Miami Beach City Commission Tables Domestic Partnership Resolution
By Joshua Head

Miami Beach FL, December 11, 2008 --- In a surprise action Wednesday, the Miami Beach City Commission tabled a vote for a resolution that would have reaffirmed the City’s domestic partner ordinances. Further action on this measure will come before the Commission again on February 10, 2009.

Miami Beach's domestic partnership ordinances have been in place since 1998 when the first of three ordinances extended domestic partner rights to City employees. In 2004, the City unanimously passed its third ordinance granting specific rights relating to the health and welfare of domestic partners to anyone who registers with the City.

Commissioner Jerry Libbin sponsored the resolution to show that the passage of Amendment 2, which bans same-sex marriage in Florida, does not affect the City’s domestic partnership ordinances.

City Attorney Jose Smith was tasked with finding through legal precedence, support of the City’s domestic partnership ordinances.  This support was found in the appellate court decision Lowe v. Broward County.  Smith’s legal opinion states, “The Marriage Protection Amendment does not preempt or affect the City of Miami Beach’s domestic partner ordinances”.  Smith further states, “Since the City of Miami Beach’s ordinances do not create same-sex marriage or ‘marriage-like relationships’ between same-sex partners that are the ‘substantial equivalent of marriage,’ the Marriage Protection Amendment does not affect the City of Miami Beach’s domestic partner ordinances.”

Babak Movahedi, chair of the GLBT Business Development Ad Hoc Committee in Miami Beach, requested that the City table the motion in order for the City Attorney to have additional time to acquire legal support material as well as more time to strengthen the language in the ordinance in case of a future challenge.  He added that a symbolic vote at this point in time will not have the same effect as an ironclad ordinance that would result from additional due diligence performed by the City Attorney and Commission.

Movahedi’s request highlighted a lack of communication among the major LGBT action groups to their audiences. Following his request, there was confusion among members of the audience for what appeared to be a sudden reversal of support for Libbin’s resolution.  Earlier in the week, SAVE Dade had sent an email Action Alert to the community. In the alert, SAVE encouraged readers to write Miami Beach Commissioners and attend the meeting as a show of support for the resolution.  However, when Mayor Bower opened the floor for public discussion, no one from the major LGBT political action groups rose to speak, either in support of the resolution or the measure to table it.

Commissioner Libbin appeared visibly stunned.  He acknowledged the many letters, emails and discussions he had with the LGBT organizations on this issue and was very disappointed that none of them chose to show and speak on behalf of the gay community.

During the meeting, Commissioner Victor Diaz felt that reaffirming the current ordinances might place a “target” on the City for someone to challenge the ordinance.  He also asked that the Commission table the resolution pending further review by the City Attorney.

Commissioner Libbin argued that by making such a big deal of the resolution, the City already places a target on it for challenge. By simply approving the resolution now, such action would show the City’s support and in no way would inhibit the City from strengthening the ordinances in the future.

In the end, Mayor Bower, on-record as a strong supporter of the gay and lesbian community, agreed reservedly with the rest of the Commission to table the resolution until February in order to strengthen the ordinances. She reiterated the deep support she, as well as the other Commissioners, has for the gay community and only desires to make the ordinance stronger.

Was the Commission correct in its action today?  Some may say so. Since the passage of Amendment 2, many conservative groups have begun ramping up efforts to overturn local and county ordinances that pertain to “non-marriage” equality in the upcoming 2010 elections. In the long run it may be more beneficial to us all to have a bulletproof set of rules on the books that will withstand any challenge that may come. In any case, we should demand a full accounting of progress made by the Commission on February 10^th.Tabling this issue again would be unsatisfactory and would indicate weakness or unwillingness on the part of the City.  In the end, actions do speak louder than words.