Florida | Gay Marriage | News | Pam Bondi

Florida AG Pam Bondi Pledges to Continue Defending Gay Marriage Ban: 'I Am Just Getting Started'

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has responded to yesterday's ruling by a federal judge overturning her state's ban on same-sex marriage, the Sun-Sentinel reports:  

Bondi“We want finality. There are good people on both sides. We want finality. That’s what we need. The U.S. Supreme Court’s going to hear this. They are going to make this determination. And if you hear that I have criticized people personally, I have not. I never will. This is me doing my job as attorney general. And I will continue to do that and if anybody wants me to moderate my message or stand for less I have a message for them: I am just getting started.”

Later, in answering reporters’ questions, this is what she said about the Democratic candidates who would drop the defense of the ban:

“All I’m going to say is I put my hand on a Bible and I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the state of Florida. This was voted into our Florida’s Constitution by 62 percent of the voters not even six years ago....”

Earlier this month, Bondi, citing her desire to "preserve taxpayer and judicial resources" asked state courts to stop considering same-sex marriage cases until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue. 

Bondi is running for re-election this year.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Divorced twice and not legally married with the third. Not very Biblical, honey.

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Aug 22, 2014 10:48:16 AM


  2. But she said nothing about the Bible. She says she is defending the Florida constitutional amendment passed overwhelmingly by voters. That is her duty and role as attorney general. It is not personal.

    Posted by: Javier | Aug 22, 2014 10:53:40 AM


  3. Another lunatic. Her career is over and she doesn't even know it.

    Posted by: Jay | Aug 22, 2014 10:53:41 AM


  4. If she's going to lean on the Bible then by God she should be stoned for living in sin and walking away from two holy marriages. Let's face it. Miss Fancy Pants is a bigoted hypocrite of the worst kind.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Aug 22, 2014 10:55:40 AM


  5. No, she doesn't go after people personally, she prefers to target minority groups with her backwardness and hatefulness.

    Posted by: Jack M | Aug 22, 2014 10:55:52 AM


  6. Javier, Her duty is to uphold CONSTITUTIONAL laws. This law isn't constitutional. Also, someone who doesn't respect and uphold marriage, shouldn't be dictating the rules to others. Finally, yes it is personal.

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Aug 22, 2014 10:58:46 AM


  7. The Bible doesn't like divorce either--but that didn't stop her from doing it twice.

    Posted by: Daniel | Aug 22, 2014 11:00:58 AM


  8. Stupid witch. Is she not required by law to fairly and equally protect ALL citizens of Florida - or just the Redneck Brothers and Sisters of the Holy Redeemer Ignorance Tea Party?

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 22, 2014 11:02:56 AM


  9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1 Timothy 2:9

    Posted by: David | Aug 22, 2014 11:06:50 AM


  10. @Javier: Her duty is to protect the constitutional rights of all Florida citizens, not just anti-gay ones. Furthermore, the court documents her office has submitted in the cases are anti-gay, falsely arguing that gay couples marrying will adversely affect the stability of heterosexual marriages. Whether it's personal or not, she's using her office to peddle lies. It's our duty to call her on that.

    Her marital failures aren't relevant to the cases, but there is an irony when heterosexuals who are incapable of creating stable families try to argue there's a cause and effect between legal gay unions and heterosexual instability.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 22, 2014 11:18:39 AM


  11. Ernie, the US Supreme Court will ultimately decide wherever such bans are constitutional. Our opinions don't decide this issue; SCOTUS will.

    Posted by: Javier | Aug 22, 2014 11:26:28 AM


  12. Javier just needs to buy his Easy Bake The Gays Oven and sign up for train duty.

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Aug 22, 2014 11:33:53 AM


  13. JAVIER: she brought the bible into this.

    "All I’m going to say is I put my hand on a Bible and I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the state of Florida. This was voted into our Florida’s Constitution by 62 percent of the voters not even six years ago....”

    Posted by: MATTROCKS | Aug 22, 2014 11:34:31 AM


  14. Without our "opinions" on this issue @Javier, there wouldn't be marriage equality in 19 states, this wouldn't be before the courts, and we wouldn't have 30+ court victories since the DOMA decision, or the DOMA decision for that matter. So, yeah, our arguments have made a difference, and we don't need to take Pam Bondi's bogus arguments against equality at face value, particularly since other AG's are on our side and are still doing their jobs.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 22, 2014 11:37:11 AM


  15. Her comment is ridiculous. Most important, presumably she took an oath to uphold the Florida Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States. Here is the actual oath she had to take: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida...." Yet, her comment talks only about upholding the Florida constitution!

    As any lawyer knows, if there is a conflict between a state constitution and the US Constitution, then the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution requires the state constitution to go bye-bye. In that case, a state official MUST uphold the US Constitution, regardless of the state constitution.

    Now, if she truly believes there is no conflict, and if she truly believes that the court cases that finding a violation of the US Constitution are wrong (until the Supreme Court decides the same-sex marriage issue), then she might have a legal (not necessarily moral) justification for her to pursue the appeals. But to give as a reason that she agreed to uphold the Florida Constitution -- without mentioning the US Constitution -- is an example of what an idiot she is.

    Not to mention putting her hand on the Bible -- what does that have to do with anything, except courting religious voters?

    Posted by: MiddleoftheRoader | Aug 22, 2014 11:46:29 AM


  16. Ernie, not all of those 19 states have marriage equality because of court decisions. Some are pursuant to voter initiatives or state legislative action. Yes, if SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, any state presently with gay marriage because of court decisions, may be in jeopardy of having such marriages voided or prospectively stopped. That is the risk they are taking. Everyone knows that it will be the inevitable SCOTUS decision on this matter that ultimately decides for the nation.

    Posted by: Javier | Aug 22, 2014 11:54:04 AM


  17. Ernie, not all of those 19 states have marriage equality because of court decisions. Some are pursuant to voter initiatives or state legislative action. Yes, if SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, any state presently with gay marriage because of court decisions, may be in jeopardy of having such marriages voided or prospectively stopped. That is the risk they are taking. Everyone knows that it will be the inevitable SCOTUS decision on this matter that ultimately decides for the nation.

    Posted by: Javier | Aug 22, 2014 11:54:05 AM


  18. Just more "Thug feminism"....No surprise...

    Posted by: rochon | Aug 22, 2014 12:30:40 PM


  19. Why do all Women hates Gays so much???...

    Posted by: rochon | Aug 22, 2014 12:31:03 PM


  20. @ "Why do all Women hates Gays so much???..."

    Because they despise Gays (or Homos) who change their blog posting names 3 fvcking times a day--every day.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 22, 2014 12:35:47 PM


  21. @Javier: I'm well aware of how each of those 19 states got marriage equality, but you were arguing that our opinions don't decide this issue, which couldn't be further from the truth. Without our arguments for equality and against irrational arguments like those put forth by Pam Bondi, there would be no cases headed toward SCOTUS. They don't operate in a vacuum.

    Pam Bondi's arguments aren't just about the "risk" Florida would take by allowing marriages to occur before SCOTUS rules, they're about how same-sex couples marrying would adversely impact straight marriages and families. She is responsible for the discredited arguments her office makes. Ignorance needs to be challenged. Keeping silent till SCOTUS rules doesn't cut it.

    @MiddleoftheRoader: Yes, well said.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 22, 2014 12:37:08 PM


  22. Derrick, you notice how Rick (oh sorry, he's going by Rochon) uses the same link in his name that he uses for some of his other aliases. And he has the nerve to complain about other people posting under aliases.

    Rochon/Rick/Loser in Chief/Javier, seriously get a life. Or troll better.

    Posted by: Tyler | Aug 22, 2014 12:49:28 PM


  23. @"Rochon": Misogyny isn't a valid argument. Feminism isn't the problem; Republicanism is.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 22, 2014 12:52:16 PM


  24. May I say, Anita that is the best face-lift ever, and shouldn't you be dead by now?

    Posted by: SFRowGuy | Aug 22, 2014 1:29:23 PM


  25. Ernie, we have a process for funneling legal arguments and settling disputes. SCOTUS has stayed favorable marriage equality decisions, so it clear they don't think the matter has been definitely resolved or that such bans are necessarily unconstitutional. Until they rule on the matter, judicially such bans are not clearly unconstitutional.

    Posted by: Javier | Aug 22, 2014 1:30:16 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Former L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Is Gay, Says Ex-Mistress« «