Alabama Cheif Justice Effectly Bans Same-Sex Marriage in the State

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is a beautiful thing... Very well-said!

a reply to: Annee

If you have a link that would be appreciated.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I have to say my friend, I am kind of getting tired of this.

I always find it surprising that the 'conservatives' are against the exercising of rights and particularly when two monogamous people want to spend the rest of their lives together. What could be more conservative in a relationship than monogamy?

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Roy Moore is a nutbar. A decade or so ago, he so proudly was arrested for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the Federal Courthouse in Montgomery, Al, the state capital.

He's like Alabama's very own Teddie Cruz. But he does have his groupies. If he can find a way to be arrested over this one, he'll probably take it. I think he enjoys the publicity.

Yes.

The next day, the COJ issued a unanimous opinion ruling that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as alleged by the JIC in its complaint." The COJ had several disciplinary options, including censure or suspension without pay, but because Moore's responses had indicated he would defy any similar court orders in the future, the COJ concluded that "under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."[24] Moore was immediately removed from his post.

Then he got reelected.

After winning the Republican nomination for the Chief Justice position, on November 6, 2012, Moore was elected as Alabama Chief Justice over replacement Democratic candidate Bob Vance.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Annee

If you have a link that would be appreciated.

I don't.

I read a lot and follow links, etc.

Years ago I used to record them. I don't anymore.

a reply to: Annee

I figured since it was a recent ruling it may be fresh in your mind.

No worries.

There's an easy fix for this.

The Alabama legislature just needs to strike down that ban carried in the state. Hell bring it to a ballot vote in the 2016 cycle.

Either way, he's going to find himself in a world of wrong with that decision. Oh well, some people in Canada fought marriage equality for 10 years after the Supreme Court and the Federal Gov ruled in favor of it.

10 years.

Eventually the courts just told them that they had exhausted their appeals and to just deal with it.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The Alabama legislature just needs to strike down that ban carried in the state.

The Supreme Court already did that through nullification.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The Alabama legislature just needs to strike down that ban carried in the state.

The Supreme Court already did that through nullification.

Well that obviously didn't stop them did it?

Just do it for show at least. Give them the pleasure of knowing they had 'states rights' and they were able to pass it without interference from that terrible SCOTUS they hate so much unless it's to make sure nobody is taking away your guns.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Well that obviously didn't stop them did it?

Well, it did not stop this cretin, but regardless, any law banning same-sex marriage is now un-Constitutional. It can remain on the books or not, the law would be equally impotent either way.

Kinda like this judge.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: markosity1973
Annee


Perhaps you misunderstood my wording.

I meant they were able to allow gay marriage via the valid argument of equality.

In other countries, like NZ, the law was changed by parliament rather than a court ruling.

The point I was making is that it's much harder to oppose a law passed by parliament than an interpretation of existing law by a court, even if that court is the highest one in the system.

OK.

Why should Equal Rights ever be voted on?

The Constitution already guarantees it.

Yes it does.

But passing a federal law to ensure it is allowed means it's no longer open to interpretation at a state level. IE states can't pick and choose to abide by a court ruling.

Not that they are supposed to as it is, but as this man and Kim Davis are proving, it's easy to stall the process of giving us out constitutional rights through civil disobedience and endless court battles. These people are using the system to fight the system.

A new law, like was passed in NZ bypasses these problems. Once gay marriage is written into law as opposed to interpreting existing law to say it can't exclude gay marriage because of constitutional rights, it's a lot more difficult for these people to fight against.

ETA what I am alluding to is providing a legal clarification of the term marriage ie a man and a woman, two men, two women. That way it's black and white in the legal system and those opposed to it can't argue against it legally, no matter what their personal feelings are.

a reply to: markosity1973

I just don't agree.

I see no reason to make a law guaranteeing Equal Rights when the Constitution already guarantees it.

Besides it's insulting. LGBT are not separate from the Constitution.

a reply to: Annee

It shouldn't need to be that way but as long as you have public servants thinking that religion trumps the secular law of the land, this problem will keep arising.

We are on the same page, it's just I am aware of what should be, but I'm also aware of the unfortunate reality of the situation.

Some people will stop at nothing to stop us from having equal rights.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is a beautiful thing... Very well-said!

I'm having a hard time understanding Alabamas standing on this. The only thing I can assume is they think their law is different and needs to be put before the supreme court. If that is the case and their law is indeed different then this judge may be right. Though I doubt the supreme court would back an Alabama law now that precedence has been set. This is really a waist of time to delay the inevitable. But I guess even judges can be effected by politics.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Annee

It shouldn't need to be that way but as long as you have public servants thinking that religion trumps the secular law of the land, this problem will keep arising.

We are on the same page, it's just I am aware of what should be, but I'm also aware of the unfortunate reality of the situation.

Some people will stop at nothing to stop us from having equal rights.

The reality of the situation is the Constitution "did its job".

I don't need to "bow" to external beliefs to making it Black and White for them -- so they can understand fully without question.

Screw them and the KY governor is forced to cough up 2 mil.

a reply to: Annee

Well that works too lol. Can't say I disagree with that sentiment

I was more speaking in response to this comment from BH's OP regarding law changes.

As many of us have said, the fight for equality has only begun.

This is just stupid.

Marriage via state is completely different that in the church, yet so many idiots do not know the difference, even judges.


Basics of laws and state marriage.

A marriage via the state is a corporation once two people sign the papers at the county building. When two people get divorced one has to sue the other to dissolve the corporation of "State marriage".

Now when we look at what the definition of a "Corporation", corporations are gender neutral.

The problem comes from the corrupt religious/political system not separating church and state, or trying to blur the lines for control.

If we look at the entire debacle with reason logic and absolute laws from each side, they should not recognize each other at all. Many Christian churches will not marry two people unless they have a marriage license from the state/county.

Yet in gods/churches eyes they do not and are not suppose to recognize any legalities outside the church.

a reply to: Annee

Marriage Equality means everyone can marry whomever they like. If you are for an age requirement, you are against equality, if you are for a certain number of people in a marriage, you are against marriage equality. If you believe people that are closely related cannot get married, you are against marriage equality

"Marriage Equality" only means that someone is trying to bully people into believing their personal dogma. When people don't want to convert to your religion, you shouldn't go on the attack, try looking for the middle ground and coexisting

originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: Annee

Marriage Equality means everyone can marry whomever they like. If you are for an age requirement, you are against equality, if you are for a certain number of people in a marriage, you are against marriage equality. If you believe people that are closely related cannot get married, you are against marriage equality

"Marriage Equality" only means that someone is trying to bully people into believing their personal dogma. When people don't want to convert to your religion, you shouldn't go on the attack, try looking for the middle ground and coexisting

Age requirement is logical. Laws to protect minors is logical. The lowest age requirement is 12 for female with parental consent in Massachusetts.

Close relations not marrying is logical and scientific. However, there are 20 states first cousins can marry without restriction.

There is one state you can legally co-habit in a parent/child relationship, but you can't marry.

I actually support polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc - - I think group marriages are healthier and more practical in today's world.

2 consenting adults? There is no issue. None.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: markosity1973

I just don't agree.

I see no reason to make a law guaranteeing Equal Rights when the Constitution already guarantees it.

Besides it's insulting. LGBT are not separate from the Constitution.

That's the whole issue Annee people do not understand that equality in marriage was already guaranteed, in a legal sense. Churches/Religion got so mixed up in state/federal laws the lines got blurred.

The hypocrisies of this entire situation is beyond comprehension.

Cannon law ( Church Law ) is not suppose to recognize any marriages outside the church itself, so State formed marriages in all actuality don't exist.

State Law and federal laws make marriages corporations so this is an entirely different union in the eyes of the legal system.

A marriage in a dogmatic religious building conducted by a priest isn't a state marriage.

And a State marriage is not recognized by any church institution as a marriage in their eyes.

Now this is where the lines get blurred, many churches since they have tax exemption status make people get marriage licenses from the state, which by the way is against every doctrine of "Gods laws" because his law are supposed to be the only ones recognized.

State Marriage in a court room, or via a marriage license = A Corporation and should have been gender neutral.

Marriage in front of a Priest, Rabbi, Emam, Pastor, Reverend = Union between two people in front of God, is not gender neutral typically.

Religion has so many hypocrisies I wouldn't even no where to begin, so I won't get into that argument, but when radical religious beliefs in any form are incorporated into a legal system, then we are in deep trouble.