{Adopted by the Florida Democratic League, June 24, 2015}

As despicable as is the misuse of the historic Confederate flag by racists, this misuse does not make it a symbol of racism any more than the use of the Rainbow flag by abrrosexualists (i.e., partisans of sodomy) make the rainbow a symbol of sodomy. The Confederate flag is the ensign of the Confederate States of America. It has nothing to do with racism and it’s extremely naive and disingenuous to think that taking it down will in any way help heal race relations in America. Let’s show a little more respect for people’s intelligence!

Removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds is as senseless and deranged as the murders in a Charleston, S.C. Black church. A racist’s gross disrespect for innocent human life can never justify the gross disrespect towards a part of our nation’s history and heritage. No matter how you slice it, two wrongs will never make a right.

Think about it. A killer is not punished by taking down a flag; he’s punished by taking him down after a fair trial and due process of law. What if the murderer had been waving the Rainbow flag? Would the same crowd calling for the Confederate flag’s removal, be proposing the Rainbow flag be outlawed also?

Since when is extremism ever fought by surrendering to it? Yet, isn’t this precisely what South Carolina governor Nikki Haley do by agreeing to disrespect the Confederate flag, the great South Carolina patriots, and the history it represents? Isn’t it also un-American government censorship at its worst?

How will disrespecting and removing the Confederate flag from public places heal race relations in America? How will it prevent future murders? Doesn’t reason tell us that it solves nothing? Doesn’t commonsense tell us that it only adds more fuel to the fire? That it will only make matters worse?

Furthermore, if elected officials cave-in to extremists, and remove the Confederate flag from public places, where will all of this end? Isn’t this paving the way for the disrespect and removal of other national symbols and historical monuments? What about the Cross of Christ? Will it, too, be outlawed because some extremist claims it offends them?

Why not take this debate to its logical conclusion? Why don’t we remove all the former slave-holding states from the Union? Insanity knows no bounds. Extremism knows no limits. Friend, political correctness is fueled by ignorance and intolerance, not by reason and good sense.

Stop the demagoguery! Stop the hate! Stop the ignorant, divisive attacks on the Confederate flag!
Respect America. Respect Freedom. Respect the Confederate Flag.


For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:

POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

LIKE the FDL on Facebook

READ the FDL on wordpress

READ the FDL on




Solid Support for Rep. Artiles’

Bill to Protect Public Safety and Privacy

<< Floridians Demand the Much-Needed Protections HB 583 Provides. >>

Artiles, Frank 01

Florida State Representative Frank Artiles (R-Miami)

MIAMI, FL [02.09.2015] – This Monday, Florida Democratic League leaders voted unanimously to support State Representative Frank Artiles’ (R-Miami) bill HB 583 to protect the privacy and safety of all Florida residents using single-sex public facilities. Currently, public bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and showers present opportunities for crimes against everyone that uses these facilities, including, but not limited to, assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.

The Florida Democratic League (FDL), one of our state’s leading minority-led Democratic voters’ civil rights and social justice advocacy organizations, issued the following statement:

<< State Representative Frank Artiles’ (R-Miami) bill HB 583 addresses important public safety and personal privacy issues. No amount of distortions, lies or manipulations will change that. It’s truly an embarrassment that in the 21st century, a female legislator from our party would hysterically attack a bill protecting women and little girls from sexual predators and deviants.

Every year, both in Florida and the rest of the nation, hundreds of women and little girls are sexually assaulted and abused in public facilities. HB 583 solves this serious problem. Representative Janet Cruz and all who oppose this common-sense bill, represent a clear and present danger to public safety.

Extremists like Rep. Cruz condemn the Democratic Party to ignominiously be a super-minority in Tallahassee. In 2014 alone, Florida voters ousted six (6) Democratic incumbents from the State House for their extremist ideology. It’s unfortunate that Rep. Cruz was not among them. If she keeps it up, however, her constituents could demand she be Baker-Acted. >>

The FDL, along with all Floridians, without any partisanship, applaud Representative Artiles for honoring his duty to defend and protect the privacy, rights and safety of ALL of us.



Founded in 1991, the Florida Democratic League (FDL) is today our state’s leading minority-led civil rights and social justice advocacy organization. The FDL’s grassroots campaigns have effectively raised issues of importance to all Floridians, especially minorities. As one of Florida’s most respected Democratic voters’ organizations, FDL is at the vanguard of local and statewide engagement in solving the most challenging problems of our time. FDL’s mission is to reaffirm respect for innocent human life, promote social justice and human development, preserve freedom through the Rule of Law, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance. For more information about FDL, please visit our Internet website:


Apoyo sólido para proyecto del Rep. Artiles

que protege la seguridad y la privacidad

<< ¡Los floridanos exigen las muy necesitadas protecciones que HB 583 proporciona! >>

MIAMI, FL [02.09.2015] – Este lunes, los líderes de la Liga Demócrata de la Florida votaron unanimemente apoyar el proyecto de ley HB 583 del representante estatal Frank Artiles (R-Miami) que protege la privacidad y la seguridad de todos los residentes de la Florida que usan instalaciones públicas de un solo sexo. Actualmente, los baños públicos, vestidores, vestuarios y duchas presentan oportunidades para crímenes contra todos los que los utilizan, incluyendo, pero no limitados a asaltos, agresiones, abusos sexuales, violaciones, voyerismo y exhibicionismo.

En respuesta, la LDF, una de las principales organizaciones de votantes demócratas dirigida por minorías en nuestro estado, pro derechos civiles y justicia social, emite la siguiente declaración:

<< El proyecto de ley HB 583 del representante estatal Frank Artiles (R-Miami) resuelve importantes problemas de seguridad pública y privacidad personal. Ninguna cantidad de distorsiones, mentiras o manipulaciones cambiara esto. Es realmente una vergüenza que en pleno siglo 21, una legisladora de nuestro partido histéricamente ataque un proyecto de ley que protege a las mujeres y las niñas de los depredadores y desviados sexuales.

Todos los años, tanto en la Florida y en el resto de la nación, cientos de mujeres y niñas son asaltadas y abusadas sexualmente en instalaciones públicas. HB 583 resuelve este problema grave. La representante Janet Cruz y todos los que se oponen a este proyecto de ley de sentido común, representan un peligro claro y presente a la seguridad pública.

Extremistas como la Rep. Cruz condenan el Partido Demócrata ser ignominiosamente una super-minoría en Tallahassee. En 2014 solamente, los votantes de la Florida sacaron de la Cámara a seis (6) titulares demócratas por su ideología extremista. Es lamentable que la rep. Cruz no estuvo entre ellos. Si sigue así, sin embargo, sus electores podrían exigir que la internen en un asilo mental. >>

La LDF, junto a todos los floridanos, sin distinción de partido, aplaude al Rep. Artiles por cumplir su deber de defender y proteger la privacidad, los derechos y la seguridad de todos nosotros.



Fundada en 1991, la Liga Demócrata de la Florida (LDF) es hoy la organización más importante de defensa de derechos civiles y justicia social dirigida por minorías en nuestro estado. Las campañas populares de la LDF plantean eficazmente cuestiones de importancia a todos los floridanos, especialmente las minorías. Como una de las organización de votantes demócratas más respetadas de la Florida, la LDF está en la vanguardia del compromiso local y estatal por resolver los problemas más desafiantes de nuestro tiempo. La misión de la LDF es reafirmar el respeto por la vida humana inocente, promover la justicia social y el desarrollo humano, preservar la libertad a través del Estado de Derecho, e inspirar el fin del odio, la ignorancia y la intolerancia. Para obtener más información sobre la LDF, por favor visite nuestro sitio de Internet:


Law-Abiding Floridians: Judge Zabel Violated the Law; Attacked Democracy; Denied Voters’ Rights

By Dr. Judy Meissner

Zabel, Sarah CorruptDiscredited Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel

MIAMI, FL (January 5, 2015) We’re all taught to play by the rules. In a civil society, we rely on rules and procedures and laws as we go about our daily routine. When people break the rules, they’re expected to be held accountable for their actions — whether it’s within your family, on the job or at school, or in our society as a whole.

Miam-Dade Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel is no exception. There are rights, doctrines, and principles in the Florida Constitution, in Florida statutes and in the Rules of Judicial Conduct that set out the right way for judges to decide cases and issue rulings.

Judge Zabel totally missed that point in her July 25, 2014 decision overthrowing Florida’s Constitution and overturning a constitutionally-sanctioned election. She arrogantly disregarded US Supreme Court precedent in U.S. v. Windsor that holds that Marriage is not an issue of Constitutional law, but a public policy issue states have the right to decide.

Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution expressly prohibits judges from enacting laws, stating that “the powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”

The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted the “separation of powers” requirement to prohibit both encroachment by any one branch on the powers held by another, and delegation by any branch of its powers.

Judicial independence does not exempt Judge Zabel from obeying the Constitution from which she gets her very authority as a judge. Nor does it exempt her from complying with the provisions of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC).

Judge Zabel’s decision corruptly violated not only the Florida Constitution’s separation of powers, but also the CJC. She acted in violation of her oath, duties and role as a member of the Judiciary. She engaged in conduct demonstrating her unfitness to hold judicial office.

Respect for constitutional government, the protection of the voter rights, the integrity of the judiciary, and the public safety and welfare of the people of Florida warrant Judge Zabel be disciplined by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission and removed from office. She also deserves to be disbarred by the Florida Bar.

Close to 8 million Floridians cast their ballots in 2008 on constitutional amendment 2 defining Marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. If Judge Zabel disagrees with Florida’s voter-approved Constitution, she can change it the same everyone else can: by persuading our legislators to adopt new legislation or place the issue on the ballot, or by gathering the required number of signatures and letting Florida voters decide in a democratic election.

Zabel chose to overthrow the Constitution, overturn an election, circumvent the rules, and unlawfully deny Florida voters their civil rights. Justice demands that everyone be accountable for their actions, even members of the judiciary, like Judge Zabel. Justice delayed is justice denied. Zabel must go!

*** Judy Meissner, Ph.D., MPH, is an Israeli Professor of psychology, a public health and social welfare expert and an international human rights advocate. She is a director of the International Center for the Study of Aberrosexualism (ICSA), an organization of mental health professionals dedicated to the research of biologically aberrant sexual behavior and practices, or aberrosexualism, and other psico-sexual phenomema. You can contact her at



Putney, Michael 02 n

MICHAEL PUTNEY: Angry Racist Bigot

Michael Putney is a New York-born television reporter and media hack operating in South Florida, who routinely disrespects, misinforms, and insults the public with his angry, biased, racists, intolerant, ignorant ranting and raving.

Putney has an appalling penchant for viciously attacking people-friendly, fair-minded academic, civic, political and religious leaders to impose on his audience his corrupt, racist, aberrosexualist ideology. There is no room in South Florida for arrogant, disrespectful, close-minded, closet Ku Klux Klanners like Putney.

ALL human beings, Michael, deserve respect, not just those that happen to agree with your hate-filled, racist, and vile aberrosexualist ideology. Putney’s hate, racism, and disrespect have earned him a rightful place in The Wall of Shame.


Please contact Putney’s Bosses at WPLG Channel 10 and ask they put an end to his anger, bias, and hate or do our community a favor and simply fire him.

Bert Medina
Vice President and General Manager
3401 West Hallandale Beach Boulevard
Pembroke Park, FL 33023

Don’t forget: respect and tolerance are a two way street!

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook




by Sheldon Richman

Garner, Eric 01

The cops who ganged up on Eric Garner, got him into a chokehold, and mashed his face into the sidewalk didn’t intend to kill him. They intended only to show him who’s boss on the streets of Staten Island — and show him in a way he would never forget.

As a Facebook friend of mine put it, instead they showed him in a way he will never remember.

This pretty much explains the cops’ reckless disregard for Garner’s life that day, and it is what makes the grand-jury sham especially appalling.

This was about power. Yes, to an extent the fatal confrontation was about race — although it’s no great feat to imagine something similar happening to a low-income white guy. It was also about class. An obviously affluent and likely well-connected person probably need not fear being accosted on the street by the police.

Let’s remember what the police say Garner was doing: selling cigarettes that had not been subjected to the high taxes imposed in New York City and State: $5.95 in all. (The feds add another buck.) Thus, a pack costs at least $14. As a result, entrepreneurial cigarette smuggling from low-tax states is big business. Whenever the tax goes up, so does the smuggling.

In fact, smuggling used to be an honorable American profession. In colonial times and into the early national period, the entrepreneurial smuggler who served consumers by defying the customs agents was celebrated. It was the government agent who risked being tarred and feathered, then rode out of town on a rail. Had Eric Garner been set upon by Red Coats on colonial New England streets, many people might have come to his defense. Today the best we can hope for is that someone will video the confrontation with a cell phone.

The fact is that Eric Garner was a threat to no one. He was just a guy trying to make a few bucks by selling loose cigarettes — loosies — to low-income smokers harmed by the state’s and city’s tax collectors.

Well, let’s amend that. Garner, like other practitioners of his trade, was indeed a threat — to the politicians who need that revenue to play their destructive games and to assure they remain in power. Come to think of it, in the eyes of those politicians, threatening the steady flow of taxpayer money is about as serious a crime as anyone can commit. Without that money they would be nothing.

That’s why New York City officials, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, one of those phony men-of-the-people, have ordered the police to crack down on sellers of loosies.

The city’s accomplices in this highway robbery of smokers are the licensed retailers. The police provide the protection racket that shields the retailers’ cigarette business from free competition.

To great fanfare de Blasio announced a program to prevent a recurrence of the confrontation that killed Eric Garner. The police will get new training, blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but that won’t do it. Some truly radical things need to be done — such as eliminating the top-down, militarist model of policing, and moving to a decentralized system of community governance. But something significant can be done in the meantime: halt police confrontations with nonviolent persons suspected of committing victimless so-called crimes. These are acts that in themselves violate no one’s rights, such as selling or possessing drugs and guns, taking bets, and participating in other prohibited but peaceful, consensual activities.

This won’t guarantee there will be no more Eric Garners, because police have long harassed, beaten, and killed people using low-tech weapons and without the cover of victimless-crime laws. But it would help. If fewer people are harassed on the street, fewer people will become fed up and resist — if we must stretch the word resist to describe what Eric Garner did that fateful day.

Low-income minority neighborhoods experience what the rest of us can usually grasp only abstractly: the police force is an occupying army. Its ostensible purpose is to protect innocent life and property, but what it does day to day is monitor everyone with a suspicion that the sovereign’s decrees are not being respected.

This has got to change.

Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook




Influential aberrosexualist extremist and top Obama donor, Terry Bean, and alleged former boyfriend arrested.

Americans complain that President Obama gets a free pass from the media, which acts as a de-facto public-relations shop for the Democrat in the White House. Never has that charge seemed truer than now as an ugly rape scandal unfolds on the West Coast.

On Wednesday, Portland, Ore. police arrested Terrence Patrick Bean, who has been charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year. This man is not just any old guy accused of having sex with a 15-year-old – he’s a big-money Democratic donor and extremist political activist with connections inside the Obama White House. Bean raised more than a half-million dollars for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

“Bean has been one of the state’s biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in aberrosexualist circles in the state,” reports “He helped found two major national political groups, the rabidly anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign and the Gay [sic] and Lesbian Victory Fund and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama.”

A search of the Federal Election Commission’s campaign-finance database turns up thousands in donations every cycle by Bean to the Democratic Party’s most powerful leaders, including Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Dick Durbin, and Rep. Barney Frank, among others. Photos of Bean posted online show him flying on Air Force One with Obama.

The scandal is escalating. Thursday, according to local media, Kiah Loy Lawson, allegedly 66-year-old Bean’s 25-year-old former boyfriend, was arrested by the Portland Sex Crimes Unit for sexually abusing the same boy. After the relationship between the two men ended, Lawson went public with claims that Bean had a practice of secretly videotaping himself having sex with others.

​This story was first reported by the local press, and there have been vague references to sexual trouble for Bean and Lawson since June, but the national media has not picked it up. That oversight is politically convenient for President Obama.

If one of President George W. Bush’s bundlers would have been charged with child rape, make no mistake about it, the media feeding frenzy would have been uncontrollable – which would be legitimate given the severity of the allegation. The silence surrounding Terrence Bean exposes the national media’s partisan double standard in obscene detail.

Brett M. Decker is consulting director at the White House Writers Group.

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook





Corrupt Judges

Florida judges have been exempt from the same level of scrutiny as our politicians and the Media, but there are increasingly more pervasive attacks on judicial integrity. Abuses of power, corruption, lack of accountability, secrecy, and impunity from prosecution are eroding public trust and confidence in the judicial system.

Judges Corrupt Group

Judge Dale Cohen   |  Judge Luis Garcia   |  Judge Diana Lewis  |   Judge Sarah I Zabel

As judges and public servants, the above individuals took an Oath of Office to uphold and protect the U.S. and Florida Constitutions; to honor the Code of Judicial Conduct, to uphold the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and to respect the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Floridians. By ruling unconstitutional the Constitution and laws that are the source of their authority, these corrupt judges automatically deprived themselves of their own authority to rule.

For their corrupt, racist, unconstitutional conduct, Broward Circuit Court Judge Dale Cohen, Monroe Circuit Court Judge Luis Garcia, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis, and Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Sarah I. Zabel, need to be removed from the bench by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) and disbarred by the Florida Bar.


For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook





Bernice King

People respect themselves and others by treating human sexuality with the utmost dignity and decorum, as something personal, intimate, and private, not as something to flaunt, exploit, or scandalize.

Compassion, respect and love for all human beings inspire our frank disagreement with extremist agendas and ideologies seeking to impose discriminatory and unjust laws based on an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.” We oppose destructive, hateful agendas and ideologies, not human beings, that’s why we support the following three basic principles.

FIRST PRINCIPLE: Equality and human rights are universally based on our humanity and intrinsic dignity as persons, not on an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.”

SECOND PRINCIPLE: Equality, fairness, and right reason hold that no one can justly claim, demand, or receive a legal benefit, protection, or so-called “right” due to an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.”

THIRD PRINCIPLE: People self-identify and seek to be recognized and respected for, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, the content of their character, not for an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.”

True human rights are based on our humanity, equality, and intrinsic dignity as persons. Civil rights are based on our legal status in a country. Neither human nor civil rights are based on an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.” Accordingly, no one should claim, demand or receive a legal benefit, protection or so-called “right” based on an alleged sexual behavioral choice, “preference,” “identity” or “expression.” It’s that simple!

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook




 What’s Wrong With Miami-Dade’s Proposed Discriminatory “Transsexual/Transgender” Ordinance?



A: YES! This proposed “Transsexual” ordinance legalizes discrimination, pure and simple! So far, at least thirty-six (36) reported cases of discrimination have been documented as a direct result of these unjust laws. Truly, they are modern-day Jim Crow laws. The proposed ordinance unjustly discriminates, marginalizes, and penalizes everyone wishing to protect their children and families from the sexual behavioral choices and practices of an individual with sexual identity issues or who is in denial of his/her sex. County ordinances must be based on clear, factual, objective legal concepts and standards, not on ambiguous, capricious propaganda terms, subjective allegations, arbitrary claims, or personal feelings. Nor should ordinances be used to promote an ideological agenda.


A: NO! This proposed discriminatory “Transsexual” ordinance is based on lies, distortions and manipulations of facts. The proposed ordinance’s arguments are completely bogus. For example, ordinance promoters allege that so-called “transsexual” discrimination is “pervasive” and “serious”, yet they could not name a single company or government entity that discriminates against this so-called “category.” Furthermore, according to a Special Investigative Report prepared last year by the U.S. Hispanic Publishers Federation, not a single discrimination complaint has ever been filed in Florida with the exception of Broward County where six “gender identity or expression” complaints were filed and not a single one was found to be valid.


A: “Sexual Identity” and “Sexual Expression” are discriminatory ideological propaganda terms, i.e., terms specifically used to advance an extremist ideology. According to scientists, so-called “sexual identity” and “sexual expression” are arbitrary and highly fluid terms based on “personal feeling” and the subjective perception of one’s sex. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines “gender identity or expression” as an individual’s sense of being male, female, something other, or something in-between. As such, these terms are purposefully arbitrary and scientifically undefinable. This invariably produces confusion, discrimination, and litigation. Commissioners owe it to their constituents to reject the proposed ordinance as arbitrary, discriminatory, ideologically-based, and legally, as well as ethically, deficient.


A: NO! Neither “sexual identity” nor “sexual expression” are scientifically demonstrable, genetically provable, nor objectively definable biological realities. To amend Miami-Dade’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance to include a freely chosen, arbitrarily created “category” that is not scientifically demonstrable, genetically provable, or objectively definable is discriminatory, unjust and against the public interest. Because this proposed ordinance does not adequately define the controversial ideological terms “sexual identity” and “sexual expression,” it is patently unjust to subject Miami-Dade residents to this ambiguous, capricious, and discriminatory ordinance.


A: NO! Far from it. The Miami-Dade County Commission and its committees are obligated to address public health, safety, and welfare concerns. So-called “transsexualism/transgenderism” is not one of them. Absent a concrete showing that the alleged “problem” this discriminatory, ideologically-based ordinance purports to solve is real and widespread, Miami-Dade Commissioners should not waste any of their valuable time and resources on this clearly ideological non-issue.


A: YES! Absolutely! Businesses, organizations and individual residents could unknowingly commit and be unjustly prosecuted for violations of the proposed ordinance for protecting privacy rights or not building or providing so-called “gender neutral” facilities. For example, if they do not allow men claiming to be women use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and/or dressing rooms. It has already happened in other parts of the country. Lacking clear boundaries and precise definitions and terms, anyone can unknowingly commit an offense under this ideologically-based proposed ordinance, and be unjustly investigated or sued and dragged into court.


A: NO! No one should be forced to accept as true what DNA and biology proves is false. An individual can freely chose to believe or behave in whatever sexual role he or she chooses, but they have no right to force everyone else to accept or approve their freely chosen sexual behavioral choice, or so-called “sexual identity or expression.” Especially when this sexual behavioral choice or so-called “sexual identity or expression” is directly contradicted by biology, their chromosomes, and their DNA!


A: NO! No one has the right to demand legal benefits, privileges or protections based on whatever they allege is their freely and voluntarily chosen so-called “sexual identity or expression.” An individual’s sex is not a “flavor-of-the-day” thing. Sex is a readily knowable, scientifically demonstrable, biologically-provable reality. Objectively speaking, an individual’s sex is a precisely determinable genetic fact that is not up to them to decide. As a scientifically demonstrable biological reality, sex is not based on an arbitrary whim, personal feeling, capricious belief, or private fantasy. Like it or not, sex, like age, race or color, can never be changed. While an individual’s physical appearance can be cosmetically modified, their DNA or chromosomes can never be altered.


A: YES! The discriminatory “transsexual” ordinance irresponsibly allows individuals with sexual identity issues or in denial or rejection of their sex, to use whatever bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers, and other sex-specific public facilities they wish. Authorizing individuals with sexual identity issues the use whatever bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers, and other sex-specific public facilities they wish to use, violates constitutional privacy rights and legalizes discrimination against Miami-Dade County residents and their families. This proposed ordinance has nothing to do with sexual equality and everything to do with legalized discrimination!


A: YES! This proposed “Transsexual” ordinance leaves the door wide open for individuals to file alleged discrimination lawsuits if health care dollars are not spent on costly, non-medically required sex reassignment and sex reversal surgeries which average $50,000 per person. It is unwarranted and unjust to force Miami-Dade taxpayers and the public health system to pay for these elective, non-medically required surgeries.


A: FALSE. Under the Fair Housing Act, the EEOC and HUD accept “gender identity or expression” discrimination complaints. Furthermore, because EEOC and HUD regulations do not cover public accommodations, this discriminatory ordinance would legalize the violation of privacy and safety when a male claiming he is female, enters bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dressing rooms of the opposite sex as has already been thoroughly documented. In fact, in 2007, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in Etsitty vs. Utah Transit Authority ruled that a male bus driver could not use female facilities while on his bus route because it could expose his employer to liability claims.

 Aberro fumando

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” – Dr. Paul R. McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook




Here is his bold and just decision in its entirety:

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Perez-Gimenez, Juan M. 01

Illustrious Federal Judge Juan M. Pérez Giménez





Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code defines marriage as “originating in a civil contract whereby a man and woman mutually agree to become husband and wife” and it refuses recognition of “[a]ny marriage between persons of the same sex or transsexuals contracted in other jurisdictions.” P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, §221. This case challenges the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s codification of opposite-sex marriage.


The plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs include three same- sex couples who live in Puerto Rico and are validly married under the law of another state; two same- sex couples who seek the right to marry in Puerto Rico; and Puerto Rico Para Todos, a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transvestite, and Transsexual (LGBTT) nonprofit advocacy organization.

As the plaintiffs see it, the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes a fundamental right to freely choose one’s spouse and Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code unlawfully circumscribes this fundamental right and violates Equal Protection and Due Process. Because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, Puerto Rico would no more be permitted to deny access to marriage than it would be to permit, say, racial discrimination in public employment.

And because the substantive component of the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights from government intrusion, including issues of personal and marital privacy, see, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Commonwealth must articulate a compelling governmental interest that justifies its marriage laws — a burden that, according to the plaintiffs, simply cannot be met. The plaintiffs contend that recent developments at the Supreme Court, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), endorse their understanding of Equal Protection and Due Process. By recognizing only opposite- sex marriage, Commonwealth law deprives gay and lesbian couples of the intrinsic societal value and individual dignity attached to the term “marriage”.

The Commonwealth’s case. Article 68 stands as a valid exercise of the Commonwealth’s regulatory power over domestic relations. Because the federal Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, Puerto Rico is free to formulate its own policy governing marriage. See Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 8 (1982)(“Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity ‘sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution.’”) (citation omitted).

As Puerto Rico sees it, the Supreme Court has said as much: in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s marriage laws. The ancient understanding and traditional doctrine of marriage and family life expressed by Article 68 offends neither Equal Protection nor Due Process.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment invalidating Article 68. (Docket No. 7.) Puerto Rico moved to dismiss. (Docket No. 31.) The plaintiffs responded. (Docket No. 45.) Puerto Rico replied. (Docket No. 53.) The plaintiffs sur-replied. (Docket No. 55-1.)


To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s complaint must contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, Rodriguez-Vives v. Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps of Puerto Rico, 743 F.3d 278, 283 (1st Cir.2014), a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In assessing a claim’s plausibility, we must construe the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor, accept all non-conclusory allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); accord Maloy v. Ballori–Lage, 744 F.3d 250, 252 (1st Cir.2014).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, we “must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources ordinarily examined when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Finally, determining the plausibility of a claim for relief is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.


  1. Standing

Standing is a “threshold question in every federal case.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies,” U.S. CONST. art. III, §2. The doctrine of standing serves to identify those disputes that are of the “justiciable sort referred to in Article III” and which are thus “‘appropriately resolved through the judicial process,’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)(quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)). In assessing standing, the Court focuses on the parties’ right to have the Court decide the merits of the dispute. Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.

To establish the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing, a plaintiff must prove that “he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013)(citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61 (1992)).

The Commonwealth argues that the plaintiffs lack standing because they have no injury traceable to the defendants and because they never applied for a marriage license. But the plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient injury, and it is not necessary for them to apply for a marriage license given the clarity of Puerto Rican law. See Cook v. Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation, & Hosps., 10 F.3d 17, 26 (1st Cir. 1993)(rejecting proposition “that the law venerates the performance of obviously futile acts”).

The plaintiffs have satisfied the Court of their standing to sue. Each of the plaintiffs wishes to marry and obtain the Commonwealth’s “official sanction” of that marriage — a form of recognition unavailable to them given that Article 68 permits “marriage” in Puerto Rico solely between one man and one woman. (Docket No. 7 at 3.)

The plaintiffs have identified several harms flowing from Article 68, including the inability to file joint tax returns or to take advantage of certain legal presumptions, particularly as relates to adopting and raising children. (Id. at 18-21.) The plaintiffs have sued the Commonwealth officials responsible for enforcing Article 68. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908)(holding a state official sued in his official capacity must “have some connection with the enforcement” of a challenged provision). And should the plaintiffs prevail against these defendants, an injunction preventing the Commonwealth from enforcing Article 68 would redress their injuries by allowing them to marry as they wish and gain access to the benefits they are currently denied.

All of that is sufficient to establish that the plaintiffs have a legally cognizable injury, redressable by suing these defendants.

  1. Burford Abstention

The Burford abstention doctrine stands as a narrow exception to the rule that federal courts “have a strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred upon them by Congress.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996). Burford abstention is proper where a case involves an unclear state-law question of important local concern that transcends any potential result in a federal case. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 332–34 (1943).

However, “abstention is … ‘the exception, not the rule.’” Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976), and “there is, of course, no doctrine requiring abstention merely because resolution of a federal question may result in the overturning of a state policy.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 379 n.5 (1978).

The Commonwealth contends that this Court should refrain from ruling on the constitutionality of Article 68 in the interest of allowing for the implementation of a coherent marriage policy. The Court is not persuaded.

Contrary to its contentions, the Commonwealth’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled. In 1889, royal decree brought Puerto Rico within the ambit of the Spanish Civil Code. Title IV of that code governed marriage, including the “[r]ights and obligations of husband and wife.” See Title IV “Marriage” of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, see Attachment 1. The United States recognizes Puerto Rico’s legal heritage, including its historical adherence to the Spanish Civil Code. See, e.g., Ponce v. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, 210 U.S. 296, 309 (1908)(holding that the legal and political institutions of Puerto Rico prior to annexation are, pro tanto, no longer foreign law).

Shortly after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated insular territory of the United States, see Treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898, U.S.-Spain, Art. II 30 Stat. 1755, T.S. No. 343, Congress enacted the Foraker Act to establish the governing legal structure for the Island. See 31 Stat. 77 1900 [repealed]. The Act created a commission to draft several key pieces of legislation. Id. at Section 40. The ultimate result of the commission’s work was the enactment of the Civil Code of 1902, which included Article 129:

Marriage is a civil institution that emanates from a civil contract by virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually obligated to be husband and wife, and to fulfill for one another all the duties that the law imposes. It will be valid only when it is celebrated and solemnized in accordance with such provisions of law and may only be dissolved before the death of any of the spouses in those instances expressly provided for in this Code.

Puerto Rico, Civil Code 1902, title 4, chap. 1, § 129, see Attachment 2. A revised Code was approved in 1930 that incorporated the 1902 code’s definition of marriage as Article 68. See P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, §221. Two amendments were later added but the Code’s original definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” did not change.

This long-standing definition, stretching across two distinct legal traditions, rules out animus as the primary motivation behind Puerto Rico’s marriage laws. From the time Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States its marriage laws have had the same consistent policy: marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, Puerto Rico’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled. Besides, there is neither a parallel case in commonwealth court nor any legislation currently pending, so this Court has no legitimate reason to abstain. A stay of these proceedings is neither required nor appropriate.

  1. Baker v. Nelson

The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same- sex marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691—92, (citing Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-384 (1930)).

Without the direct guidance of the Constitution, the next source of authority is relevant Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Constitution. On the question of same- sex marriage, the Supreme Court has issued a decision that directly binds this Court. The petitioners in Baker v. Nelson were two men who had been denied a license to marry each other. They argued that Minnesota’s statutory definition of marriage as an opposite- sex relationship violated due process and equal protection – just as the plaintiffs argue here. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ claim, determining that the right to marry without regard to sex was not a fundamental right and that it was neither irrational nor invidious discrimination to define marriage as requiring an opposite-sex union. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971).

The petitioners’ appealed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2) [repealed], presenting two questions to the Supreme Court: (1) whether Minnesota’s “refusal to sanctify appellants’ [same- sex] marriage deprive[d] appellants of their liberty to marry and of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment”; and (2) whether Minnesota’s “refusal, pursuant to Minnesota marriage statutes, to sanctify appellants’ marriage because both are of the male sex violate[d] their rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1087 (citing Baker, Jurisdictional Stmt., No. 71-1027 at 3 (Feb. 11, 1971)). The Supreme Court considered both claims and unanimously dismissed the petitioners’ appeal “for want of [a] substantial federal question.” Baker, 409 U.S. at 810.

Decided five years after the Supreme Court struck down race-based restrictions on marriage in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Baker was a mandatory appeal brought under then-28 U.S.C. § 1257(2)’s procedure. The dismissal was a decision on the merits, and it bound all lower courts with regard to the issues presented and necessarily decided, Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam); see also Ohio ex. Rel. Eaton v. Price, 360 U.S. 246, 247 (1959) (“Votes to affirm summarily, and to dismiss for want of a substantial federal question, it hardly needs comment, are votes on the merits of a case…”).

Today, when the Supreme Court’s docket is almost entirely discretionary, a summary dismissal or affirmance is rare. In fact, the very procedural mechanism used by the Baker petitioners to reach the Supreme Court has since been eliminated. See Public Law No. 100-352 (effective June 27, 1988). That, however, does not change the precedential value of Baker. This Court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court that are directly on point; only the Supreme Court may exercise “the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989).

This is true even where other cases would seem to undermine the Supreme Court’s prior holdings. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997)(“We do not acknowledge, and we do not hold, that other courts should conclude our more recent cases have, by implication, overruled an earlier precedent…”). After all, the Supreme Court is perfectly capable of stating its intention to overrule a prior case. But absent an express statement saying as much, lower courts must do as precedent requires. State Oil Co. v. Khahn, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (noting that the “Court of Appeals was correct in applying” a decision even though later decisions had undermined it); see also Day v. Massachusetts Air Nat. Guard, 167 F.3d 678, 683 (1st Cir. 1999)(reiterating the Supreme Court’s admonishment that circuit or district judges should not pioneer departures from Supreme Court precedent). The Supreme Court, of course, is free to overrule itself as it wishes. But unless and until it does, lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court’s summary decisions “‘until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are not.’” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)(citation omitted).

Thus, notwithstanding, Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1195 (D. Utah 2013) (Baker no longer controlling precedent), aff’d 755 F.3d 1193, 1204-08 (10th Cir. 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 469–70 (E.D. Va. 2014)(same), aff’d 760 F.3d 352, 373-75 (4th Cir. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2014 WL 2884868 at *5 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014)(same), aff’d, 766 F.3d 648, 659-60 (7th Cir. 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 988–92 (W.D. Wisc. 2014)(same), aff’d 766 F.3d 648, 659-60 (7th Cir. 2014); Latta v. Otter, ––– F.Supp.2d ––––, 2014 WL 1909999, at **7–10 (D. Idaho May 13, 2013)(same) aff’d, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4977682 **2-3 (9th Cir. October 7, 2014); Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1274–77 (N.D. Okla.2014)(same), aff’d, Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1079-81 (10th Cir. 2014); McGee v. Cole, 993 F.Supp.2d 639, 649 (S.D. W.Va. 2014)(same); DeLeon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648 (W.D. Tex. 2014)(order granting preliminary injunction)(same); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 773 n.6 (E.D. Mich. 2014)(same); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1290-1 (N.D. Fl. 2014)(same); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536, 541-2(W.D. Ky. 2014)(same); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 419-21 (M.D. Pa. 2014)(same); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1132 (D. Or. 2014)(same), this Court will apply Baker v. Nelson, as the Supreme Court has instructed it to do. As a result, the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenging the Puerto Rico Civil Code’s recognition of opposite-sex marriage fail to present a substantial federal question, and this Court must dismiss them.

The plaintiffs would have this Court ignore Baker because of subsequent “doctrinal developments.” Specifically, the plaintiffs see the Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor as limiting Baker’s application, as most other courts to consider the issue have held. But see, e.g., Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012)(holding Baker precludes equal protection challenge to existing state marriage laws) overruled by Latta v. Otter, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4977682, at **2-3 (9th Cir. 2014); Jackson, 884 F.Supp.2d at 1086—88 (holding that Baker is the last word from Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of a state law limiting marriage to opposite- sex couples); Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1304—05 (M.D. Fla. 2005)(holding Baker required dismissal of due process and equal protection challenge to Florida’s refusal to recognize out-of-state same- sex marriages). The Court cannot agree.

For one thing, the First Circuit has spared us from the misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts. The First Circuit expressly acknowledged – a mere two years ago – that Baker remains binding precedent “unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.” Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012). According to the First Circuit, Baker prevents the adoption of arguments that “presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” Id. Even creating “a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships” would “imply[ ] an overruling of Baker,” – relief that the First Circuit acknowledged is beyond a lower court’s power to grant. This Court agrees, and even if this Court disagreed, the First Circuit’s decision would tie this Court’s hands no less surely than Baker ties the First Circuit’s hands.

Nor can we conclude, as the plaintiffs do, that the First Circuit’s pronouncements on this subject are dicta. Dicta are those observations inessential to the determination of the legal questions in a given dispute. Merrimon v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 758 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir. 2014)(citation omitted); see also Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 972 F.2d 453, 459 (1st Cir. 1992)(“Dictum constitutes neither the law of the case nor the stuff of binding precedent.”). Or, said another way, “[w]henever a question fairly arises in the course of a trial, and there is a distinct decision of that question, the ruling of the court in respect thereto can, in no just sense, be called mere dictum.” See Union Pac. R. Co. v. Mason City & Ft. D.R. Co., 199 U.S. 160, 166 (1905).

In Massachusetts v. HHS, the defendants argued that Baker foreclosed the plaintiff’s claims. The First Circuit concluded that Baker was binding but that it did not address all of the issues presented in the particular dispute. The conclusion that Baker was binding precedent was a considered legal pronouncement of the panel.

Without that conclusion, the remainder of the argument – that Baker nevertheless did not control the case at hand – would have been unnecessary. That the panel engaged in a deliberate discussion shows that their conclusion about Baker’s “binding” nature carried practical and legal effect in their opinion — in other words, it was necessary to the outcome. If the plaintiffs’ reading of Massachusetts v. HHS were correct, any opinion rejecting a constitutional argument but deciding the case on another ground would be dicta as to the constitutional question, because only the non-constitutional argument was “necessary” to resolve the case. That is hardly the way courts understand their rulings to work. In Massachusetts v. HHS, the First Circuit decided the case the way that it did in part because Baker foreclosed other ways in which it might have decided the same question. That considered holding binds this Court.

Nor is this Court persuaded that we should follow the Second Circuit’s opinion about what the First Circuit said in Massachusetts v. HHS. See Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2012)(“The First Circuit has suggested in dicta that recognition of a new suspect classification in this context would ‘imply an overruling of Baker.’”). In fact the utterings of the Second Circuit were a bit more developed than what the plaintiffs let on. The Second Circuit recognized that Baker held that the use of the traditional definition of marriage for a state’s own regulation of marriage did not violate equal protection. Id. at 194. But it distinguished Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), asserting “[t]he question whether the federal government may constitutionally define marriage as it does . . . is sufficiently distinct from the question . . . whether same sex marriage may be constitutionally restricted by the states.” Id. at 178. Nothing in the Second Circuit’s opinion addressed the First Circuit’s explicit holding that Baker remains binding precedent. More importantly, only the First Circuit’s opinions bind this court.

Even if the First Circuit’s statements about Baker were dicta, they would remain persuasive authority, and as such, they further support the Court’s independent conclusions about, and the impact of subsequent decisions on, Baker.

And even if the Court assumes for the sake of argument that the First Circuit has not determined this issue, the Court cannot see how any “doctrinal developments” at the Supreme Court change the outcome of Baker or permit a lower court to ignore it.

The plaintiffs’ reliance on Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is misplaced. Romer invalidated a state law repealing and barring sexual-orientation discrimination protection. Lawrence involved the very different question of a state government’s authority to criminalize private, consensual sexual conduct. Neither case considered whether a state has the authority to define marriage.

Judge Boudin, writing for the three-judge panel in Massachusetts v. HHS, likewise recognized that Romer and Lawrence do not address whether the Constitution obligates states to recognize same-sex marriage. Judge Boudin explained that, while certain “gay rights” claims have prevailed at the Supreme Court, e.g., Romer and Lawrence, those decisions do not mandate states to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d at 8. The Court agrees and notes that the First Circuit’s understanding comports with the explicit statements of the Supreme Court. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578 (“[t]he present case does not involve … whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”) (Op. of Kennedy, J.).

Windsor does not – cannot – change things. Windsor struck down Section 3 of DOMA which imposed a federal definition of marriage, as an impermissible federal intrusion on state power. 133 S. Ct. at 2692. The Supreme Court’s understanding of the marital relation as “a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Id. at 2680 (quoting Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975)), led the Supreme Court to conclude that Congress exceeded its power when it refused to recognize state-sanctioned marriages.

The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-sex marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-sex marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691-93 (“[t]he definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities’”); accord Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d at 12 (“DOMA intrudes into a realm that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to state regulation – domestic relations and the definition and incidents of lawful marriage – which is a leading instance of the states’ exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality and culture.”)

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2692.

It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.

The plaintiffs contend, as well, that the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in three cases where Baker was expressly overruled is tantamount to declaring that Baker is no longer good law.

The denial of certiorari is not affirmation. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 919 (1950)(holding that denial of petition for certiorari “does not remotely imply approval or disapproval” of lower court’s decision); Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363, 365 n.1 (1973)(holding denial of certiorari imparts no implication or inference concerning the Supreme Court’s view of the merits). That the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Baskin, Bostic, and Kitchen speaks more to the fact that there is not, as of yet, a split among the few circuit courts to consider this issue. See SUP. CT. R. 10. For now, if presumptions must be made about the unspoken proclivities of the Supreme Court, they ought to be governed by the prudent injunction that “a denial of certiorari on a novel issue will permit the state and federal courts to ‘serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this Court.’” Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995)(Stevens, J. respecting denial of certiorari)(citation omitted).

Nor does the procedural outcome of Hollingsworth v. Perry, imply that the Supreme Court has overruled Baker. The plaintiffs creatively argue that when the Supreme Court dismissed Hollingsworth, its judgment had the effect of vacating the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and leaving the district court’s opinion intact. Because the district court’s opinion (which struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage) was allowed to stand, the plaintiffs say the Supreme Court tacitly recognized that the right to same-sex marriage presents a federal question. But that outcome was entirely caused by California’s decision not to appeal the district court’s adverse ruling.

A group of intervenors appealed the case when the state would not, and those intervenors lost again at the Ninth Circuit. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which concluded that they lacked standing to appeal. Because the intervenors lacked standing, the portion of the litigation that they pursued (the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court appeals) was invalid. The district court’s judgment remained intact, not because the Supreme Court approved of it — tacitly or otherwise — but because no party with standing had appealed the district court’s decision to the Supreme Court such that it would have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Thus, nothing about the Hollingsworth decision renders Baker bad law.

Lower courts, then, do not have the option of departing from disfavored precedent under a nebulous “doctrinal developments” test.

See National Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 58 (1st Cir. 1999) (“[D]ebate about the continuing viability of a Supreme Court opinion does not, of course, excuse the lower federal courts from applying that opinion.”)(Op. of Lynch, J.); see also, Scheiber v. Dolby Labs., Inc., 293 F. 3d 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e have no authority to overrule a Supreme Court decision no matter how dubious its reasoning strikes us, or even how out of touch with the Supreme Court’s current thinking the decision seems.”)(Op. of Posner, J.).

Consequently, neither Romer, Lawrence, nor Windsor, wreck doctrinal changes in Supreme Court jurisprudence sufficient to imply that Baker is no longer binding authority. See U.S. v. Symonevich, 688 F.3d 12, 20 n. 4 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that, generally, an argument that the Supreme Court has implicitly overruled one of its earlier decisions is suspect).

Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-sex marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions.

Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.


That this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing. But the role of precedent in our system of adjudication is not simply a matter of binding all succeeding generations to the decision that is first in time. Instead, stare decisis embodies continuity, certainly, but also limitation: there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-sex marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting).

Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-sex marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is “minimal marriage”, where “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties” the blueprint for their design? See Elizabeth Brake, Minimal Marriage: What Political Liberalism Implies for Marriage Law, 120 ETHICS 302, 303 (2010). It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs’ logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on “the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice.” (Docket No. 7 at 4.)

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law. This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 1623, 1637 (2014)(Op. of Kennedy, J.).

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby GRANT the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 31.)

The plaintiffs’ federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of October, 2014.