Alabama Chief Justice Orders Judges To Enforce Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Jan 6, 2016.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Oh, 'Bama, oh, 'Bama, oh, 'Bama... how ridiculously defiant you shall be. Not willing to accept that your way isn't the only or right way, or that SCOTUS ordered you to be the way you need to be. But alas, keep it classy, 'Bama.. keep it classy. :rolleyes:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ers-state-to-enforce-ban-on-same-sex-marriage

     
  2. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #2
    This will result in his removal from office.

    For a second time.
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    What's the procedure for removing a judge in ALabama who violates the law of the land?
     
  4. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #4
    Here's the judge's actual order:
    http://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2675714/Chief-Justice-s-Administrative-Order.pdf

    The reasoning supporting this ruling begins on p. 3:

    Nevertheless, recent developments of potential relevance
    since Obergefell may impact this issue. The United States
    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that
    Obergefell did not directly invalidate the marriage laws of
    states under its jurisdiction. While applying Obergefell as
    precedent, the Eighth Circuit rejected the Nebraska
    defendants' suggestion that Obergefell mooted the case. The
    Eighth Circuit stated: "The [Obergefell] Court invalidated
    laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee -- not
    Nebraska." Waters v Ricketts, 798 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir.
    2015) (emphasis added). In two other cases the Eighth Circuit
    repeated its statement that Obergefell directly invalidated
    only the laws of the four states in the Sixth Circuit. See
    Jernigan v Crane,796 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2015) ("not
    Arkansas"); Rosenbrahn v Daugaard, 799 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir
    2015) ("not South Dakota").
    The judge seems to be saying that the 8th Circuit Court has issued opinions that the Obergefell opinion is a narrow one, and only applies to the four states of the 6th Circuit that were named in the case. All other States and Circuit Courts need not be bound by the Obergefell opinion.

    So I think there's a bigger issue underlying the Alabama judge's administrative ruling, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm thinking "cage match" but maybe not.
     
  5. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #5
    I think this says it best.

    Marriage Law in the United States

    "From the very beginning, the United States has been exactly what its name suggests: a union of individual state governments, each with its own laws and public policy. When the founders laid out the system through which these states would come together and function as a federal government, they were careful to delineate which governmental powers were reserved for the federal government and which were the sole province of the states. Only the federal government can declare war, for instance; police power, on the other hand, is substantially reserved as a responsibility of the states.

    Marriage law has historically been a province of state law in the United States. Marital and family law, in fact, fall under the broad umbrella of the states' police power authority, as the Supreme Court recognized..."


    Per the design of our government the states are to institute marriage law and not the federal government..even if we might not agree with them.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 6, 2016 ---
    But what if the law of the land states that marriage law is setup by the states?
     
  6. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    You are right. The institution of marriage law is determined by the States, and not the Federal Government. That isn't the problem.

    The problem is that Alabama is trying to dictate who can get married in their state, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. They can not deny citizens of the United States their right to marry and who they want to marry. That right was affirmed by SCOTUS, pursuant to the 14th. The Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court is bound by that affirmation.

    BL.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    But the rights of the people are determined by the federal government. While the individual states can determine how marriage is governed in their jurisdiction, they can't arbitrarily strip one group of people the right to marry, while granting that right to another.
     
  8. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #8
    I thought the 14th amendment was created to give blacks first-class citizenship. It seems like it is being used for a much broader purpose than the author originally intended.
     
  9. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #9
    It is worded to include all american citizens born or naturalized.
     
  10. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    From the 14th, Clause One:

    No-one, nor any court has ever enumerated - listed specifically - which laws require equal protection. The way the 14th is written, all people are granted equal protection of ALL of the laws (note it is in plural).

    No specifics about it: all, or none, and none can be denied.

    BL.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Marriage remains the province of the states, but they cannot infringe on the 14th Amendment rights of people in the states by denying marriages between homosexual couples.

    Remember, the states' rights argument is just a bit of flash in an attempt to make a federalism argument out of what should be an argument about individual rights.
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    That happens all the time, for example the second amendment.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    Actually, the 14th amendment was designed to replace common law, with admiralty law. Thus the gold fringe.
     
  14. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    So basically, barely any probate judges in Alabama are obeying Moore's order. Same sex marriages are continuing in Alabama as if nothing happened. Obergefell is the law of the land, and the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is powerless to do anything about it. Must be a major blow to his ego to have such a prestigious and powerful job and have the vast majority of his subordinates completely disregarding his "order".

    --- Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016 ---
    I'm assuming you feel the same about Loving vs. Virginia?

    In both cases, the federal government did not write any marriage laws, the Supreme Court just decided that certain state marriage laws violated the 14th amendment of the constitution and could no longer be enforced. That just happened to, by default, legalize interracial and same sex marriage in all 50 states. Whoopsie. ;)
     
  15. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #15
    Roy has been removed once already. He was formerly known as "the ten commandments judge." The only thing that will keep him out permanently is if his license to practice law is revoked.

    Meanwhile, it's curious that his son went to court two days prior, on charges of drug trafficking. You have to wonder if old boy is simply trying to get the media focus off his little druggie baby.
     
  16. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #16
    You beat me to it...
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    Since judges in AL are elected, are there provisions to keep people who aren't licensed to practice law off the ballot? Otherwise, what's stopping someone with absolutely zero education in the legal system from getting on the ballot and elected as a judge on the highest court in the state?
     
  18. APlotdevice, Jan 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #18
    And people wonder why Alabama is the butt of so many jokes.
    That "tradition" ended in 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage.
     
  19. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #19
    I doubt there's a specific provision for it, but only because you can't be a judge without being licensed to practice law.
     
  20. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #20
    I'm more convinced this Judge has gone of the loony bin!
     
  21. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #21
    He should have been sent to the loony bin long ago. He's mad as a hatter.
     
  22. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    What, the majority of gays really want to marry into monogamous relationships? Being biologically attracted to people of the same gender, then going by estimated population numbers, combined with numbers of marriage certificates put out, and having dealt with a number of personal ads, the number is remarkably small. Oh, and being an ex-gay myself (I don't pursue those attractions, it's not difficult), a number of the stereotypes weren't created as smear tactics by homophobes. A lot of gay people have said they wanted the marriage law - but not to get married, only to "show the world we are first class citizens". Said by an ex, but he wasn't the only GLBT person to believe that train(wreck) of thought... I wish he acted more like a first class citizen. Of course, he was diagnosed with a sociopathy disorder... he certainly was an abusive narcissist who preferred his bottles of booze and using me as chattel to show all his friends how great he was.

    I'm done with the soapbox laced with bitterness (I'd be here all day) and wanted to ask a couple other questions about your post:

    Is the "O" key on your keyboard malfunctioning? It's "Obama". Granted, I sometimes say "Bush Jr" instead of "Bush 43"...

    And it's funny how the guy he chose for the SCOTUS is otherwise someone the GOP would want and have given praises to in the past. But THIS might be why they are all are playing games. The GOP is only hurting itself more, regardless of how often Obama caters to them. But it'll take the Democrats to help ensure that scenario takes place. Maybe Sanders is a phony or GOP plant, since his list o' conditions that will have him endorsing Hillary is quite the showpiece. A few articles do discuss how the GOP has been backing Bernie, happy reading: http://www.google.com/search?q=gop+helping+sanders
     
  23. WarHeadz, Mar 27, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016

    WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    I do. And I eventually will. But that's not the point....does it really matter? I know many staunch second amendment supporters who don't even own guns.


    You've just contradicted yourself. You just said that being gay is biologically programmed into you, but then called yourself ex-gay. I'm sorry buddy, but you're not ex-gay. You're just in a very deep state of denial. Ignoring what you're biologically attracted to doesn't make you "ex" anything. Have you been celibate since your ill-fated relationship?

    It was certainly a part of it. It's up to each individual whether they want to be married or not. Why are gay people different? Some want to, some don't. Just like with straight people. I have the right to marry who I want, and I'll do it when/if I damn well please. And yes, it was a civil rights lawsuit, it was about not being treated as a second class citizen and having your partnership given no legal status at all while giving other partnerships full recognition. It was a huge victory even for those with no plans to marry.

    Reading your post, I truly feel sorry for you. I hope one day you can learn to be comfortable in your own skin again.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 27, 2016 ---
    Oh and as an update to the OP, the Alabama Supreme Court begrudgingly agreed that they can't do anything to override a Supreme Court ruling. Same sex marriages are legal in Alabama and always will be. Roy Moore is powerless to do anything about it.
     
  24. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #24
    Why do gays have to have monogamous relationships? Heterosexuals don't. And they still get married and no one has ever questioned that. So why do you put additional hurdles on gay people? As for it not being difficult to pursue same sex attractions, there would be no reason to deny yourself who and what you are and deprive yourself of a loving relationship of not for the judgements and scorn of other people. I don't live for other people or other people's values or their religions. I go with who I already am, same as any straight person does. I feel bad for those that live their lives for others and think that living alone without love is somehow a better choice. it's not and I am thankful for my husband every single day.
     
  25. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008

Share This Page