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

Source

State judges have been barred from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Chief Justice Roy Moore's administrative order claims that the US Supreme Court ruling only applies to the four states involved in Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage equality ruling). Moore's position is that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage is still the law... He's in for a big surprise.

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Chief Justice Roy Moore forbade probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses that violate the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, “until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court.”

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

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?

It was bound to happen just like Kim Davis showed us in Kentucky.

If it had gone through Congress, people probably would have accepted it as law without question.

By sneaking it through via SCOTUS ruling people who are opposed to gay marriage are just going to choose to see it as a bad interpretation of the law by a biased judge and fight it.

Not cool, but sadly not surprising after the Kim Davis debacle. I guess some rednecks can't be coaxed to accept any reality than their Jesus, moonshine and their Bible.

Looks like more "precedent" setting actions will solidify the 14th Amendment.

Are they claiming "reasonable" accommodations?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether or not that is true depends on under what statutes and laws the decision in question was made. If it was made only under state laws, then the Alabama judge is correct. The laws of the four states in question mean nothing to Alabama law.

If it was made under a provision of Federal Law, then it would be binding.

So it depends on how the decision handed down was written and interpreted.

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?

To be absolutely fair, SCOTUS rulings don't create law, they just tell you what laws conflict with the constitution (or the spirit of the constitution, like anti-gay-marriage laws). It is up to the states to mitigate their laws so that there is not one of those things where a judge could get arrested under state law and then have to go through the process of showing that the law was illegal.

The state needs to convene its legislature and permanently fix this ASAP, or they will (and should) be taken to federal court over it. But as I see it, the Chief Justice is doing his job properly...it's the governor and the state legislature that are causing him to have to make such an order in the first place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dred Scot case. The Tanny ruling turned over the jurisdiction for deciding the freedom suit a local matter because he claimed that slaves were not citizens of the united states and could only bring suit before local courts. Also, he tried to interpret what the founding fathers thought about slavery, and well, its some of the most bigoted crap ever produced. This case was in a lot of was more about states rights, than slavery. The bigotry makes the slavery question mute in his argument. Link

Also SlapMonkey made a great point:

To be absolutely fair, SCOTUS rulings don't create law, they just tell you what laws conflict with the constitution (or the spirit of the constitution, like anti-gay-marriage laws)

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how accurate this judge's interpretation of the law is. He could be correct (in which case it would need to go in front of a federal court for the law to be clarified) or he might just be a sore loser.

This idiot again?

Hard to believe he got re-elected.

I hope he gets slapped with a 2 million dollar fine.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

Your post also underscores a good point: The SCOTUS isn't always right, too.

originally posted by: Annee
This idiot again?

Hard to believe he got re-elected.

I hope he gets slapped with a 2 million dollar fine.

The Supreme Court does not issue fines.

originally posted by: markosity1973

By sneaking it through via SCOTUS ruling people who are opposed to gay marriage are just going to choose to see it as a bad interpretation of the law by a biased judge and fight it.

No one sneaked anything through.

And its not "Gay Marriage" - - - its "Marriage Equality" - - - which means everyone has the same Constitutional Rights.

And the Christian Taliban strikes again.

I thought that if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional in every state of our country. No?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
And the Christian Taliban strikes again.

I thought that if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional in every state of our country. No?

Anything can be challenged.

The state will eventually lose and cost their tax payers millions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The Supreme Court does not issue fines.

The four states that have been fighting marriage equality have to pay the legal fees because they lost. If a lawsuit arises out of this judge's decision, Alabama will be charged the legal fees. In the other four states, it was approx. $2 million each.

And to your previous statement, the SCOTUS decision was based on the Constitution, so federal law.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee
This idiot again?

Hard to believe he got re-elected.

I hope he gets slapped with a 2 million dollar fine.

The Supreme Court does not issue fines.

Kentucky Governor owes $2 million in marriage equality settlement

Someone has to pay the court costs. Maybe fined isn't the "correct" word - - - how about Charged.

spectrum.suntimes.com...

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I thought that if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional in every state of our country. No?

You are correct. Of course, if a law is found to be unconstitutional, that applies to us all.

The petition for writ of certiorari [PDF] in Obergefell features two questions presented, broadly asking whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. In a 5-4 decision decided on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court answered both [PDF] issues in the affirmative, thereby requiring all states and territories to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.

Source

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether or not that is true depends on under what statutes and laws the decision in question was made. If it was made only under state laws, then the Alabama judge is correct. The laws of the four states in question mean nothing to Alabama law.

If it was made under a provision of Federal Law, then it would be binding.

So it depends on how the decision handed down was written and interpreted.

You and I both know that it applies across all the states though.

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.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Good point. Many assume that the SCOTUS was making new laws with that decision. However, they were striking unconstitutional laws off the books, not adding new ones.