Daytona Beach News-Journal Opposes Amendment 2

From their editorial:

While Amendment 1 aims to fight bigotry, Amendment 2 -- placed on the ballot by citizen initiative -- would foster prejudice. Even worse, it's deceptively worded so as to hide its true scope. Voters should see through this cynical ruse to draw ultra-right voters to the polls in a high-stakes presidential election year.

The amendment bills itself as "marriage protection." Its supporters say it's meant to keep Florida from being forced into recognizing unions between same-sex partners. Malarkey -- state law already bans same-sex unions in four different statutes, using language that has withstood legal challenge in other states.

But the real problems with this amendment go further than supporters are willing to admit. Legal analysts say it could be used to block companies that provide benefits for unmarried partners -- regardless of whether such unions are homosexual or heterosexual. It would needlessly tangle "Golden Girl"-style arrangements that allow seniors to share living accommodations while preserving inheritance rights for their descendents, and could also complicate child-custody arrangements for thousands of unmarried parents in Florida.

This amendment is heartless and pointless. The main beneficiaries: Attorneys who would reap fees from the endless litigation this amendment could spawn.

· RECOMMENDATION: No on Amendment 2.