'Marriage Protection' an unnecessary burden

"By creating only one type of recognized relationship, Amendment 2 could take away existing rights and benefits from many Floridians, gay or straight. If it passes, unmarried Floridians in committed relationships -- especially seniors who may remain unmarried by choice -- could lose their ability to share healthcare coverage. They could be barred from visiting each other in emergency medical situations" - Former U.S. Rep. Jim Davis

_________________________________________________________________________

When I campaigned for governor in 2006, I focused on what was best for Florida's families. Looking out for families was the best way to tell the difference between priorities and distractions. That's how I know Florida's ''Marriage Protection Amendment'' is a distraction at best and a danger at worst.

Supporters of this amendment (Amendment 2) will present it to voters as a ''gay-marriage ban'' even though Florida already has at least three laws banning same-sex marriages. It has another that blocks Florida from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In reality, this proposal goes well beyond a ban on same-sex marriage. The amendment asks voters to add new language to the state Constitution that would declare any relationship that is ''treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof'' to be ``not valid or recognized.''

By creating only one type of recognized relationship, Amendment 2 could take away existing rights and benefits from many Floridians, gay or straight. If it passes, unmarried Floridians in committed relationships -- especially seniors who may remain unmarried by choice -- could lose their ability to share healthcare coverage. They could be barred from visiting each other in emergency medical situations.

Amendment 2 could also be used to force communities such as Broward County and the cities of Tampa, Miami Beach and Gainesville to stop providing benefits to gay and straight unmarried couples.

Instead of using our Constitution to take away rights and benefits, Floridians deserve to be left alone to make their own choices about the types of relationships they have. Gov. Charlie Crist shared this sentiment when he was asked about the amendment, telling a reporter that he was a ``live-and-let-live kind of guy.''

He's right. Nobody wants to live in a state that tells its people which relationships are ''valid'' and which are not. We don't need to insert the state into personal, private relationships that adults have with each other. Few things go as badly as when government forces a ''one size fits all'' solution to a personal issue that isn't a problem -- a lesson we should have learned from the Terri Schiavo tragedy.

Passing the Marriage Protection Amendment won't help anyone. But by voting against it, as I intend to, we can be clear that we see the difference between a narrow political distraction and a real state priority.

JIM DAVIS, Tampa

Editor's note: Former U.S. Rep. Jim Davis was the 2006 Democratic nominee for governor. He is honorary state co-chair of Florida Red and Blue, http://www.floridaredandblue.com/ .