Posted on 06/05/2014 5:08:06 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
A Miami judge has denied a motion from the Maitland-based Liberty Counsel to join the defense of Florida's Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled that three organizations represented by the Liberty Counsel had no legal standing to join Miami-Dade Clerk of Court Harvey Ruvin in a lawsuit filed by six South Florida gay couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
The judge has ruled wrongly--citizens of a state definitely have a right to defend the laws of their state.
The trial begins, by the way, on July 2.
florida news.
No No no, gay citizens have standing to challenge this law, straight people do not have standing to defend it.
Insane the citizens cannot be present to defend their own amendment
Apparently not America and especially not Bible Believing Christians.
Pray for this case. The AG of Florida, Pam Bondi, is taking heat from the media for defending the state Constitution.
I don't see that the private sexual preferences/fetishes need be considered legally relevant.
Homosexuals are not harmed by the current legal definition of marriage.
Homosexuals are not forbidden from entering into a legal marriage union of one man with one woman.
That a legal marriage may not be what they would personally prefer to engage in, is not the issue.
Nobody of either sex,regardless of personal sexual preferences, can be legally forced to participate in legal marriage, against their will.
Nor can multiple partners of either/both sexes, beyond one adult male and one adult female, be considered legally married.
Private arrangements among consenting adults are not legally forbidden, but are also not legally binding,unless contracted privately, and outside of marriage.
There is no compelling need to bring any religion into the legal definition of marriage.
I am so sick of this “has no legal standing” crap that comes from the bench any time some judge wanting to push his or her special agenda needs an excuse to rule against an opponent - anyone living in this country required to live by the judgments of a court should have legal standing to challenge the proceedings of that court - no legal standing goes along with such other weasel rationalizations as “imposes an undue burden” in the pantheon of legal vagueness and arbitrariness as far as I’m concerned.....
Is this a statute or a constitutional amendment? If the latter, the judge doesn’t have “standing” to be holding a trial - the action should have been summarily dismissed.
The latter. A constitutional amendment. Yes, the law of the land is being ignored.
Which is why we need to pray.
What one sows, one also reaps.
Homosexual citizens can marry. They just cannot marry anyone of the same sex, not can hetrosexual citizens. Marriage is the joining of two members of the opposite sex to make one. Two men, nor two women cannot be joined.
u missed the point, not that I disagree with you
I usually do. I am dense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.