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

a reply to: markosity1973

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

Congress doesn't have the final say on what is constitutional and what isn't that is the job of the Supreme Court.

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.

Even if they had run it through Congress like you suggested there will still be people complaining about it.

originally posted by: markosity1973
If it had gone through Congress, people probably would have accepted it as law without question.

Marriage laws are STATE laws, though. So, even if Congress had passed a federal law (which is HIGHLY unlikely, as so many in Congress would have been against marriage equality), it wouldn't necessarily have applied to all the states. Having the SCOTUS rule on the constitutionality of state marriage bans is the only way it could work.

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.

There was no "sneaking". This has been coming for years. Besides, if I'm an individual and I find that my state laws don't apply to me because I'm a woman, I'm going to take the state to court, not try to convince my representatives to make a new federal law... and hope it goes through.

Either way, there would be a great backlash by the religious establishment in hopes of denying gay people equal rights.

This is just more reason why the government shouldn't be in marriage AT ALL, at any level.

However, I'll trade you your easy access to a license for your union as easy as it is to obtain one for equally easy access to a concealed carry permit and the firearm that I need to use it to exercise my right that is expressly written in the COTUS at #2. It's a good deal for you since your license doesn't actually come with an enshrined right at all.

originally posted by: ketsuko
This is just more reason why the government shouldn't be in marriage AT ALL, at any level.

However, I'll trade you your easy access to a license for your union as easy as it is to obtain one for equally easy access to a concealed carry permit and the firearm that I need to use it to exercise my right that is expressly written in the COTUS at #2. It's a good deal for you since your license doesn't actually come with an enshrined right at all.

1. Tell me where one group can't get a concealed carry permit while everyone else can.

2. Equal treatment under the laws IS an enshrined right.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Again? For anyone questioning the validty of the Supreme Court's ruling you are experiencing Constitution Fail.

a reply to: kaylaluv

1. Some states have them and others don't.

2. So gays were prevented from marrying period? A gay man couldn't even marry a woman?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Again, as has been posted already, whether or not the SCOTUS ruling applies specifically and how it applies to Alabama depends on the language the SCOTUS used in their decision in Obergafell. They might have written a narrow ruling the really did only apply to those four states and not made a blanket opinion that applied across all 50. It depends on the laws used in their ruling and how they made it.

It also looks more like Alabama is more in a state of legal flux rather than openly challenging what the SCOTUS said.

Since the SCOTUS cannot actually write law, it is up to states to rewrite their own laws and pass them through the legislative process. That takes time and doesn't happen instantaneously with the wave of magic SCOTUS-wand, not matter what progressives desire. There are going to be problems as things settle out - questions of precedent and how to craft the new laws to each state's satisfaction and pass them through. We already saw this in Kentucky when the whole Kim Davis thing could have been avoided with some patience.

Btw, Kentucky's version does not require clerks to sign the license with their name as Davis wanted.

a reply to: ketsuko

But in the states that don't, no one can get a concealed carry permit (equal treatment under the laws).

You know very well that a gay man couldn't marry the consenting adult of his choice - unlike a heterosexual person who could. How would you like it if the state decided that you weren't allowed to be married to your current husband, but your next door neighbor WAS allowed to marry the spouse of their choice? Is that equal treatment?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Again, as has been posted already, whether or not the SCOTUS ruling applies specifically and how it applies to Alabama depends on the language the SCOTUS used in their decision in Obergafell.

The Supreme Court was clear, 'the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.'

This means everywhere and I would bet every penny I have that this meathead in Alabama will end up on the wrong side of the legal argument. You game for a wager?

a reply to: ketsuko

Does Alabama abide by the U.S. Constitution or not?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

But in the states that don't, no one can get a concealed carry permit (equal treatment under the laws).

You know very well that a gay man couldn't marry the consenting adult of his choice - unlike a heterosexual person who could. How would you like it if the state decided that you weren't allowed to be married to your current husband, but your next door neighbor WAS allowed to marry the spouse of their choice? Is that equal treatment?

Ah, to make a perfect comparison here - some states allowed SSU and some states did not, just like with concealed carry.

So in order to make it perfect, the SCOTUS has to come along and determine that either everyone in the country gets concealed carry or none do.

The marriage laws in each state were applied equally to all, and no one was barred from marrying ... well except for old people who wanted child brides, or people who wanted to marry their sisters or brothers, or people who wanted multiple spouses ... but hey, who cares about marriage equality for them. It's only the gays you care about getting to marry their preferred partners, so much for your version of equality.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Ah, to make a perfect comparison here - some states allowed SSU and some states did not, just like with concealed carry.

So in order to make it perfect, the SCOTUS has to come along and determine that either everyone in the country gets concealed carry or none do.

Nope - not a good comparison. Any state that provides marriage licenses should provide them equally to consenting adults. Some states don't provide concealed carry permits, therefore they don't provide them to anyone - that's equal treatment. Now if a state that provided concealed carry permits turned down all black people, or all Christians - THAT would be considered unequal treatment and therefore unconstitutional.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They might have written a narrow ruling the really did only apply to those four states and not made a blanket opinion that applied across all 50.

But their ruling DID include all states.

It also looks more like Alabama is more in a state of legal flux rather than openly challenging what the SCOTUS said.

Several states still have a ban on their books. The parts that ban same-sex marriage are null and void. In every state.

. There are going to be problems as things settle out - questions of precedent and how to craft the new laws to each state's satisfaction and pass them through.

There will be challenges, for sure. And they will eventually be settled in court.

Kicking and screaming

Why I find so immensely comical about this is the thought that the five Supreme Court Justices that wrote the majority opinion were all so goddamn stupid that they somehow, in their decades of legal experience, issued a ruling that, miraculously, some jackwad in Alabama just happened to figure out was written improperly and that it only applied to a few places and not the whole friggin country.

This reminds me of those dopey freeman on the land dummies who think by saying their magic words in court, 'Ooga-booga, ooga-booga, I don't have to pay my taxes!' it somehow makes it possible.

Guess what? The gays are getting married and you cannot stop it no matter what magic words you think you know. So suck it up and deal with it.

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.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Why I find so immensely comical about this is the thought that the five Supreme Court Justices that wrote the majority opinion were all so goddamn stupid that they somehow, in their decades of legal experience, issued a ruling that, miraculously, some jackwad in Alabama just happened to figure out was written improperly and that it only applied to a few places and not the whole friggin country.

I have read the way they worded their ruling was intentional. (I don't remember the details, it's been awhile).

They knew there would be challenges.

originally posted by: Annee
I have read the way they worded their ruling was intentional.

I am not following. When has a Supreme Court ruling been anything other than intentional in its verbiage?

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.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
I have read the way they worded their ruling was intentional.

I am not following. When has a Supreme Court ruling been anything other than intentional in its verbiage?

Sorry, it's been awhile since I read it.

It was a discussion on why they worded their decision in a certain way that left openings for challenge.