Florida AG Pam Bondi Takes Exception to Anger Over Marriage Brief: ‘I’m Simply Doing My Job’

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who last week asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit against the state on behalf of eight gay couples seeking recognition of their marriages, saying it would "impose significant public harm" and damage the institution's real purpose (children having mothers and fathers), released a statement today taking exception to those who are angry about it.

Writes Bondi, in part: Bondi

“In 2008, Florida voters amended their state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In response to a recent challenge to this provision, and in keeping with my sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land, my office recently filed a legal brief defending the voters' decision.

“The fundamental argument of our brief is that the voters had the right to adopt this definition of marriage, just as they have the right in the future to change their minds and afford legal recognition to same sex marriage, should they so choose.

“Defending the wishes of the voters who enacted Florida's marriage amendment necessarily requires me to make good faith legal arguments. In presenting those arguments, my office understands and respects that there are many who profoundly disagree with the voters' decision. But anything less than the best defense of our voters' policy preferences would disenfranchise the electorate, undermine the judicial process, and cast aside the professional responsibility that guides me every day as Attorney General.

The subject of same sex marriage is understandably a matter of intense personal concern and sensitivity for Floridians on all sides of the debate. While defending this constitutional amendment, we have remained respectful and showed consideration for those with differing viewpoints—acknowledging in the introduction that this issue is one with ‘good people on all sides.’

“Therefore, I take exception to those who have sought to manipulate our brief, trying to make it something it is not. The brief does not argue for or against same sex marriage as a matter of policy, wisdom, or fairness. Those decisions are for the voters of each state, not for lawyers or courts. It is my duty to protect Florida from the “harm” of a federal injunction overriding the will of Florida voters.

“Some states recognize same-sex marriage, and some states do not. As the brief explains on pages two and three:

‘This case is not about which policy choice is better or worse. And this case is not about whether the debate should continue (which it surely will). This case is about whether states can make their own determinations.

Bondi adds:

“Our brief makes the case in defense of Florida's marriage amendment with great respect for the plaintiffs and those whom they represent. Any suggestions to the contrary are not only wrong, but hurtful, designed to inflame, and insulting to everyone involved. When I defend the voters' decisions with professionalism and civility, I'm simply doing my job because my job is not to write the law, but to defend it.”

Comments

  1. Jay says

    In other words she is an empty suit. Someone with no values or empathy for the people who she represents. Someone who will lie and deceive to defend the indefensible. A sad person.

  2. woodroad34 says

    Some States recognize same sex marriage and some do not.

    Well, Blondie, they do because the voters were either pro-active and voted for it or they were forced by judicial proceedings to do so. Voters aren’t the be-all-end-all of power…they are just the fourth cog in the process after the legislative, administrative and judicial cogs. Your responsibility is to all the citizens and not just the bigoted mass. Your laziness belies your own thoughts on the matter.

  3. Andy says

    But that’s the thing. Voters don’t have the right to do whatever they wish. State Constitutional amendments still have to abide by the US Constitution which includes the 14th Amendment. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  4. woodroad34 says

    Oh…and I believe a “Puhleeze, Mary” is in order for your use of the term “good faith”. Opposite day is so de rigueur for you people-I’m surprised you even know you’re wearing a green blouse.

  5. AdamTh says

    ” This case is about whether states can make their own determinations. ”

    I agree. States can make their own determinations —- as long as such determinations do not violate the US Constitution. What is so difficult to understand about that requirement??

  6. SteveDenver says

    She’s auditioning for FOX Noise: blond, stupid and narrow-minded.

    Which of her THREE MARRIAGES fulfills her statement of purpose for marriage? Oops, none.

    Go away little moron.

  7. qj201 says

    Republican Barbie didn’t get the memo that other AG’s have decided not to fight state bans as they clearly violate the US constitution.

  8. Paul B. says

    She’s headed over to Fox…let’s do the Greta or Megyn interview and then get a job kissing Sean’s ass for the camera. Maybe we can get Greta on board our RV to travel the backhills with us…very Palinesque. Who?

  9. Johnnybegood says

    Nothing discounts opinions about the marriage debate more than the source itself…on her third marriage at 48 years old. Is there someone more credible with an opinion to offer besides a woman with multiple failed marriages?

  10. RAY says

    She never studied outside of Florida, married and divorced twice, and is now engaged again. From Wikipedia, “they (she and the latest fiance) held an unofficial (non-binding) ceremony in the Cayman Islands on May 26, 2012. Wow.

  11. Nope, just Nope. says

    This sounds like a great opportunity for some investigation of her performance record. Has she consistently upheld every state law violation that hit her desk or has she let some slide ?

  12. Douglas says

    Her brief states that same-sex marriage “would impose significant public harm.” Yet her explanation now states that “the brief does not argue for or against same sex marriage as a matter of policy.” Is Bondi too dumb to recognize that those two statements are in direct contradiction?

  13. Johnnybegood says

    So, her first marriage lasted 22 months. She’s 48 years old now…any kids? What about the “purpose” of marriage BS? The “harm” ssm will cause? Is there anything she has to offer that isn’t laughable?

  14. Paul B. says

    If I were a career politician (yuck!) and “words” were my area of expertise…I would be very careful choosing them. This woman is married thrice, past her “useful” years and never had a child, living with a man 20 years her senior and out of wedlock until recently.
    Are we really listening to her tell us how anyone else should live? Can she break any more of her own taboos? Cheap peroxide, maybe?

  15. TKinSC says

    “She also doesn’t understand her job. Her job isn’t to defend ‘the will of the people’. But the US Constitution.”

    Her job is to enforce Florida law, which includes defending it in court against a federal constitutional attack.

    “good people don’t perpetuate hate, bigotry and inequality”

    And neither do traditional marriage supporters.

    “Republican Barbie didn’t get the memo that other AG’s have decided not to fight state bans as they clearly violate the US constitution.”

    The Supreme Court has never said so. A state AG’s job is to defend the laws of the state unless and until the Supreme Court strikes them down. And actually, the Supreme Court has upheld same-sex “marriage” bans already. (Baker v. Nelson, 1972).

    “I agree. States can make their own determinations —- as long as such determinations do not violate the US Constitution. What is so difficult to understand about that requirement??”

    Nothing at all, once you realize there’s no Gay Marriage Amendment in the Constitution.

    “Your responsibility is to all the citizens and not just the bigoted mass.”

    Her responsibility is to the law. Florida law prohibits same-sex “marriage”.

    “Her brief states that same-sex marriage ‘would impose significant public harm.’ Yet her explanation now states that ‘the brief does not argue for or against same sex marriage as a matter of policy.’ Is Bondi too dumb to recognize that those two statements are in direct contradiction?”

    Not really. The benefits of same-sex “marriage” might outweigh the harm. Florida has decided otherwise, and the brief explains why that decision is rational.

    “State Constitutional amendments still have to abide by the US Constitution which includes the 14th Amendment.”

    Here are all the states that had same-sex “marriage” in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment: *crickets*

    Here are all the states that had same-sex “marriage” between 1869 and 2003: *crickets*

    Here are all the states that had same-sex “marriage” between 2004 and 2008: Massachusetts

    Call me crazy, but I don’t think the 14th Amendment was ever meant to confer a right to same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states.

  16. Rich says

    @TKINSC

    I was with you until you insisted on putting inverted commas around “marriage”. I find Bondi’s position distasteful, but then I would find the position of opposing counsel distasteful in any action in which I felt I had an interest.

    On the other hand, just as Florida can assert the right to prohibit marriage between persons of the same gender, Minnesota et al. have the right to license it, and when they do so, it is marriage, not “marriage.”

  17. Paul B. says

    @tkinsc…you can choose to interpret words to your own end till you choke on them. The fact is that the wording of the 14th neither formally includes or excludes marriage equality. We all know why, but you don’t get to decide what it meant nor who it excludes. That’s very “Fox” of you but doesn’t fly.

  18. MiddleoftheRoader says

    So if she was state AG trying to defend a state’s ban on inter-racial marriage in the 1950’s, and if the reasons given for bans on inter-racial marriage included a desire (by enough voters) (1) to prevent “mongrelizing” of the races that would result from mixed-race offspring and (2) to avoid taunts and insults to mixed-race offspring and (3) to keep the races separate as God had desired in the Bible (all of these were reasons given for some bans in the 1950’s), would she put these points 1, 2 and 3 in her brief?? After all, the voters (or legislators) thought these were good “reasons”, and she has said that her role is to explain why “reasons” justify a marriage ban.

  19. Paul B. says

    @tkinsc…Just in case you were out sick for this class…

    Equal protection of the laws definition…

    “A phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requiring that states guarantee the same rights, privileges, and protections to all citizens. This doctrine reinforces that of due process of law and prevents states from passing or enforcing laws that arbitrarily discriminate against anyone”.

  20. Steve Talbert says

    What an idiot. She doesn’t even know that the courts are a THIRD AND EQUAL BRANCH of government. Not less than voters, but equal.

  21. Enchantra says

    She’s always been accusing funt. The good news is that when she loses this case it will put an end to her political career as a cucking funt.

  22. Sean Maloney says

    If left up to the people, women would still not be able to vote, blacks would not own land and blondes would be barefoot and pregnant. So, yeah, this is what you’re defending. #dumbass

  23. simon says

    “Call me crazy, but I don’t think the 14th Amendment was ever meant to confer a right to same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states.”
    You are crazy.
    Newton’s laws says nothing about how you fall when you jump off the window. They tell you how all objects move. That’s why they are called universal laws. Every legal opinion by judges up till now confirmed that.

  24. says

    At the time when it was applicable, close to 99 percent of white Americans would have voted yes on the moral correctness of slavery. Even or especially because the Bible says so. But that’s the price one has to pay to live in a democracy.

  25. rick says

    tkinsc not only crazy but bat shi* crazy. His tome is just one big fart. As his husband, I know how to deal with him at home. I just keep slapping him until he shuts up.

  26. Lee says

    She’s a twit. The rights of a minority should never be ruled by the will of the majority. Our courts and the federal government are there to intercede when the state does something wrong and encroaches on the rights of its citizens. Every judge to rule on this issue has unanimously ruled that these state bans, no matter how they were implemented, are unconstitutional. Her position SHOULD be that in the best interests of ALL citizens of her state, she will not oppose the ruling of this case or defend a law which is designed to discriminate (and which precedent has proven is unconstitutional).

    No less than I would expect, though. There was some resistance abolishing slavery and segregation. She’s just a modern day Klan member and will be remembered as such.

Leave A Reply