California’s Proposition 8 got all the attention, but successful antigay measures in Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida could have further reaching implications for those states’ residents -- gay or straight.
Antigay measures, like Prop. 102, impinge on Arizona familieslike Doug Henderson (R) and his partner John Pescitelli (L)with their daughters Rebecca, 6, and Annie.
On the surface, the recently passed constitutional amendments to ban marriage equality in Florida and Arizona and the measure to outlaw adoption by unmarried couples in Arkansas promise obvious harmful effects for LGBT residents. But look closely, and the laws also hold negative implications for unmarried straight couples, and potential consequences for vulnerable groups like children, domestic violence victims, and seniors.
“These amendments are nefarious not only because of the things they clearly do; they also create uncertainty about what’s left on the table,” says Sharon McGowan, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
Take Florida, where same-sex marriage was already illegal. Voters passed Amendment 2 -- which constitutionally defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and outlaws any relationship treated as “the substantial equivalent thereof” -- by 62%. While supporters said Amendment 2 was necessary to prevent judges from overturning the state law, it could affect an estimated 400,000 unmarried couples in Florida, the vast majority of whom are heterosexual.
“I don’t know what ‘substantial equivalent thereof’ is,” says Matthew Dietz, chair of the equal opportunities law section of the Florida Bar. “It all depends on how this is interpreted.” Based on other states’ experiences, gay couples in Florida have reason to worry about benefits and protections like health care and hospital visitation rights. In Michigan, which passed a similarly worded amendment in 2004, the supreme court later ruled that public universities and government agencies cannot offer benefits to employees’ same-sex partners.
Also endangered are Florida’s seniors. Many have partners but do not marry because of concerns about losing their Social Security and pension benefits. “The problem for a lot of seniors is that if they remarry, they would lose their widows’ pensions,” says Michael Kenny, deputy campaign manager for Florida Red and Blue, which fought against the ban.
Less obvious are the potential dangers for domestic violence victims when heterosexual marriages are the only valid relationships. When someone seeks a restraining order against their partner, judges often cite domestic partnerships as evidence of the relationship. “In domestic violence cases, there has to be a recognized relationship,” Dietz says. “Otherwise, [defendants] can say the statute does not apply.”
Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter.
Page 1 of 2