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.

Comments

  1. Javier says

    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.

  2. says

    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.

  3. Jack M says

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

  4. NotSafeForWork says

    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.

  5. Bill says

    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?

  6. David says

    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

  7. says

    @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.

  8. Javier says

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

  9. MATTROCKS says

    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….”

  10. says

    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.

  11. MiddleoftheRoader says

    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?

  12. Javier says

    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.

  13. Javier says

    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.

  14. Derrick from Philly says

    @ “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.

  15. says

    @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.

  16. Tyler says

    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.

  17. Javier says

    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.

  18. Javier says

    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.

  19. says

    Keep rolling that boulder up the hill like Sisyphus, Pammy. It’ll make it all the more sweeter when you lose your grip and it crushes you on the way down.

  20. RonCharles says

    She has left herself a gigantic “out” on this one. Should the Florida Supreme Court void the ban on gay marriage at the state level, she can always declare that “finality” has been achieved if she chooses to do so. So far, no federal court has even heard a case in which a state supreme court has ruled for gay marriage.

  21. ben~andy says

    @Javier, the Supremes have issued stays. Nada mas. This amounts to pressing the pause button on the VCR [DVR, YouTube]. But nobody’s crystal ball is clear on what their reasoning is on doing so. They also most likely don’t have JOINT reasoning for doing so. There are 9 of them, they could have 9 reasons.

    My best guess is that the Pros want to be sure of Kennedy before they bring it and possibly to let it take long enough for the country to just be happy it is finally decided [as in no abortion/school busing backlash] and the Cons just want to delay it as long as possible because just about anyone who’s a paranoid Con would see Kennedy as primed to issue a ruling that affirms the 9th’s “Suspect Classification” for us AND letting wedding bells peel nationwide [and all the overseas territories] AND forcing recognition no matter where solemnized AND even giving us credit for doing whatever we could do in lieu of marriage in cases where there is some time frame required [like survivor benefits, taxable status, etc].

    Just because Cons are paranoid doesn’t mean Kennedy won’t or he will write any or all of those opinions. It means they’re AFRAID he will. So they delay and we wait. And the cases pile up. We only have about 12 more to go before every state will have a federal decision. That could easily come before this case is heard in say late Spring 2014.

    @Ernie’s point is simply that keeping up the pressure helps. If AG Thrice [not quite, oopsie] Married wants to “wait until the Supremes decide, so help me God” to get re-elected, that is just her strategy. What is yours? It sounds like it is “Sit down and be quiet like good children and maybe the nice straight Catholic Justice Kennedy will give you the rights you seek.”

    Bending the Arc of History in the direction of Justice is everyone’s job. Even AG’s who’d be biblically stoned and couldn’t have been AG’s in biblical times anyway.

  22. Randy says

    The Attorney General was not a defendant in the federal case.

    And the defendants that WERE defending the marriage ban were basically called flat-out liars, by the judge.

    She’s “just getting started”?

  23. ben~andy says

    That should be “late Spring 2015″. I’m getting ahead of myself and behind in the times.

  24. SoLeftImRight says

    Will the (gulp) good people of Florida have the sense to vote out this plastic lawyer Barbie?

  25. Bernie says

    Ms. Bondi is just letting us know she is ONLY doing her job!!! lol….and obviously, she does not have much of a spine….and according to news reports she has been divorced 2x………..so I guess she can’t use the monogamy argument and I am also getting the vibe she ain’t too smart……….

  26. Rick says

    “Misogyny isn’t a valid argument. Feminism isn’t the problem; Republicanism is”

    No, you are wrong about that Ernie. You just don’t know it yet because we are in the midst of a massive cultural change. A majority of younger Republicans have pro-gay attitudes, so the whole partisan thing is just a generational matter.

    What is NOT generational is the threat that women of all political ideologies feel and will feel increasingly as the male culture changes and as men discard the notion that a woman should be at the center of their emotional universe. The whole concept of “romantic love” that has given women so much social power in Western societies is based on the notion of women occupying a primal place in men’s emotions and men being emotionally distant towards each other…..and that whole paradigm, in turn, both fed off of and fed male homophobia.

    Without a homophobic male culture, the emotional primacy of women in men’s lives is doomed to extinction…..and with it will go the extinction of female power.

    Feminism has fallen flat on its face in societies in which romantic love is either non-existent or regarded as frivolous non-sense…..and it will be destroyed in this society when men discover that they really don’t need women for anything to be happy…..and that, on balance, relationships with women only bring UN-happiness to their lives.

  27. says

    I agree @Rick that young Republicans are and will continue to be more pro-gay than old Republicans. Meanwhile, Pam Bondi is a typical middle-aged Republican politician and typical Republican AG, which means anti-gay.

    The rest of what you wrote is nonsense pulled out of your a$& (yet again) and unworthy of comment.

  28. Meltphase6 says

    Dear Ernie,

    I’d like to commend you for emphasizing addressing trolls’ discourse rather than their illegitimate arguing games. While your arguments may not benefit them, they will benefit the general reader.

    Leave it to some trolls to pick up on an anti-gay individual’s statement “I’m just getting started”, and try to turn that into a game to get gays to shut up/give up/disappear.
    Leave it to some trolls to argue from a vacuum over and over again, from the perspective of the willfully ignorant. I’m amazed at your patience and inclination to deconstruct their garbage. As if the troll really needed to be explained that equality for gays doesn’t just manifest spontaneously without the eternal vigilance of gays and their allies.

    At least one of the trolls here has been arguing from stage four (at most) of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning. ‘If the law says women or blacks or gays are persons, then they are, if the law says they are not, then they are not; and if the law is undecided, then we can’t decide if women or blacks or gays are persons or not’… UGLY!!

    Anyway, thanks again Ernie. Don’t break your head :-)

  29. says

    Thanks & Cheers, @MELTPHASE6. It’s always nice to see signs of intelligent life in the TR comments. Deconstructing the breed-like-bunnies troll personalities would certainly break my head, as well as being an exercise in futility, so I try to stick to the arguments, such as they are.

  30. Markt says

    Rick – Interesting post – thanks. But homosexuality has been allowed in a number of cultures and male to male love relationships did not crowd out male to female love relationships at all. There’s even less reason for that to change as we are now pushing same sex couples into marriage.

  31. Dave says

    US Government is for the people by the people.
    Sadly it is changing to rule by personal opinion judges.