Waymon Hudson

21 Florida Newspapers- Vote NO on Amendment 2

Filed By Waymon Hudson | October 26, 2008 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: Amendment 2, Florida, Marriage Protection Amendment, newspaper, SayNo2.com

Twenty-one newspapers from around the state have come hard against Florida's Amendment 2, the so-called "Marriage Protection" Amendment. These papers all realize the danger of the amendment's vague language and far-reaching impacts. Many also cite the needless enshrining of discrimination into the state constitution and the chilling effect that has on the standing and morale of our state.

No newspapers have come out in support of Amendment 2.

Look at what the papers, from every corner of the state, have to say about Amendment 2 after the jump...


This is a case of unintended consequences, one that imperils domestic partner benefits, domestic violence cases, and business recruitment and retention.

We do not support passage of Amendment 2.


Florida should move forward...This amendment, if approved by voters, would force the state in the other direction - backwards...


Frankly, marriage does not appear all that threatened in this state...

In a nation that separates church and state, let the various religions determine their sacred rules for marriage; let the states determine how to recognize the legal rights involved in civil unions, which could include both marriage and unmarried couples.


Don't fall for the hoax.

Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.

That's baloney.


...Amendment 2 would be a monument to exclusion and a barrier to tolerance.

We recommend voting NO on Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 2


Amendment 2...stipulates that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's already in state law, and putting it in the Constitution is pointless.


The amendment probably should have been removed for the same reason as the others. It is misleading and far from neutral in its labeling.

The bottom line, politics aside, is that this amendment isn't needed and could have unintended consequences that are bad for Florida and its citizens. The Ledger recommends a "NO" vote on Amendment 2.


The amendment threatens the property rights of elderly people who live together for convenience, economics and safety. Hospital-visitation rights of unmarried couples would be at risk.

The amendment doesn't protect marriage and threatens many lifestyle choices.
We recommend a NO vote.


This one is misleading, mean-spirited and so unnecessary -- far beneath what ought to be the dignity of this amendment process.

Sometimes voters sleepwalk through constitutional amendments. This one ought to wake them up. They ought to make sure to vote "no" to protect themselves from this "protection" amendment.


Everyone who favors smaller, less intrusive government - especially everyone who'd rather see government keep its nose out of our most intimate relationships - should hope that the Marriage Protection Amendment never makes it to the ballot; or that if it does, voters will have the good sense to reject it.


...a same-sex marriage ban in Florida is superfluous and divisive, and the ambiguity of its language threatens to strip whole classes of Florida citizens - not just homosexuals - of their rights.


Good idea or bad idea? Bad idea. This amendment does more than just target homosexual unions. It puts all manner of domestic partnerships at a possible disadvantage...

Our recommendation: Vote No.


The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.


Government should not discriminate in marriage. Indeed, it should be getting out of the marriage business altogether.


The so-called Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is ill-advised beyond the intolerance it communicates to gay and lesbian Floridians.


We need stronger families, including traditional married couples and other kinds of families, in our state and nation.

But the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment will do nothing to further that goal.


... a constitution, generally designed to grant rights to people, should not be tinkered with based on potential threats...


The Florida Constitution should not be the place for zealots to turn to when they want to advance their cause. The folks promoting the constitutional gay marriage ban are insulting not only gays, but voters of all political ilk who can tell a real issue from a ruse. Unfortunately, it will take up valuable time, and space on a ballot. It never should have gotten that far.


Don't fall for the ruse.

Don't be fooled: Enshrining this proposed amendment in our constitution would discriminate against some Floridians under a thinly veiled disguise that's not needed in the first place.


... make no mistake. Gay marriage is not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage....To best defend the institution of marriage, we should quit looking for bogeymen where there are none.


First of all, this amendment is unnecessary since Florida does not recognize gay marriage. Second, this law ...could be used to prohibit employers from extending benefits, such as health insurance, to any domestic partners.

We vote no on this amendment.

The reasons are all different, but the message is the same- VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 2!

To get involved in fighting Amendment 2, visit www.SayNo2.com!

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Not one paper in support of 2- that's great! Even the conservative news sources and papers recognize the danger of this Amendment!