stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

Florida Attorney General Suggests Gays Don’t Have ‘Stable And Enduring Family Units’

by David Badash on May 31, 2014

in Discrimination,Marriage,News

Post image for Florida Attorney General Suggests Gays Don’t Have ‘Stable And Enduring Family Units’

Yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi came under fire for her defense of Florida‘s ban on same-sex marriage, which claimed that recognizing out-of-state legal civil same-sex marriages would “impose significant public harm” and play havoc with existing marriage laws in the Sunshine State.

Those four words, “impose significant public harm,” earned Bondi, a 48-year old Tea Party Republican who has been married three times, scorn and rebuke from several Florida LGBT organizations and countless news outlets, including The New Civil Rights Movement.

LOOK: Gay Marriage Would ‘Impose Significant Public Harm’ Says Attorney General Married Three Times

But further examination of the same court filing, which claims same-sex marriage will “impose significant public harm” shows Bondi also suggests that same-sex couples don’t create stable or enduring homes.

The Tampa Bay Times reports that “[l]ost in the uproar was another statement, buried deeper in the response, that sounded more potentially inflammatory. In a section on marriage’s historical definition, Bondi seemed to argue that unions between men and women produce more favorable environments for children.” That is, of course, a claim no reputable scientific study has found to be true. 

LOOK: Gay Dads’ Brains Work Like Mom And Dad Combined

“Florida’s marriage laws,” Bondi wrote in the court filing (PDF), “have a close, direct, and rational relationship to society’s legitimate interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units.”

The procreation argument is not a valid legal argument to deny marriage. But, regardless, many same-sex couples do raise their own biological children — at least of one of the members of the couple. Many gay same-sex couples raise the children one of the fathers may have had in a previous marriage, for instance. Many lesbian same-sex couples raise the children one of the mothers may have had in a previous marriage, too. And same-sex parents also adopt the children sometimes abandoned by those “mothers and fathers who produced them” in non-stable and non-enduring family units. There are, of course, other methods for couples to conceive.

Bondi also argues that excluding same-sex couples from marriage might promote a legitimate governmental purpose.

The plaintiffs simply are wrong to argue that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of marriage must further a legitimate state interest. A classification will be upheld where “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.”

Here’s Bondi’s argument, filed in the combined case of Brenner v. Scott and Grimsley v. Scott, that recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state would “impose significant public harm”:

“The Court should also deny the preliminary injunction motions because there is no likelihood of success on the merits, there is no immediacy requiring a preliminary injunction and disrupting Florida’s existing marriage laws would impose significant public harm.”

Of course, it’s arguable there is not one single truth in that statement. Every same-sex marriage case since the supreme Court ruled on DOMA less than a year ago has been won by those seeking equality, and even federal judges have written that imposing stays — delays — on those rulings would cause harm. Worse, the fact that an entire class of people have been denied their rights for generations far outweighs whatever administrative changes the State of Florida might need to perform. And whatever financial costs the State incurs as a result of extending marriage — and equal rights — to same-sex couples is outweighed by the fact that same-sex couples are legal tax-paying citizens and have paid into that system AG Bondi wants to exclude them from now accessing. In short, gays lesbian, and bisexual Floridians have been supporting the marriages of heterosexual couples for centuries. It’s time they were allowed to enter into the institution.


Image via Wikipedia

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!


SeanLiberty13 May 31, 2014 at 11:37 am

I should take advice from an ignorant, anti-freedom, barbarian, Ava Braun wannabe who has been married three times on marriage as well as what constitutes a stable and enduring family unit? BWWWWWWAAAAA!!!! #FAIL

I hope she doesn't consider herself to be a "real" Christian since in that picture she is wearing pearls and the human made "Bible" clearly states in 1 Timothy 2:9 that women shouldn't wear pearls.

Alex_Parrish May 31, 2014 at 11:44 am

I have run-out of sufficient words to properly mock this. Mock, mock, mock!!! And that's still not enough.

scottsteaux63 May 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm

An open letter to the Bondi:

Your first marriage lasted two years, the second one lasted five, and so far you have not actually married number three in spite of some weird "commitment ceremony" in the Bahamas (shades of Anna Nicole Smith).

MY first marriage may not have endured, but it lasted FIFTEEN YEARS. That's LONGER THAN BOTH YOUR MARRIAGES COMBINED YOU BITCH.

And I am going to be celebrating TWELVE YEARS with my husband this December. And unlike you WE ARE LEGALLY MARRIED.


Incidentally, since marriage equality began to storm across the land, literally HUNDREDS of couples made it legal after TWENTY, THIRTY, FORTY, FIFTY, AND EVEN SIXTY YEARS TOGETHER. HOW DARE YOU TELL ANYONE THAT WE ARE *INCAPABLE* OF SUSTAINING FAMILY UNITS?

You are POISON and you have NO BUSINESS being attorney general of ANYWHERE. You should go back to law school and then do a few years in legal aid and maybe you'll develop a heart and a soul. Not to mention a brain because you sure as hell don't have one now.

jeffsf1234 May 31, 2014 at 1:41 pm

I cannot believe this woman is lecturing society on strong family units. Twice divorced and is now in a non-recognized marriage from the Cayman Islands? What the heck does that even mean? I almost spit out my coffee when I read this. Do these people even realize how stupid they look?

Laura May 31, 2014 at 4:33 pm

And she hasn't had any children. What's the point of her marriages?!

edelbill713 May 31, 2014 at 1:52 pm

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-837438293"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(837438293)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="; style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(837438293)">Close MessageTet another ditsy, right-wing, pseudo-Christian Teabagger playing to her toothless, bigoted, homophobic, inbred voter base. Yawn…

ImcalledDale May 31, 2014 at 4:24 pm

Hey Bondi: I've been with my partner in a monogamous loving relationship for 34 years – married for one (since it became legal). Is that enough for you to consider it "stable" and "enduring"?

sfbob May 31, 2014 at 7:45 pm

Claims like the ones in Bondi's brief show, in case anyone had any doubt, that she is completely unfit to hold public office.

chassagne June 1, 2014 at 7:46 am

ignorant c*nt

kobblestones June 1, 2014 at 8:08 am

OMG…when I saw this in my feed…I thought someone had shared an Onion article…alas it was not a joke …..Listen up Blonde Bondi…(that sounded so much better in my head *really need more coffee before commenting on such drivel being spouted by bigots*) anyway….10 years with my loving partner and at last we are going to get marriage (*big smile and a tear down my cheek*)…not that we really *need* that blasted piece of paper to legitimise our loving relationship…however, it will save us 10s of thousands in good ole greenbacks…..end my ramble (sips some yummy french roast)

Richard_Wade June 1, 2014 at 2:38 pm

Bondi: Please cite the credible sociological studies demonstrating that same-sex relationships produce less stable family units than opposite-sex relationships. I haven't seen any so far. Evidence, or STFU.

My uncle and his partner, and my aunt and her partner had dedicated, loving, exclusive relationships that lasted over 60 years each, ended only by death. They were models for any couple to emulate, far more MARRIED than most opposite-sex couples ever live up to be. Their example has inspired my wife and I to remain together happily for over 41 years. It still breaks my heart that they had to always be careful and evasive about their unions, semi-isolated in enclaves where the bigoted rest of society didn't bother to go to harass them.

labman57 June 1, 2014 at 7:27 pm

Remember, marriage should be between a man and his wife … and his mistress … and an occasional hooker or two … possibly ending in divorce — you know, the traditional way as God intended it to be.

Kay001x June 2, 2014 at 1:49 am

And "straight" people DO have stable and enduring family units? Ha! Funny.

Stevie_Z June 2, 2014 at 11:12 am

Seriously, someone with her personal track record on marriages feels qualified to lecture others on stable family environments?

Oh, those silly teabillies. Their lack of self-awareness and irony is just soooo precious.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: