Bigots Denied Intervention in Florida Marriage Case

A few months ago the Florida Family Association filed a motion to intervene as a party to a lawsuit challenging that state’s ban on same-sex marriage and the judge in the case has denied that motion. And it’s pretty obvious that the wingnuts have no idea what is required to intervene in a case.

A judge has ruled that the anti-gay Florida Family Association (FFA) may not intervene legally in two challenges to Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage because none of its members would be directly affected by gay couples getting married.

‘No FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages,’ District court Judge Robert Hinkle found in his ruling.

‘FFA’s generalized interest in opposing same-sex marriage does not entitle FFA to intervene.’

The judge also found that the FFA’s lawyers, the Liberty Counsel, had failed to cite a federal statute under which the group could argue they had a right to be considered a party to the case.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a group or individual must have a specific interest in the outcome of the case that can’t be adequately defended without them being a party to that case. That is quite obviously not the case here. You can’t intervene just because you support one side or the other. One of their fellow groups of bigots in the state seems quite confused about that:

Judge Hinkle is sworn to uphold the U.S. and Florida Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to equal protection and due process. However, Hinkle has violated his oath of office by deciding he does not want to hear from Florida Family Action Committee and the eight million Florida voters who cast their ballot on the Florida marriage amendment. This preliminary ruling violates the equal protection and due process rights of ALL Florida voters. Therefore, his claim that no FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages is false. What is true is that no Floridian will be directly or indirectly affected if U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle is impeached.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The FFA can still file a brief in the case. And the law is being defended by the state government on behalf of those voters. They simply have no idea what they’re talking about.

"Hey, I receive a signal that someone wants me to mar their vehicles when then ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"“Our brave soldiers fought for your right to protest, so you must respect their sacrifice ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraEd Brayton:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. The FFA can still file a brief in the case. And the law is being defended by the state government on behalf of those voters. They simply have no idea what they’re talking about.

    Looks like another example of the wingnuts tripping themselves up by falling for their own propaganda. The proles may go wild for all this “Tyranny of unelected judges! Judicial activism!” junk on Fox News, but the bluff doesn’t work when you’re dealing with actual judges who are quite familiar with the legal process and their own responsibilities as one of the three branches of government.

    I wonder if the original motion included lots of Klayman-style semi-coherent non-sequiturs. “WHEREAS the plaintiffs are gayhomofascistnaziqueers who hate morality, America, and Jesus; and WHEREAS the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; and WHEREAS mumble mumble something FOR THE CHILDREN…”

  • eric

    The denial itself seems pretty strong evidence that the judge is going to rule against the government defense, IMO. After all, if the judge is saying no non-SSM people have a direct interest in the outcome of the law, he’s basically saying no non-SSM people are legally harmed by it.

  • wordofcase

    This is the result they wanted. They can’t raise money or forward the persecution narrative on courtroom victories. Losing keeps them in business.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @ ^ wordofcase : But they *are* still losing – which is good.

    They can’t keep on losing forever before even the losers who support them will realise what a losing proposition homophobia and opposing equal marriage rights is.

  • wordofcase

    “They can’t keep on losing forever before even the losers who support them will realise what a losing proposition homophobia and opposing equal marriage rights is.”

    Says who? These people are going nowhere.

  • Chiroptera

    Huh. Once again, the wingnuts are being denied their right to barge in where they’re not welcome and make a mess of everything.

    Ha ha ha. Autocorrect tried to turn “wingnut” to “songbird.”

  • caseloweraz

    Christian Family Coalition: Therefore, his claim that no FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages is false.

    I eagerly await the CFC’s announcement of who it is among FFA members who seeks to enter a same-sex marriage. This would, after all, bolster if not prove the case that government recognition of same-sex marriage can have a destructive effect on traditional man-woman marriages. It would be most effective if the testimony were accompanied by tearful confessions.

    And for the sound track, perhaps an instrumental version of Can’t Fight this Feelin’. (Apologies to REO Speedwagon)

    I have no doubt, of course, that if such a presentation were made, it would turn out to be bogus.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zara StevoR:

    They can’t keep on losing forever before even the losers who support them will realise what a losing proposition homophobia and opposing equal marriage rights is.

    Maybe not forever, but they can drag it out well past the point where they’ve lost: Just reframe the issue with code words and pretend it’s about something else. You might not be able to get away with screaming the n-word any more, but you can push for voter ID laws that just coincidentally happen to hurt minorities the most. Then you can end affirmative action because hey, politicians not using the n-word means racism doesn’t exist any more, right?

    And Republican voters don’t care whom else they hurt in the process — even if they hurt themselves. The right-wing working poor have happily burned the social safety net rather than share it with those filthy “welfare queens.”

    It’s also important to remember that the religious right has become a tail that wags the dog: The fundagelical leadership simply is not willing to give up on “punish the gays” as a core party platform, and that means the GOP can’t either.

  • Kevin Kehres

    Cynic here:

    As soon as the voters stop electing anti-gay legislators, as soon as the voters stop flocking to the polls for anti-gay propositions, then the Republican party will abandon its homophobic platform.

    Not before. If the issue is an electoral loser, they’ll move on. The entire raison d’etre for these homophobic propositions is to bring the rabid religious right to the polls. If the rest of the voters outnumber them, then the Republicans need to buy a new dog whistle.

  • Synfandel

    @7 caseloweraz wrote:

    I eagerly await the CFC’s announcement of who it is among FFA members who seeks to enter a same-sex marriage.

    The Christian Family Coalition of Florida is not saying that any of the FFA’s members is seeking a same-sex marriage; it’s saying that we are all affected by allowing anyone to enter into a same-sex marriage, because:

    (a) it would destroy heterosexual marriage and

    (b) God will get us.

    The latter is unprovable speculation and the former is, of course, just stupid.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraKevin Kehres, #9:

    As soon as the voters stop electing anti-gay legislators, as soon as the voters stop flocking to the polls for anti-gay propositions, then the Republican party will abandon its homophobic platform.

    Not before. If the issue is an electoral loser, they’ll move on. The entire raison d’etre for these homophobic propositions is to bring the rabid religious right to the polls. If the rest of the voters outnumber them, then the Republicans need to buy a new dog whistle.

    That’s the problem — given the current demographic makeup of the GOP, they can’t abandon this issue. Without the religious right, the GOP can’t win elections; the religious right is not willing to budge on same-sex marriage. If the Republicans walk away from this issue, the religious right will walk away from the Republicans… and the teavangelical fringe would be only too happy to court them. They’d likely form a spoiler party composed of Christianer-Than-Thou evangelicals and Conservativer-Than-Thou wingnuts.

  • Synfandel

    @11 pocketnerd wrote:

    If the Republicans walk away from this issue, the religious right will walk away from the Republicans… and the teavangelical fringe would be only too happy to court them. They’d likely form a spoiler party composed of Christianer-Than-Thou evangelicals and Conservativer-Than-Thou wingnuts.

    Here’s hoping the Republicans walk away from this issue.

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    The claim that same-sex marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage was “unprovable speculation” twenty years ago. It is now a flat-out lie (or at best, an honest error): we have the data. Heterosexual marriages are doing fine in Sweden, in Canada, in Massachusetts, in Iowa, in the other jurisdictions where the choice of marriage partner doesn’t depend on your legal gender.

  • scienceavenger

    This preliminary ruling violates the equal protection and due process rights of ALL Florida voters.[…] Therefore, his claim that no FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages is false

    If I didn’t know better I’d think there was a missing ellipses in between these two sentences, because I for the life of me can’t see how logic flows from one to the other. Even if the ruling did violate FFA’s due process rights, that still doesn’t support the claim that they’d be negatively effected by gay marriages. It’s as if they said “The judge is an alien out to destroy us, and his ruling violates our right to due process, therefore his claim that he is not an alien is false.”