TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Kick Jim Crow Out Of Constitution And Don't Put Marriage In

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 28, 2008

The presidential campaign may command the spotlight, but voters on Nov. 4 also will be asked to change the Florida constitution in six ways.

The most controversial proposals - a multibillion dollar tax-swap plan and a pair of school voucher amendments - were pulled from the ballot earlier this month by the Florida Supreme Court, which called the ballot language misleading.

Four of those remaining were drafted by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. The Legislature proposed a fifth amendment, and a citizen's group, Florida4Marriage.org, collected enough signatures to put a sixth - the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" - before voters.

Passage of any amendment requires at least 60 percent voter approval.

Here are our recommendations.

Amendment 1

This amendment, drafted by the Legislature, would eliminate a Jim Crow-era law that gives Florida the authority to prohibit "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning property.

The language originated in California in the early 1900s, when it was feared that Asian immigrants would buy up large tracts of western lands.

Florida never invoked its authority, yet remains the last state to enshrine this provision in its constitution. Eliminating the "alien land law" would be a symbolic measure, since neither Asians nor any other ethnic group are barred from citizenship because of their race.

This outdated and discriminatory passage should be removed. We urge you to Vote Yes on Amendment 1.

Amendment 2

The most notable of the proposals, Amendment 2, is the citizen's initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. It reads: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Backers of the amendment shouldn't expect Florida voters to get exercised about this issue during an election year in which there are so many more important matters to weigh.

Besides, Florida law already limits marriage to a man and a woman. The federal Defense of Marriage Act also protects states from having to recognize gay marriages made elsewhere. Existing laws make this amendment duplicative and unnecessary.

While polls show a majority of Floridians disapprove of gay marriage, it's hard to believe most people would want to ban homosexuals from visiting the bedsides of their dying partners, as happened this year at a Miami hospital with family-only visitation rules. But because this amendment would ban "the substantial equivalent" of marriage, which includes civil unions, hospitals could continue to do just that.

The amendment also threatens the continuation of health insurance and other benefits that employers provide to non-married couples, straight or gay, young or old.

Critics of the proposal accuse its proponents of prejudice, but Florida4Marriage insists its purpose is to defend traditional marriage and its foundational role in a stable, civil society. The group says state laws are not enough when judges, with the swipe of a pen, can overturn them.

We are sympathetic to those who would protect traditional marriage as a sacred trust. These are people who fear for our culture and lament the loss of respect for the institution. But changing the constitution, when it hasn't proven necessary, is not the way to do it. We urge you to Vote No on Amendment 2.

Amendment 3

Sponsored by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, Amendment 3 authorizes the Legislature to prohibit property appraisers from raising property taxes after homeowners harden their homes against hurricane-strength winds.

Florida property appraisers are all too eager to raise taxes the minute someone builds a deck, remodels a kitchen or adds hurricane shutters. It's good public policy to encourage people to strengthen their homes, and it would be unfair to raise their taxes for doing so. The tax savings may not amount to much, but by making the improvements, homeowners could see their property insurance rates go down. We urge you to Vote Yes on Amendment 3.

Amendment 4

This amendment requires the Legislature to provide a tax exemption for property owners who agree to preserve open land through a conservation easement or similar protection.

This gives landowners an incentive to preserve large tracts of land in their natural or near-natural state. The easements would prohibit development and other intense activities, but allow for ranching or other uses compatible with the land's natural functions. It is a smart arrangement because it would help sustain agriculture and lighten the burden on Florida Forever, the state fund for buying and preserving valuable wilderness lands. We urge you to Vote Yes on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6

Amendment 6 provides that property assessments on working waterfront lands accessible to the public, such as restaurants or commercial fishing ventures, be taxed according to their current use rather than the "highest and best use" of the property.

Floridians have lost too many public waterfronts as marina owners sold out to private developments. By stabilizing property taxes for business owners who provide public access to the waterfront, mom-and-pop operations would be less pressured to sell.

True, local revenues could suffer, but the potential for good - holding on to Florida's past - is too great to ignore. If lawmakers had the backbone to buck developers, this amendment might not be necessary. But they don't, and it is.

We urge you to Vote Yes on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8

The last amendment on the ballot would allow counties to ask voters to raise the sales tax to supplement funding for community colleges.

Funding the community college system is the state's responsibility, not that of counties.

This measure has no place in the constitution.

We urge you to Vote No on Amendment 8.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT