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

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Realtruth
Marriage is not a "Legal" union, unless someone signs a "State/County Marriage" license", or they have "Common law marriage Statutes, in that state.

But that's what 99% of people do. They get a marriage license and get married, whether on the beach, in the courthouse or in a church. It's the SAME LEGAL union.

Again people can marry in a church, and the state has absolutely zero record of the marriage happening.

They CAN, but 99% of the people who get married in a church have already gotten a marriage license from the state. If they don't, they don't get ANY state or federal benefits.

What the hell does "smh" mean?

Thank you BH!


That is what I have been trying to get at from my first post. The benefits are the "Corporation" I have been talking about.

If someone is married with a state marriage license they have all the legal rights of a marriage corporation.

Churches are suppose to be separate, but it appears only when it suits, then they choose to be separate.

Even if the Supreme Court rules same sex marriages they cannot force the churches to marry same sex people, because of the "Religious Freedom".

Just explain to me how this relates to the OP.

originally posted by: Realtruth
Again let me state the Church does not matter, if two people want to get married then they can go to a court house and form their "Legal Union", with all the benefits.

The courthouse calls it a marriage certificate and the name does not need to be changed to appease people's sensibilities.

a reply to: Annee


Annee it relates to the OP because they are using BS tactics to block people from getting married.

This just one reason I have personally have left the church. Blind ignorance on that judges part.

If judges and our system would have been true constitutionalist's, then we wouldn't have to worry about this at all and marriage issue between same sex, or poly would matter.

From a legal standpoint this should have never even come up, in the first place. imo

I'm really tired of religious doctrines casting moral judgements, on the highest law and supreme court decisions. I hope that judge get's his ass handed to him.

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Annee


Annee it relates to the OP because they are using BS tactics to block people from getting married.

Please explain this one point.

Keep it simple.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
Again let me state the Church does not matter, if two people want to get married then they can go to a court house and form their "Legal Union", with all the benefits.

The courthouse calls it a marriage certificate and the name does not need to be changed to appease people's sensibilities.

The term is actually "Marriage License" which forms a "Legal Union", then a state corporation is formed in both parties names binding them as a full corporation.

And I could really care less if the do or don't change the names, it was merely a suggestion because most people don't understand the differences.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
Again let me state the Church does not matter, if two people want to get married then they can go to a court house and form their "Legal Union", with all the benefits.

The courthouse calls it a marriage certificate and the name does not need to be changed to appease people's sensibilities.

The term is actually "Marriage License" which forms a "Legal Union", then a state corporation is formed in both parties names binding them as a full corporation.

And I could really care less if the do or don't change the names, it was merely a suggestion because most people don't understand the differences.

How do you speak for most people? You sure you're into law?

I think you're going all over the place. You need a thread about the origins of marriage and how licensing came about, etc etc.

None of this particularly applies or focuses on the OP.

a reply to: Annee

Sorry about my wording sometimes I forget people don't understand legal jargon, and court procedures. Something I take for granted.

Religious doctrines were how many laws in the USA were formed ( legally or not ), and since the USA was primarily Christians that ran things, the country laws were hardly ever challenged, or questioned

Now that we have our society becoming more tolerant ( cough cough ) of everyone which is how our Constitution is supposed to be, we have people challenging old laws and ways.

The old ways and laws are still enforced by a Christian based, so when it comes time to change things fairly for everyone those old moralistic values pop up, and have no legal merit.

People in positions of power need to leave their religion and home/church, then take steps back on legal matters and look solely at the laws, then we wouldn't have these ridiculous.



Annee something else that explains how things are getting messed up also. And why Church and State have issues with marriage.

hushmoney.org...

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Annee

Sorry about my wording sometimes I forget people don't understand legal jargon, and court procedures. Something I take for granted.

Legal Jargon? Really? This has nothing to do with Legal Jargon.

In a mini nutshell: Plaintiffs from "Obergefell v. Hodges" were from 4 (5) states, not Alabama.

Moore says the supreme court decision only applies to those 4 (5) states. Alabama does not have to comply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing you keep ranting about has anything to do with the above.

originally posted by: Annee

How do you speak for most people? You sure you're into law?

I think you're going all over the place. You need a thread about the origins of marriage and how licensing came about, etc etc.

None of this particularly applies or focuses on the OP.

I speak for most people because I have seen the look on many people's faces when they are in a divorce court, and find out that their marriage licensee formed a legal corporation.

Gosh I was in church a few years ago getting married, and now I am suing for divorce?

Most people don't understand what they are signing into, they just do it because their parents did, and so on.


Yes I understand marriage procedure pretty well.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, the certificate of marriage is recorded on the same document as the marriage license or application for marriage.

The judge in Alabama is using " We are confused tactics" to hold off on marriage licenses for same sex marriage. I would wager it will cost the tax payers millions to eventually find out that the Supreme Court decision is law.

Basically they are playing stupid, so their interpretation of the Supreme Court Case law doesn't apply to them.

Hush Money - - Matt Trewhella - - an excerpt of his thinking from elsewhere . . .

. . . One telling characteristic of the religious right’s religious right to distinguish them from the “mainstream” religious right is their 2008 reaction to Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential candidacy; while roundly endorsed by the religious right, Trewhella and his ilk complained that a woman would be unsuitable for the job. Said Trewhella: “I was almost ready to vote for McCain and Palin myself. Almost. But I won’t. I was never keen on McCain to begin with, and his decision to add a woman to his ticket sealed my decision. I won’t vote for them. Why? Because I’m a sexist (as many accuse)? No. But because I’m a theist.” And of course, there is a liberal conspiracy to “effeminize, neuter, and rob males of their manhood,” an agenda that “results in rampant male irresponsibility,” . . . americanloons.blogspot.com...

Perhaps you could address the OP.

Does Obergefell v. Hodges only apply to the 4 (5) states of the plaintiffs?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Annee

Sorry about my wording sometimes I forget people don't understand legal jargon, and court procedures. Something I take for granted.

Legal Jargon? Really? This has nothing to do with Legal Jargon.

In a mini nutshell: Plaintiffs from "Obergefell v. Hodges" were from 4 states, not Alabama.

Moore says the supreme court decision only applies to those 4 states. Alabama does not have to comply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing you keep ranting about has anything to do with the above.

It has everything to do with legal jargon, because Alabama is refusing to accept the Supreme Courts case law decision. ( Legal Jargon )

And that they are interpreting ( Legal Jargon ) however they please.

It's easy to do in the legal system, it's called circular argumentation, and that is why cases make it to the Supreme court, so they can finally put things to rest.

Typically Federal Judges will not challenge supreme court decisions, but in this case with the lines blurred of separation of church and state have come to legals blows.

originally posted by: Realtruth


Typically Federal Judges will not challenge supreme court decisions, but in this case with the lines blurred of separation of church and state have come to legals blows.

But the lines are not blurred. A marriage license from the state means you are legally married. A ceremony in a church does NOT mean you are legally married. Very clear lines there.

originally posted by: Annee

Does Obergefell v. Hodges only apply to the 4 states of the plaintiffs?

Absolutely not, it's suppose to apply to all of them, but they are using circular argumentation.

I thought I made that clear in many of my other posts. I said it repeatedly.

The supreme court decision is suppose to be the law of the land. I would wager this will go back to the supreme court and they will hand Alabama their asses.

The supreme court will not like the tactic being used on this issue, because the original decision was clear. Alabama is just using word play to delay and actually embarrass the Supreme courts decision.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Annee

Sorry about my wording sometimes I forget people don't understand legal jargon, and court procedures. Something I take for granted.

Legal Jargon? Really? This has nothing to do with Legal Jargon.

In a mini nutshell: Plaintiffs from "Obergefell v. Hodges" were from 4 states, not Alabama.

Moore says the supreme court decision only applies to those 4 states. Alabama does not have to comply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing you keep ranting about has anything to do with the above.

It has everything to do with legal jargon, because Alabama is refusing to accept the Supreme Courts case law decision. ( Legal Jargon )

Can you stay focused on that?

What is your side of the decision.

The Supreme Court makes decisions - - I'm not sure about case law. They don't make laws.

Here's a good article on Moore's latest "Hail Mary".

On the sensible side, Justice Moore does have some law on his side—in fact, three extremely narrow, technical threads on which he hangs his order.

First, technically speaking, Obergefell only bound the five states that were a party to it. Since Alabama was not one of those states, technically its law is caught in limbo. Second, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld its same-sex marriage ban on March 3, 2015.

However,

But that’s where it all becomes laughable—if not outright dishonest.

It is completely obvious that the Obergefell decision does, indeed, govern all 50 states. The logic it applied to Michigan is equally applicable to Alabama. That’s why LGBT activists broke out the champagne last June. It’s also why judges and clerks around the country, with only a handful of exceptions like Kim Davis, have applied the law and granted same-sex marriage licenses for months now.

Even the cases upon which Moore relies, in fact contradict him. For example, Moore cites an Eighth Circuit case decided on Aug. 11 that said “The [Obergefell] Court invalidated laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—not Nebraska.” But that case affirmed, not rejected, the right to same-sex marriage in Nebraska, and forbade Nebraska from blocking it while the court case wound down to its inevitable conclusion.

This happens all the time. When the Supreme Court rules on an issue, it does not automatically end all the cases that deal with it. But it does make their outcomes obvious. So, while the legal matters are formally resolved, lower courts issue or stay injunctions in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

www.thedailybeast.com...

originally posted by: Realtruth
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.

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

I AGREE!

originally posted by: knoxie

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

I AGREE!

I'm atheist, BTW. Major supporter of separation of church and state.

Very aware of the Christian Lobby.

However, in this case Moore is trying to use Legal to fight Legal.

He is not trying to fight it with religion.

LGBT activists in Alabama were so outraged by the anti–marriage equality order issued by the state's chief justice they staged a protest.

The public protests aren't Moore's only concern. The Southern Poverty Law Center is also taking action against the chief justice, filing a formal ethics complaint against him to the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama urging that he be removed from his position.

“Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again demonstrating that he is unfit to hold office,” Richard Cohen, SPLC’s president, said in a statement. “Despite the fact that Alabama probate judges are under a federal court order that bars them from discriminating against same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, Justice Moore has irresponsibly advised them to do the opposite. You would think after being removed from the bench once before that the chief justice would know better.”

As of Thursday morning, three of Alabama’s 67 counties — Madison, Lawrence, and Jackson — have heeded Moore’s order so far and stopped issuing marriage licenses, according to WAFF. It is worth noting, however, that Lawrence and Jackson counties have stopped issuing licenses to all couples, while Madison has stopped issuing licenses to same-sex couples only, even though same-sex couples there can still apply for them.

www.advocate.com...

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.

Furthermore, the SCOTUS doesn't make laws. That's something Congress has to do.

a reply to: Realtruth

+1

Great point.