As a new president waits to be chosen and an exciting electoral season nears its end, it's no surprise that many of the provisions on November's ballot have gone largely unnoticed.
Still, little media attention has been paid to one of this year's closest and most contentious votes: the state's so-called Marriage Protection Amendment.
The wording of the amendment is plain - "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." - but the controversy surrounding the proposed amendment has been anything but.
Hundreds of thousands of advocates and opponents have contributed millions of dollars to the campaigns surrounding Amendment 2.
Politicians and religious leaders on both sides of the debate have argued over the pros and cons of gay marriage and civil unions.
Some have called the amendment a shield for the sanctity of marriage; others, a misguided tool for discrimination.
But underneath all the rhetoric, contributions and campaigning lies the heart of the issue, one that will be decided within days by Florida voters like you: the law on love.
Defenders of Tradition
The language of Amendment 2 is already three years old, born in 2005 by Longwood-based political action committee Florida4Marriage.org.
With Orlando attorney John Stemberger as a chairman, the group's supporters compiled about 650,000 petitions from Floridians, more than 7,500 of which originated in Alachua County, to place the proposed amendment on November's ballot.
Using similar language to amendments approved in 27 other states, the amendment was written to reinforce Florida law that marriages are uniquely beneficial bonds that may only be granted to heterosexual couples.
"Ideas have consequences," wrote Stemberger in an editorial to the Orlando Sentinel in September. "And the innocent-sounding idea of 'gay marriage' has consequences that are more far-reaching to the transformation of culture and society than anyone would imagine."
Advocates contend that the amendment would protect the traditional definition of marriage from activist judges who they say could overturn the four Florida statutes that outlaw same-sex matrimony.
Additionally, supporters say the amendment would decrease the prevalence of dysfunctional families due to homosexual parenting.
"The question becomes, 'What is in the best interest of children?'" Stemberger wrote. "Children are happier and healthier and perform better in every category when raised with a married mother and father. And the inverse is true."
"Same-sex marriage subjects children to a vast untested social experiment," he wrote.
Calls made to Stemberger's law office were not returned this month. A receptionist who answered the phone at his office said the attorney "doesn't usually talk to liberal papers."
Although the language of the amendment says nothing of religion or partisanship, several Christian, Catholic and Conservative organizations have already spoken out in support of the definition with their words and wallets.
Since 2005, the Republican Party of Florida has donated $300,000 to the political action committee's more than $1.5 million in funds. The Florida Catholic Conference gave $45,500; the Florida Baptist Convention gave $63,000; and the Colorado evangelical group Focus on the Family donated about $24,250. Richard DeVos, the multi-billionaire owner of the Orlando Magic, contributed $100,000.
Perhaps because of these contributions, amendment supporters have taken a particular interest in campaigning among churches.
Mailing-list messages have urged pastors to "preach on some aspect of God's Design for marriage" the Sunday before the election.
Churchgoers have been instructed to pray and vote early as a family.
Yes2Marriage Church Action Kits, which cost $150, include stickers, signs and a CD of sample sermons.
Yet even with this continued support, the amendment is no sure bet.
A Mason-Dixon poll released Oct. 23 showed that 56 percent of its 625 "likely voters" favored the amendment, with 7 percent undecided. A pollster told The Miami Herald that, while the support level is still below the required 60 percent for approval, the undecided vote could push the legislation into action.
The amendment is also facing rocky ground in Tallahassee. While most of the state's high-level Republicans have endorsed the legislation, including Attorney General Bill McCollum, Sen. Mel Martinez and local Rep. Cliff Stearns, Gov. Charlie Crist has stated that he would not actively support the amendment.
"I'll support it; I'll vote for it; move on," Crist told the Orlando Sentinel last month. "It's not top tier for me, put it that way."
The Fight for Rights
Although the amendment may not be a priority for the governor, the issue has become a vital part of the election for its opponents.
Detractors, organized under the groups Florida Red and Blue and Fairness for All Families, have rallied in opposition to the proposed legislation, which they say will hurt unmarried couples regardless of sexuality.
The legislation's vague language could lead to the abolition of existing civil unions and domestic partnerships, which allow straight and gay couples to share benefits such as hospital visitation, Social Security and insurance, opponents argue.
Counties like Broward and Palm Beach, cities like Tampa, Gainesville and Miami Beach and numerous universities and Fortune 500 companies statewide offer benefits for recognized domestic partners that could be stripped if Amendment 2 passes.
"The ability of workers to bargain for the right to share their pensions, health care or other benefits with the people they choose could be threatened," wrote the Broward County School Board in a resolution opposing the amendment. "Limiting the rights or abilities of all workers to receive the benefits they earn and deserve - and choose with whom and how they share those benefits - is not in the best interests of any working person and therefore any state."
Amendment detractors have experienced support from the state's large local newspapers - all have called for a "no" vote - as well as from numerous contributing citizens statewide. The campaign has raised about $3.3 million to oppose the amendment, much of which has come from independent investors in South Florida and across the country. The Democratic National Committee contributed $20,000 while the Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign has given more than $235,000. Donald Burns, a multimillionaire former chief executive of Telco Communications Group, has given to Florida Red and Blue more than $500,000.
Beyond the Border
Historically, the odds lean toward the passing of Amendment 2. More than half of the country, or 27 states, have passed state constitutional amendments allowing for bans on same-sex marriage.
In 2004, legislation worded similarly to Amendment 2 that restricted marriage to one-man-one-woman relationships was resoundingly approved in Mississippi with 86 percent of the vote.
Two years later, Wisconsin, Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, South Carolina, Idaho, Alabama and Colorado followed suit.
Only one state, Arizona, denied the marriage amendment although an identical amendment billed as Proposition 102 is being voted on again this year.
California voters, too, will soon vote on similar legislation. Their state's Proposition 8 has raised about $60 million in contributions for both sides and has been fought against by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and celebrities, such as Brad Pitt.
Yet if there was any time for traditional voting precedents to be shattered, this electoral season would be it.
The only thing anyone can expect on Tuesday night, after the votes have been submitted and Amendment 2 is ratified or rejected, is the unexpected.
