Federal Judge Uses 'Wrong Side of History' Argument in Striking Down Florida Marriage Law

Even though the citizens of Florida voted in a 2008 referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman in their state's constitution, yet another federal district judge has ruled that amendment is unconstitutional because it does not let Floridians marry someone of their same gender.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle came to the same conclusion Thursday as judges from four other districts in Florida previously found. Hinkle ruled that labeling marriage as only "between a man and a woman" was in violation of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it does not provide a guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law.

In his reasoning, Hinkle used the frequently used argument that same-sex marriage is inevitable, or, as some same-sex marriage supporters put it, opponents are on the "wrong side of history."

"When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination," Hinkle wrote in his decision. "To paraphrase a civil rights leader from the age when interracial marriage was struck down, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed the court ruling, as she did with the other rulings in the counties of Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach and Broward. Due to the appeal, Hinkle has delayed the effect of his order. Same-sex marriages are not immediately allowed in those districts until the appeals have been ruled upon.

Opponents of gay marriage in Florida, including Bondi and Family Research Council Senior Fellow Chris Gacek, argue that the power of the Florida citizens' votes should be respected by the judicial process.

"Hinkle ruled that labeling marriage as only "between a man and a woman" was in violation of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it does not provide a guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law."

As questioned in related threads, where did these misguided activist judges go to law school? (I don't really want to know.)

Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, officially clarify in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment applies only those privileges and immunities amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the 14th Amendment added no new personal rights to the Constitution.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues like gay marriage, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.

Federal employees in black robes have long sense given up any pretense of the written law as being even relevant in their cases. Instead its their own edicts that they subside for a foundation which they then ignore whenever necessary to support their ideological conclusions.

Not that we have any evidence that this federal employee has any idea how to read but the 14th amendment says very little, and nothing whatsoever on the subject of marriage.

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.