Latest Headlines
- Undocumented Farm Worker, 45, Gets 25 Years For Attempted Sexual Battery Of 11-Year Old In Walnut Hill
- Fields Of Faith: Community Worship Service Held At Northview High
- 2-Month-Old Passes Away Following Escambia County Wreck
- ECSO Deputy Involved In Chain Reaction Crash On Highway 29
- Updated: Two Stab Each Other Outside Atmore Tractor Supply Company Store In Ongoing Dispute
- Two Injured In Two Wrecks That Slowed Highway 29 Traffic Tuesday Afternoon
- North Escambia Baseball Battle: Tate Gets Senior Night 8-4 Win Over Northview (With Gallery)
- Inmate Flown To The Hospital After Incident At Century Correctional Institution
- Northview Lady Chiefs Beat Washington 19-2
- Check Your Tickets: No One Has Claimed $66,000 Winning Lottery Ticket Sold In Davisville
State Points To Possible Clarification Of Gay Marriage Ruling
December 30, 2014
In a battle about whether county clerks throughout Florida should start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office late Monday tossed the issue back to a federal judge who ruled in August that the state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle last week ordered the state to respond to an emergency motion filed by the Washington County clerk of courts, who sought guidance about the scope of the August ruling.
But in a carefully worded, five-page document filed late Monday, state Solicitor General Allen Winsor and Chief Deputy Solicitor General Adam Tanenbaum wrote that Hinkle could resolve the issue with more specific direction.
“This court is best situated to determine the reach of its own order,” the response said. “If the court intends for (a key part of the August order) to bind a Florida clerk of court (or all Florida clerks of court), additional specificity may be appropriate to place any such clerk on proper notice.”
But earlier Monday, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in a court document that clerks throughout the state are bound by Hinkle’s ruling on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban and should start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples next week.
Though Hinkle issued his closely watched ruling four months ago, he placed a stay on the decision amid legal appeals. That stay will expire at the end of the day Jan. 5, opening the door for same-sex marriages to start the following day.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys focused Monday on part of Hinkle’s ruling that said it binds the secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services, state Surgeon General John Armstrong and “their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys — and others in active concert or participation with any of them.”
The plaintiffs argued that county court clerks work in concert with the Department of Health, which is headed by the surgeon general and is in charge of marriage forms and records. As a result, they said Hinkle’s ruling should apply to clerks throughout the state.
“Thus, the clerks of court are agents or at least in active concert with defendant Armstrong,” said the document, filed by Jacksonville attorney William Sheppard, who is helping lead a legal team in the case. “As agents or other persons in active concert with defendant Armstrong, they are bound by … this court’s order.”
But in the response filed late Monday, attorneys from Bondi’s office disputed that argument.
“A clerk is not in privity with the DMS (the Department of Management Services) and Health secretaries, represented by them, or subject to their control,” the response said. “Instead, a Florida clerk of court is an independent constitutional officer.”
The legal wrangling came after attorneys for the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers this month issued a memo that said Hinkle’s August ruling only applied to the named plaintiffs in the case and not to other same-sex couples in the state. It also warned clerks that they could face prosecution if they issued marriage licenses to gay couples.
“We remain of the opinion that clerks of court who were not parties to the Northern District case (finding the ban unconstitutional) are not bound by Judge Hinkle’s order — or protected by it,” said a Dec. 15 legal memo from attorneys for the group. “Clerks are subject to Florida’s criminal penalties for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
The Washington County clerk, Lora Bell, has made clear she will comply with Hinkle’s ruling and issue a marriage license to Washington County residents Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ, a same-sex couple named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. But after the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers memo, Bell’s attorney asked for clarification about whether she would need to issue licenses to other gay couples who might apply.
The clerk’s emergency motion added fuel to a debate that already had been building about the memo from the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers.
In the document filed Monday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys took on the arguments in the memo. As an example, they disputed that clerks could be prosecuted for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“Even if the clerks theoretically could be prosecuted … they could assert the unconstitutionality of the ban as a defense,” the document said. “Moreover, any convictions under this statute would be vacated in light of this court’s (Hinkle’s) order
by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
Comments
9 Responses to “State Points To Possible Clarification Of Gay Marriage Ruling”
I noticed neither CW or RTR didn’t want to comment on my constitution reference. Although correct in that just because the majority votes on something doesn’t make it constitutional comment, in this case it is so. Every court in the nation ponders the mindset and intentions of the writers of the constitution in such cases. In this instance, were George Washington alive and in charge today, NO DOUBT he would have numerous judges removed by force, but instead, the writers are rolling in their graves at how their intentions, their words, have been degraded, perverted, and just blatantly ignored to make some feel justified in how they want to live. And don’t feel bad you two, its not just this issue, its everything. They ought to literally rip up the real constitution because the one they go by is NOTHING like it.
what is the big deal people if two people want to get married who does that hurt? I don’t care what someone does as long it doesn’t hurt anyone. so two people who love each other what does that hurt not me not you. its really non of my business. Its like in the 60 when black and whites were getting married what’s the big deal if gay couples get married what’s the big deal the bible thumpers need to keep there self out of this stop judging> judging is a sin too everything we do in life is a sin divorce a sin I don’t understand people love one another the world would be a better place, but we cant we judge and we hate anyone that is different than how you were raised. We are not born to hate one another we learn to hate people and things that are different.
Amen CW…some people will never understand that. A ban on equal rights never should have gone to the ballot.
I guess some people just don’t get it. Just because the majority votes on something doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. This is the whole reason why we have a judicial system. What the majority wants isn’t always right, just look back at the 1960’s.
so ….here we go ..Why do we waste our time voting for some lawyer to get some judge to overrule what was voted claiming it is unconstitutional. Lets see…. the constitution gives “RIGHTS” to married couples…. what are the Rights given?
I for one fully support the AG. However, the “Shrinking number of citizens ” comment is completely ignorant. An overwhelming majority of voters support the definition of marriage as being between a woman and man. The fact that this is still an issue only confirms my theory that the government has a hidden agenda to destroy our culture, our communities, our lives. How else do you explain a small percentage of people having such a powerful voice over the whole. Oh, RTR, during the time these “RIGHTS” you speak of were written in the constitution, gays and lesbians weren’t just not allowed to marry, they weren’t allowed to live ! They were hung. Thats something, coming from a time when they named a bible after a flaming homosexual and child molester. So they came to a new land for freedom. Some just take that word to mean “freedom to do whatever i want”.
I’m confused also. Didn’t “We the people” vote a majority in favor of banning same sex marriages in Florida?
Our “conservative” AG would rather waste the tax payers dollars dragging this out in court than to cave to the shrinking number of citizens in Florida that want to deny equal rights to everyone. I thought republicans wanted less government in their business.
I guess I am just a dumb country hick.
My small brain tells me if the STATE WIDE ban is deemed unconstitutional in one Florida county, I presume it is unconstitutional in ALL Florida counties.