October 13, 1998 A series of proposed state constitutional amendments will appear on the November 3 ballot for voters in Florida at the general election on November 3, 1998. Each would change the fundamental law of our state; often amendments require court decisions to fully decide what they mean, therefore, each of the proposals call for close scrutiny before a vote is cast. We, the Catholic Bishops of Florida, wish to express our strongly held positions on four of these amendments, opposition to three and support for one. We have already issued a separate statement in opposition to proposed Amendment No. 2, which seeks to elevate the death penalty to constitutional status; to diminish existing constitutional protections relating to all crimes, not only capital cases; and to expand rather than limit the death penalty in Florida. We reiterate that statement. We oppose Proposed Amendment No. 6. It contains attractive rhetoric, but its legal meaning is not clear. One part seems to recognize the state's obligation for the education of all children in Florida, while a later part seems to restrict that obligation to those in public schools. Some proponents suggest that it would bar any consideration of vouchers for non-public school children. Some opponents claim that it would require the state to control private, parochial and even home schools. Whatever its eventual meaning, we oppose any amendment which is open to such diverse and potentially dangerous interpretations. Citizens should be clear on the meaning of an amendment before voting for it. We oppose Proposed Amendment No. 9 because its real legal meaning is uncertain. Our position on full support for the basic rights of all persons is consistent, strong and clear. The addition of "female and male alike" to the existing constitutional phrase, "All natural persons" appears redundant. In the past, courts have held that when the citizenry votes to amend the constitution, it intends to make a change. We see the potential for problems in unintended consequences through judicial interpretations of this change and fear that it may adversely affect the basic institution of marriage, so important in our society today. We support Proposed Amendment No. 12, pertaining to firearm purchases. This would provide counties the option to require criminal history record checks and a 3 to 5 day waiting period for the sale of handguns. These requirements apply now to licensed firearm dealers, but not to sales at gun shows and other places. This amendment would be a very limited step, but it is an important one, and it has our support. We urge all voters to study all of the proposals and cast an informed ballot. John Clement Favalora John J. Snyder
Robert N. Lynch Norbert M. Dorsey, CP John H. Ricard, SSJ John J. Nevins Agustin A. Roman Gilberto Fernandez Thomas G. Wenski |