Marriage Amendment Opponent Proves the Point
As part of their campaign against the Florida Marriage Amendment, opponents repeated proclaimed that the measure was unnecessary because the Florida law already limited marriage to one man and one woman. Proponents of the Amendment, of course, explained that the measure was needed because, as we have seen in numerous other states, activist judges are all to ready to impose their own will and strike down such laws. By placing the language in the state constitution we protect marriage from these judges and other threats.
Given that the opponents used this argument so frequently, I could not help but chuckle at the response by Kenneth Quinnell, the Executive Director of the Florida Progressive Coalition (who himself promoted the idea that the Amendment was unnecessary).
Odd, that while on the one hand we were supposed to believe that marriage was already protected by a state statute, it is now proclaimed that a federal court will abolish a provision of a state constitution.
Over 62% of Florida voters cast a vote for traditional Marriage this week. 30 states have passed similar measures. And since opponents to traditional marriage are finding that they can't convince the you, people, to turn on marriage (not even in California) they're just going to try and get an activist Court to jam it down your throats.