Now you’ve hit upon the crux of the matter.

It is activists like you who are trying to change the definition of marriage. The government has nothing to do with it. For someone who wants people to remain “unmarried,” you seem awfully interested in getting them married.

Unmarried people already have rights. Your posturing of this question makes it sound as though we’ve reduced them to slaves. If they wish to be treated differently before the law, then questions need to be brought before the appropriate legislative bodies — just as is the case when any situation or group feels as though there is an injustice.

Changing the concept of a centuries-old institution and suddenly giving it new meaning so that you can avoid the public debate involved sets dangerous precedents in our society.

And what do you feel will be the legitimate way for unmarried people to attain rights?

It is clear that you’re focused on achieving your agenda, which is why you’d be willing to jeopardize the rights of all of us by circumventing legal due process.

An amendment such as Florida’s Amendment Two doesn’t determine who deserves rights and who doesn’t. It determines who is “married” and who isn’t.

Obtaining rights for unmarried people should be accomplished in a legitimate way. That is the issue. Period.

The passing of Florida’s Amendment 2 will not protect American citizens. It will determine who deserves rights and who doesn’t. I fear voters will fail to understand the danger this Amendment poses for the future of Florida by Nov. 4th. This will harm ALL unmarried people.

Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Fundamentally, the relationships you call to mind need to be addressed in the context of our legal system. I have no desire to remove protections, benefits and responsibilities… quite the contrary: those can only exist when provided for through proper legal grounds.

The equality issues you raise speak directly to the issue that is at stake here. The relationships would not be changed in any way legally by the passage of Amendment 2 (nor by its failure to be passed).

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, you may recall that equality was agreed upon by everyone. But then the pigs came along and said, “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

What they did was undermine the rights of some by redefining the term “equal.” What you don’t realize — regardless of the LGBT rights you mentioned — is that by utilizing the tactic of redefining terms, every right — civil rights, rights to freedom, even all rights contained within the US Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the US Constitution — are jeopardized when something can be altered by simply giving an old accepted word a new meaning.

No one is being forced to marry. What they’re being forced to do is make a legitimate legal case and mount a legitimate campaign to obtain the sought-after rights. If their case is valid, then the due process (as determined by the documents and laws that govern this great land) will see to it that the rights are granted.

If the argument isn’t valid, then those rights will not be granted.

But this is why we have established procedures… so that the rule of law will remain, not be undermined.

This is why Amendment 2 must be passed — for the protection of ALL citizens.

My final argument is, every individual should be legally allowed to marry, though no individual should be FORCED to marry to receive benefits, rights, and responsibilities married couples get. This is why ALL Floridians must vote NO for Amendment 2!

Thanks for posting and for sharing your opinion.

Unfortunately, your stance only serves to confirm the reasons why defining the relationships of the “unmarried” as marriages is not a valid way to address the legitimate legal needs of the people you describe.

Those issues need to be brought into the public debate and handled by valid legal means — not by simply attempting to redefine a term for your own use. Since even you can admit that they’re not “married,” you’ve only added legitimacy to my argument.

Solve their legal needs? Yes. Do it legitimately. This is why Amendment 2 makes sense and needs to be passed.

Who gets hurt in the long run?

Anyone whose families and caring relationships extend beyond their legally married spouses. The mean-spirited discrimination amendment locks FL into a hierarchy of relationships, unfairly privileging marriage and penalizing the great diversity of families that we live in.”

Alternatives to Marriage, 501c3
unmarried.org

Rethink your perception of Amendment 2! Instead of voting yes, vote NO, Nov.4th!