Taking a cue from Washington — hey, what could go wrong? — it appears Florida’s Democratic Party wants elected officials who enforce laws and state constitutional amendments based on whim, the public’s mood at any given moment and political expediency. And until they get them, there seem to be no depths beyond which they will not sink to attack elected Republicans who regard their oaths with grave and literal seriousness.
Addressing Republicans in Palm Beach County last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi said this about her office’s ongoing defense of Florida’s definition-of-marriage amendment:
“This needs to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. They have accepted cert. We want finality. There are good people on both sides. We want finality. That’s what we need. The U.S. Supreme Court’s going to hear this. They are going to make this determination. And if you hear that I have criticized people personally, I have not. I never will. This is me doing my job as attorney general and I will continue to do that and if anybody wants me to moderate my message or stand for less, I have a message for them: I am just getting started.”
The portion of Bondi’s statement quoted in a fund-raising email is rather more concise and by its concision, is purposely inflammatory.
“I have a message for them: I am just getting started.”
Followed by this:
We were blown away by the fact that Pam Bondi continues to fight against letting Floridians marry whomever they love.
Her latest comments are a smack in the face to loving LGBT couples all across our state.
Pam Bondi and Rick Scott need to stop fighting against marriage equality. It’s absolutely unacceptable for elected leaders to waste so much time and taxpayer resources denying citizens of this great state the right to marry whomever they love.
The Right Stuff wonders two things about this.
First, where does the Florida Democratic Party stand on the rights of the citizens of this great state whose bliss is fulfilled only in unions of three or more? Do they truly support “letting Floridians marry whomever they love”? If there is nothing about the man-woman partnership that is so legally magical it deserves being set apart, then what is the argument against expanding the definition beyond couples to reward big love? And if Democrats (and an awful lot of Republicans) are determined to keep mum on this obvious and inevitable next evolution, what are we to make of their high-minded love-conquers argument?
Second, where do Florida Democrats stand on the idea of being a culture of “laws, not men”? Suppose a strategically targeted lineup of judges begin ruling that the state’s ban on the open carry of firearms violates the Second Amendment? And suppose, over time, Florida public opinion evolves such that a substantial majority think open carry suits them just fine, even as the Legislature resists. Would Florida Democrats declare it’s “absolutely unacceptable for elected leaders to waste so much time and taxpayer resources denying citizens of this great state the right to” fully display the weapons they love?
Or would they prefer an attorney general who defends the law as it is written right up until the matter is settled by the ultimate applicable judicial authority?