Pam Bondi’s Screeching Hypocrisy

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is something of a rising star in the Republican party and she is defending her state’s ban on same-sex marriage in a legal challenge in federal court. She’s also a massive hypocrite, as proven by her recent filings in the case.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican who was named in the lawsuit along with fellow Republican Gov. Rick Scott and other state officials, earlier this month filed a lengthy response that asks a federal judge to throw out the lawsuit for several reasons, saying a federal court shouldn’t rule on a state’s marriage laws.

Bondi’s office also argues that the state has a legitimate interest in defining marriage as between a man and woman. Florida first banned same-sex marriages nearly two decades ago and voters reinforced that ban when they passed a constitutional amendment in 2008.

“Florida’s marriage laws, then, 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,” Bondi’s office said in court documents.

Ah yes, stable and enduring family units. Very important things, I agree, even for gay people. The bad news for Bondi is that she’s currently on her third marriage. The first marriage lasted two years. The second lasted five years. Stable and enduring, indeed. She’s apparently worried that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of both of those short-lived marriages.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    Why is it that they either have no reasons, the reasons they state don’t make sense or are complete non sequiturs, or are completely irrelevant?

  • noastronomer

    … the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units.

    Personally I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain to me how marriage equality has any impact at all on whether or not “…children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them …”.

    Bueller?

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    Well, how many children has she raised? Apparently that’s the state’s interest. Because otherwise her “unofficial non-binding” 2012 marriage to her current tax shelter, uh, husband, uh — what, “long-term lover”?? Might be a problem.

  • John Pieret

    F @ 1:

    Why is it that they either have no reasons, the reasons they state don’t make sense or are complete non sequiturs, or are completely irrelevant?

    Because they have to say something and they don’t want to say “because it’s icky and God said so” because those “arguments” are even bigger losers than what they are saying now.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    Would you have described her hypocrisy as “screeching” if she weren’t a woman, Ed?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Because they have to say something and they don’t want to say “because it’s icky and God said so” because those “arguments” are even bigger losers than what they are saying now.

    And even more so admit “because the rubes eat it up and it’s all about keeping them riled and distracted.”

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Florida’s marriage laws, then, 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,” Bondi’s office said in court documents.

    Over and over again they never say exactly how keeping same-sex couples from marrying magically turns them straight.

  • http://quodlibet-sarah.blogspot.com/ Quodlibet

    Florida’s marriage laws, then, 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,” Bondi’s office said in court documents.

    Taking that to its logical [heh] conclusion, then (in no particular order):

    .

    – Marriage would be reserved solely for heterosexual couples who make a binding commitment to produce children and who are determined to be fertile and of childbearing age.

    – Divorce would be illegal, in order to maintain “stable and enduring family units.”

    – Except for those couples who turn out to be infertile despite pre-marital testing: they would be required to divorce since their marriages would no longer be valid

    – Adoption would become illegal, since people would only be allowed to raise children that are born to them.

    etc. etc.

    .

    Of course, the people who come up with these stupid ideas never really think about what they would actually entail.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Actually, it’s not even clear if she’s on her third marriage or not:

    Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Cayman trip looked like a wedding; it wasn’t, and many wonder why

    If she’s since tied the knot after having a non-binding ceremony in the Caymans, I haven’t seen any indication. Perhaps the whole thing was just a ruse so she could attend to her offshore accounts.

  • colnago80

    Apparently, Ms. Bondi, at least according to Wiki, has had 2 marriages during which she failed to procreate. Currently, she is shacked up with putative husband #3 with no signs of procreation with him.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Now do you see how bad Gay Marriage is? It’s banned in Florida and it’s still destroyed two Normal Marriages! Checkmate, homosexualists!

  • bjarndoolaeghe

    @5: Screeching? Where exactly did you read that word in the post?

  • jaybee

    As a child of the 70s, whenever the subject of Florida and gay rights comes up, I immediately think of Anita Bryant. Here we are 40 years on and Florida is still kicking and screaming about it.

    As my wife and I can’t have kids, I wonder if Florida is willing to recognize our marriage as legally binding. Hell, for that matter, once any family’s kids are grown, I guess there is no reason to allow married people to remain married according to Bondi logic, as there is no chance of them having kids either.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Area Man @ # 9 & colnago80 @ # 10 – You mean one of our top elected officials is living in SIN???

    Oh gawd we’re doomed – nothing like that has ever happened before here. God is gonna smite us!

    bjarndoolaeghe @ # 12 – Pls read the headline…

  • eric

    they never say exactly how keeping same-sex couples from marrying magically turns them straight.

    Well, these are the folks who think being gay is a choice, so its actually somewhat internally consistent for them to think that if you make one choice legal and the other illegal, you’ll see more people taking the legal choice. Secondly, puritanism (of which this is a type) has never been overly concerned with peoples’ personal happiness – if forcing people to live “moral” lives makes them unhappy, depressed, and dysfunctional, most of these moralists would be satisfied with that trade/result.

  • D. C. Sessions

    if forcing people to live “moral” lives makes them unhappy, depressed, and dysfunctional, most of these moralists would be satisfied with that trade/result.

    That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

  • freehand

    D. C. Sessions: if forcing people to live “moral” lives makes them unhappy, depressed, and dysfunctional, most of these moralists would be satisfied with that trade/result.

    .

    That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    .

    Indeed. My SBC relatives would say that one cannot be moral if one is happy, cheerful, and functional. Jesus died on the cross for you. Was He having fun?

  • Ichthyic

    @5: Screeching? Where exactly did you read that word in the post?

    unless marcus was hallucinating, which i doubt, it’s likely Ed changed the wording at some point.

    massive is a better adjective anyway.

  • Lofty

    bjarndoolaeghe

    @5: Screeching? Where exactly did you read that word in the post?

    It’s in the fucking headline, right at the top of the post.

  • itinerant

    I see Ed has used ‘screeching’ about 8 times – screeching halt, screeching howler monkeys, and Pam Geller screeching. So not always in reference to women.

  • puppygod

    Meanhile the technology to produce children of three parents (one mother donates body of egg cell including mitochondria, second mother – nucleus of egg cell and father – sperm) is going to be available within two years – if legally alloved, that is. I’m going to laugh oh so loud at their mental contortions trying to fit this into their ideology. “born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them” indeed.

  • caseloweraz

    Interesting news indeed, puppygod. If I may paraphrase an old hymn:

    “Born of three persons, blessed trinity.”