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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It's great that they're coming to their senses... but most of the counties in Alabama blew off the Judges orders anyway. There's only a few of the 67 counties that were going along with this nut-ball judge's position. Mobile county was one that stopped because of Moore's order.

Yes, it is great.

Just a last ditch "Hail Mary" defiance. They know they've lost.

Mobile County to issue marriage licenses (again) Jan 7

Mobile County Probate Office will reopen its marriage window on Friday morning two days after it was shuttered. It has been closed since Wednesday in light of a controversial order from Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy More. "In an abundance of caution, the Court wanted an opportunity to review the order, and to have legal counsel research the matter," a statement on the Mobile County Probate Court website reads. "The Court is now satisfied, on the advice of counsel, that the appropriate action is to open the window and resume issuance of marriage licenses."

www.al.com...

NOTE: Did you see what the Texas Governor is up to?

originally posted by: Annee

NOTE: Did you see what the Texas Governor is up to?

Yes! LOL! He thinks he's important! If he had his way, women and gay people wouldn't have any rights, and minorities wouldn't be permitted to vote! Racism, sexism and bigotry all wrapped up into a single human being! He doesn't like being forced to abide by the Constitution we have, so he wants to write a new one! LOL!

So I see the moron Judge have not power after all when it comes to the ruling of the Supreme court for now, I guess somebody doesn't want the state to be spanked for disregarding constitutional rights.

Virginia seems to be getting in on the action... This new bill would allow clerks AND deputy clerks to deny marriages that they object to, on moral grounds.

So, basically, the secretary would decide whether or not you could have a license from the state. But the bill would provide that people who are denied could just go to the DMV to get a license... Tell me how does that make ANY sense???

New Virginia Bill Would Let Clerks Deny Marriage to Gay People

A Republican lawmaker in Virginia is pushing legislation aimed at protecting local elected officials who object to certain marriages on moral or religious grounds.

Republican Sen. Charles Carrico of Galax, whose southwestern district borders Kentucky, said many of his constituents were concerned about what happened to Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, and asked him to help Virginia officials who are put in the same position.

“I’m just trying to clarify what the options are if they have a right-of-conscience issue,” said Carrico, who said he opposes gay marriage.

Fortunately, Gov. Terry McAuliffe says she would veto the bill.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ugh! Don't ya just wanna shout "Give it up already, you lost!"

Side note: our high school today sent same message to Westboro (yes, planned picket). About 5 of them vs a full block of locals and students. "You lose".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think it over yet. You going to see more issue as time goes on.

The SCOTUS ruling was based on some pretty shaky thinking. They where more worried about getting it passed then good solid ground work.

Linking it to the 14th was not the best thing they could of done.

Time will tell.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

How long this anti constitutional rights people will continue to challenge the supreme court ruling under the grounds of religious freedom? this nation was founded by great people with intelligence and vision, but darn we have downgraded to morons now, holding positions of power.

a reply to: dismanrc

And what, in your opinion, would have been the best route for them to have taken, if not the 14th?

a reply to: dismanrc

If we have to learn from history, once the supreme court does their definitions base on constitutional rights is never going back, actually it just cement the definition in the books.

So yes the ruling will stay and anybody that challenged it is just wasting their time.

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think it over yet. You going to see more issue as time goes on.

The SCOTUS ruling was based on some pretty shaky thinking. They where more worried about getting it passed then good solid ground work.

Linking it to the 14th was not the best thing they could of done.

Time will tell.

Only in your mind. The SCOTUS ruling is based on the Loving v. Virginia ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. Why aren't you complaining about that ruling exactly?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

"It sounds like you might be missing some information on A. The Constitution and B. The SCOTUS ruling. The amendment that guarantees marriage equality already exists (14th). It's the amendment the SCOTUS used to make their decision. The tenth amendment only gives powers to the states that are not prohibited by the Constitution: "


I know that, but have you read the descents also? Seams they think the mean was twisted by the others.

By the same law I could sue BECAUSE the state forced me to make a cake for a gay couple. Because they are using a law to force me to go against my religion, hence abridging my right to freedom of religion.

I'm not a gay marriage support, but on the other hand I don't care if they get married or not. My issue is the spiral this will cause in the future. So it alright to abridge one groups rights because another wants something?

As I said the only way to lay it to rest is an Amendment, which wont happen.

Also SCOTUS did not take the power of issuing marriage licensees from the state. which they can't. Which means a state can still make any new law it wants. Then it would have to go though the whole process again. Spiral again.

a reply to: dismanrc

Literally EVERY single argument made against gay marriage was made against interracial marriage. "it's unchristian". "it's government intruding on religion". "Government doesn't have the right". etc. So by your words here, you think it is ok to ban interracial couples from marrying right?

originally posted by: dismanrc


Also SCOTUS did not take the power of issuing marriage licensees from the state. which they can't. Which means a state can still make any new law it wants. Then it would have to go though the whole process again. Spiral again.

Yes, states can make new laws, unless they try to go against the constitution. SCOTUS ruled that discriminating against gays by not allowing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The same way they ruled that banning interracial marriage was also unconstitutional.

You don't need another amendment to say that discrimination is not allowed and that everyone deserves equal treatment under the laws. We've already got that.

a reply to: dismanrc

I am going to take Krazysh0t's question one step further, there are anti-miscegenation laws still on the books in many states even though they were found un-Constitutional in the Loving v. Virginia ruling, do we need an amendment allowing people of different races or ethnicities to marry?

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I know that, but have you read the descents also? Seams they think the mean was twisted by the others.

I have read the dissents many times... As far as I'm concerned, there's one concept that cannot be misinterpreted:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Simply put, a state cannot make a law that denies a person EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. If the state has a marriage law, it must apply to all citizens of the state.

By the same law I could sue BECAUSE the state forced me to make a cake for a gay couple. Because they are using a law to force me to go against my religion, hence abridging my right to freedom of religion.

Not unless you can prove that making a cake is against your religion. Now, if they were forcing you to stay home on Sunday, denying your right to go to church, saying you must worship another God, or stop praying, etc., then you'd definitely have a case. But if you're in the business of making cakes for the public's weddings, and you refuse to make a cake because because your customer is Jewish, it's against the law. Being religious doesn't allow you to do anything you please. You still live in a country of secular law.

So it alright to abridge one groups rights because another wants something?

Gay people getting married does not abridge anyone's rights.

Also SCOTUS did not take the power of issuing marriage licensees from the state. which they can't. Which means a state can still make any new law it wants.

Not if that law violates the constitution. A law that says gay people (or black people, or teachers, or Christians) cannot marry whom they choose, but everyone else can, violates the constitution.

Probably should have its own thread, but is just too "out there" not to post.

NOM Throws Tantrum Over 'Extermination of True Marriage'

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

Nut balls. They act like marriage equality means that men and women can't get married any more. As if something has been taken away...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I remember seeing something on Cracked that made fun of this.

"Contrary to popular belief, legalising Homosexual marriage will not, in fact, force you to have sex with or become engaged to men. In actuality, nothing will affect you at all."

Marriage 'aint a zero-sum equation, folks. If homosexuals can marry, it doesn't mean heterosexuals can't.
Even if you oppose this on religious grounds, which I can at least somewhat understand (even if I think you may just be unconsciously warping the text of your choice to fit your predetermined opinion, as I am unaware of, the Bible, for instance, condemning gay marriage) you MUST believe that they should be able to receive the full legal benefits obtained from it. To think otherwise would, truly, simply be homophobic.

Another one bites the dust.

N.Y. Supreme Court: Upstate Farm Can't Refuse Same-Sex Weddings

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Wow... This guy is in for a rude awakening. Since when have SCOTUS rulings only applied selectively to certain states and not others? And this guy is a judge?

The constitution doesn't apply to that guy, he is better than that.