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.And this:
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.’And this:
We are defending this amendment based solely upon judicial precedent and not the personal views of anyone in our office. Anything else would be bad lawyering--just as in all cases, the personal opinions of the advocates and the judges involved are utterly irrelevant.
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.The whole thing is here if you'd like to read it.
She sounds oh so reasonable, doesn't she? But here is the problem: In order to make any case against legal equality for full-fledged taxpaying citizens of our country you have to completely dumpster-dive for some kind viable legal precedent.
Remember when another Florida Attorney General got into hot water over an expert witness in a case against gay adoption? George Alan Rekers was an expert witness in In re: Gill, a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. He presented testimony asserting that homosexuals wouldn't make good parents for a variety ludicrous reasons.
What he didn't say in his testimony was that he was speaking about himself. He then went on to prove what a terrible role model he'd be by hiring a barely legal Rent Boy with a "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" for an all expenses paid (by the Florida taxpayers) vacation to Europe, where he taught the young man valuable skills like the reach around.
Apperently George Rekers wasn't available this time around, so in order to do her duty Bondi had to make do with what she had and what she had was patently offensive to myself, many other members of the LGBT community, and our allies.
When there is no valid, non-offensive argument to support your case there is another option. Indeed, the attorneys general of at least six states have in recent years said they won’t defend their states’s bans on same-sex marriage because they violate the federal or state constitution. That would have been a better choice.