ballot this year. Sponsors now are shooting for 2008.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Leslie Cooper argued that it violates the single-subject requirement because it covers two subjects -- the status and protection of marriage. Voters may support how the amendment affects one but not the other, she told the high court.
Chief Justice Barbara Pariente responded that it appeared both involve one subject -- relationships between two people.
Cooper represented the ACLU, six lesbian and gay couples, Equality Florida and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers.
''We hope that the justices will see that this amendment would not just bar marriage but would bar civil unions and potentially other protections,'' she said.
The amendment mimics Florida's existing Defense of Marriage Act that already bans same-sex marriages. Staver said courts might be able to strike down the law based on existing provisions in the Florida Constitution unless it is amended.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/13825423.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_state
BY BILL KACZOR
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE - Florida Supreme Court justices had difficulty during arguments Wednesday seeing why a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage should be kept off the 2008 ballot.
The justices will decide at a later date whether the proposal meets constitutional requirements that citizen initiatives cannot cover more than one subject and ballot summaries must be clear and unambiguous.
Mathew Staver said he was pleased after arguing for the amendment on behalf of its sponsor, Florida4marriage.org.
''I think the justices saw directly to the heart of the issue,'' said Staver, general counsel for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group that advocates for religious freedom and traditional family values.
The amendment, endorsed by such organizations as the Christian Coalition of Florida and the Southern Baptist Convention, failed to receive the 611,000 signatures needed by the Feb. 1 deadline to get on the ballot this year. Sponsors now are shooting for 2008.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Leslie Cooper argued that it violates the single-subject requirement because it covers two subjects -- the status and protection of marriage. Voters may support how the amendment affects one but not the other, she told the high court.
Chief Justice Barbara Pariente responded that it appeared both involve one subject -- relationships between two people.
Cooper represented the ACLU, six lesbian and gay couples, Equality Florida and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers.
''We hope that the justices will see that this amendment would not just bar marriage but would bar civil unions and potentially other protections,'' she said.
The amendment mimics Florida's existing Defense of Marriage Act that already bans same-sex marriages. Staver said courts might be able to strike down the law based on existing provisions in the Florida Constitution unless it is amended.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/13825423.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_state
