Latest Headlines
- Farm-City: Volunteers Harvest Thanksgiving Dinner For 1,000 Needy Families (With Gallery)
- When Will New ‘Paper Park’ At Former IP Golf Course Open?
- Trump Backs Jimmy Patronis For Gaetz Seat; Michelle Salzman Not Running
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- K-9 Tracks Down Man For Attempted Vehicle Burglary In Assisting Living Parking Lot
- Escambia County Fire Rescue Fire Academy Holds Graduation
- FHP Encourages Drivers To Register Emergency Contact Information
- These Are This Week’s Road Construction Trouble Spots
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
Florida Gay Marriage Ban Could Be Lifted In January
December 4, 2014
A federal appeals court Wednesday rejected Attorney General Pam Bondi’s request to at least temporarily extend Florida’s ban on gay marriage — possibly setting the stage for same-sex marriages to start in January.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in August ruled that the voter-approved ban was unconstitutional but placed a stay on his decision to allow time for appeals. That stay is scheduled to expire Jan. 5.
Bondi last month asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the stay in place until appeals of Hinkle’s ruling are finished. But a three-judge panel of the court issued a short decision Wednesday turning down Bondi’s request and saying that the stay entered by Hinkle “expires at the end of the day on January 5, 2015.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has represented a group of plaintiffs challenging the ban, said Wednesday afternoon same-sex marriages will be able to start Jan. 6 if no other attempts at extending the stay are successful. Also on Jan. 6, same-sex marriages from other states would be recognized in Florida, the ACLU said.
“Today, in denying the state’s request to further delay the ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the state’s argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry and have their marriages recognized will cause harm to the state and refused to make these families wait any longer,” ACLU attorney Daniel Tilley said in a prepared statement. “The court effectively ruled that the state does not have a likelihood of succeeding in its appeal.”
A series of federal appeals-court decisions have struck down similar gay-marriage bans in other states, and the U.S. Supreme Court in October declined to take up the issue.
But in asking the appeals court for an extension of the stay, Bondi pointed to a decision in November by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
“This court should extend the stay because, on balance, it is in the public’s best interest to wait for an appellate decision before implementing an order of this significance,” Bondi argued in a document.
by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
Comments
31 Responses to “Florida Gay Marriage Ban Could Be Lifted In January”
@melodie,
I’ll take my chances.
@david,
Keep contemplating…
CONTEMPLATING:
“The majority should never be given the right to decide what’s best for the minority.”
Given by whom?
Withheld by whom?
Enforced by whom?
By the majority, right?
David for the basics
Lol wow doer I never stated you wrote heterosexuals that couldn’t reproduce weren’t married however your flawed argument led to that conclusion “A homosexual relationship cannot scientifically produce children, thus it is not a marriage” again using your definition many heterosexual marriages both those in which persons can not have children from birth or by choice, are not marriages. It was an example of why there is no good logic to bar 2 adults from a union that has no effect on you. But good try.
No “deciding” needed. It’s in the red letters of Jesus.
All I know is when my time is over here on this earth, I pray that I have done what God has put me here to do! Not to judge, criticize or slander but to spread his love, peace and hope for ALL!!! We all know right from wrong. Why fuss about it? God is going to give us the “FINAL ANSWER” Just saying!
You folks who practice this religion, that religion, whatever religion:
This is about equal rights under our Constitution. To try to deny two consenting adults the ability to join and share their lives is none of your business.
To paraphrase, the US Constitution requires Congress to make no law requiring the establishment of a national religion. In case you forgot–that’s one reason settlers came over from England. To escape religious tyranny imposed by the Crown.
Now, you want to impose your own religious tyranny as it pertains to the legal joining of two consenting adults on those who don’t believe as you do.
Ironic, isn’t it?
The Doer sexual intercourse will still allow heterosexual couples an opportunity to create babies and repopulate the species. Just now same sex couples will have legal standing finally. A very good thing for committed couples.
DOER, your fear as stated in the last entry of your last post is unfounded until the law you posted is re-written.
What happens if the law is simply changed to say “a union between two adults, not genetically related” ?
Versus the free for all you imply will happen?
Dear Flomaton:
Obviously you need to spruce up on reading comprehension. The legal definition currently in the state of Florida:
“(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term ’spouse’ applies only to a member of such a union”; Florida Stat. Ann. ‘ 741.212
No where did I say that heterosexual couples who COULD NOT reproduce were not legally married. I said that sexual intercourse is a distinct difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, and that will not change, regardless of what happens with the definition of marriage. I also said ” that marriage has been recognized as a union/bond between a man and a woman which includes sexual intercourse which usually does (not always) lead to pregnancy — thus the continuation of our society. ”
The bottom line is that once we change the definition of marriage (the one we have had for thousands of years), the main difference of sexual intercourse will be lifted. Once that happens, then anything goes. Any type of marriage would HAVE to be recognized.
To Matthew 7:1 I do believe you are mistaken . A Christian can and should judge the sin and the sinner but can not judge with condemnation . That is left to God. To No Excuses To you I say AMEN. So Shan, if the majority says it is ok to molest children that would be ok? That’s basically what you are implying. And to the one who was stating about the procreation pattern it is still between a man and a woman. and if you are divorced and remarried it is still between a man and a woman. Do I agree with being remarried after a divorce, no I don’t, nor does God I will stand for God and what the Bible says no matter if it is popular or not.Jesus taught against political correctness and sin. So you say some don’t believe the bible hat is your right. Just do not expect us that do to change our views for those of you who don’t. The reason being is that we all don’t want what to burn in the eternal lake of fire. Just food for thought. If y’all who don’t believe the bible are right . We have nothing to loose . But we as Christians are right and y’all non believers are wrong y’all have a lot to loose. I personally Will Stand For the Bible.
Shan, boy do I feel sorry for you, you see this is God’s world, whether you want to believe or not, in the end, you will cry out for him, but it may be too late. It’s his way or no way, you’ll see.
@bm and doer both arguments are flawed. If your argument is one man one woman then divorce and remarriage shouldn’t be legal or allowed by the church. As the equation is no longer one man one woman…And Doer using your procreation definition many heterosexual, Christian marriages would not be true marriages as one or both of the partners are unable to sexually reproduce because of medical reasons thus rendering the marriage (based on your definition) nonexistent. As you both see neither the former nor the later definition of marriage holds much weight.
Adding to the “sodomite” lifestyle post taking about the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah: The Roman empire allowed open homosexualtiy and it fell too. God does not bless a culture that welcomes what HE has declared to be sin, and thus, they eventually fall. Our government is one of the things that will lead to our downfall if they ignore the word of God in what they make law or abolish from law.
I am not a fanatic, but I am a Christian. I’m just stating the facts.
@noteworthy
It doesn’t work that way, just because the majority votes for something doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. I’m sure the majority didn’t want integration back in the 60’s, but that didn’t mean it was right. The majority doesn’t always get to have its way when it means trampling on the rights of others.
@Doer
What about heterosexual couples who marry and never have children? Sounds to me like you’re saying those couples don’t deserve to be married since they’re not fulfilling the goal? What about seniors, should they not be allowed to marry?
The majority should never be given the right to decide what’s best for the minority.
Congratulations Florida…welcome to a new era in marriage equality. I welcome the ruling in favor of gay marriage.
All too often, Christians forget about this verse or only use it when it benefits their belief.
“Judge not lest ye be judged”
if a man can marry a man and a woman marry a woman. Then why can’t a brother marry his sister, or vice versa.or why can’t a mother marry her son? so on and so forth.
Just remember…..only heterosexuals beget homosexuals.
@ Shan
You are right that is the American right, but keep in mind, a majority of Florida people voted to not have this type of marriage take place in Florida and that is our American right. If Majority is not going to rule then why wast your time voting.
The argument seems to be that two people who, in the past have not been recognized as marriage partners, are now wanting to be recognized as being married. To do this, the couple must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil law) has overlooked something that it shouldn’t have overlooked. We know that for hundreds or thousands of years, marriage has been recognized as a union/bond between a man and a women which includes sexual intercourse which usually does (not always) lead to pregnancy — thus the continuation of our society. A homosexual relationship cannot scientifically produce children; thus it is not marriage. To recognize that there is a distinct difference between homosexual relationships which cannot include sexual intercourse and man/woman marriages which can is not about discrimination. These are two different types of relationships, and to use civil rights law to try to “smooth out” this difference is crazy. Homosexuals try to say that the marriages can be the same because the same sex couple can “love” each other just the way a man/woman can; many aspects of their relationship are the same as a man/woman, so they should be allowed to be recognized as marriage partners.
Recognizing homosexuals couples as married couples really won’t change anything. Heterosexual couples will still reproduce, and homosexual couples won’t be able to the “natural” way. What will change is the definition of marriage, eliminating the sexual intercourse (natural way) difference, and when this happens, people will be shocked. What will happen is that ANY sort of a relationship will now have to be recognized as marriage. This can be between mother and son, father and daughter, three women and one man, etc.
We will reap what we sow as in the earlier days. God help us all indeed!
I’m with Bpd nothing’s changing for me so really I could care less. Wake me up when they start having a successful conversation about lowering taxes
@bm,
The examples you listed negatively affect other ppl. The only ppl affected by gay marriage are those getting gay married.
And also, not everyone believes/follows the Christian bible. That is an American right, isn’t it?
@brn: Well said!
Christians hate the sin and not the sinner, just as God does and just as the Bible commands us to do.
If you look at history you will see the results of a Sodomite culture….Sodom and Gomorrah should be our learning point.
God have mercy on us all!
BM,
Bank robbers and pedophiles affect innocent people against their will. Two consenting gay people getting married does not affect anyone else.
It doesn’t matter how vocal religious fanatics are, they will be ignored and same sex marriage will soon be legal nationwide.
This is great news for Florida and long over due. The Christian fundamentalist need to move on to something else. Funny how they choose the parts of the bible that they take literally.
Don’t affect me. Don’t care. Live and let live.
To SR.
The reason being is that a True Christian, must not go along with such immorality.
Whether or not it results in happiness. people who rob banks can be happy, should we allow them to continue to rob banks? Pedofiles get happy by what they do, should we let them to continue to terrorize children just because it makes them happy. Sin is sin and Christians can not condone sin in any form. Any true Christian will not go along with homosexualality. If those people who are supporting homosexual marriage can be vocal
so can those who do not support it.
After all our country was founded on freedom of speech. We as True Christians have a responsibility to reproove the sinner to repentance and turn away from their wicked ways. We are commanded to do this by Jesus.
Christians do not oppose the happiness of others. They believe in the Bible, which states one man and one woman.
Glad to hear it. So funny how “christians” oppose the happiness of others.