The State of Florida should vote No on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in November.

The first piece of argumentation we must look at is the three inalienable rights argument. You state, " there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You cannot murder, rape, steal, use drugs, engage in polygamy, incest, or child molestation." While I'd be willing to admit that there are limits to a person's rights this does not essentially prove that gay marriage should be limited or prevented. One of the first lessons I learned in a law class is that "a person is entitled to their rights as long as it does harm anyone else's rights." What this means is you have the burden to prove that gay marriage harms other peoples' rights in order to warrant limitation or removal. Lets group that argument with the only offense you provide saying that the gay community is heavily inflitrated by drugs. First I would argue that even IF this was proven true, it has not harmed anyone but themselves. Second, it has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to marry. And third, in the city of Los Angeles where that article was published, there is one of the highest crime rates in the nation. This means that any reliability from studies of crime would have a very large margin of error since it could not translate into smaller cities and towns. Now let me revisit the argument I provide saying that gay nieghborhood have a lower crime rate. The article I quoted had to deal with the West Village neighborhood, which is one of the largest gay communities in the nation next to San Fransico. It has reliable data because it surveyed 1920 people who lived in that area of Manhattan and the reported crime rate was extremely low. To quote you again, ""...but it also has a more culturally diverse and artistic culture." So basically your argument is, gay people are artistic, therefore they should be allowed to get married. " Here is where you are reaching a false conclusion, my argument was saying that gay people provide advantages to the community and that there is no reason to punish or prevent them from being married in the state of Florida. Next, extend my argument from Nadine Smith, Co-Chair of Fairness for All Families, who states, "it takes away legal protections from unmarried couples; gay or straight. It prevents civil unions, comprehensive domestic partnerships and removes existing legal benefits. There are about 360,000 unmarried couples in the state according to the U.S. Census Bureau, of which there are roughly 40,000 gay and lesbian couples." What this shows is that not only will the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment prevent gay and lesbian couples from having any form of legal union but also takes away and existing legal benefits they possess. The significance this argument has to this debate is that it shows that my opponent is providing a significant harm to the roughly 40,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state that could otherwise be avoided by voting no. Next, extend my second Nadine Smith argument which states, "When Michigan took away domestic partnerships it didn't make married relationships any better, but what it did do is remove the benefits that gay couples had and made it alot harder for them to care for their families and the ones that they love." This proves that once this amendment passes and removes domestic partnerships in the state the health and legal benefits that these couples have enjoyed and used to better help themselves will be removed and make it harder to care for one another. To reiterate, to protect the integrity of the Florida constitution and to reconfirm our commitment to ALL of our citizens regardless of their race ,color ,sex , national origin , and sexual orientation, I urge you all to vote NO on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.