Kudos to Judge Alan L. King for having the courage to do the right thing!
5
Congratulations Alabama. Your leadership is again on the wrong side of history. Lets start with slavery, then Civil Rights, Equal Rights, now Gay Rights. A remarkably unempathetic view of the rights of anyone other than white protestants. And totally counter to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ. At least you are being consistent- consistently wrong and amoral.
11
Alabama not only had to come to grips with its past hatred of blacks, now it faces a new challenge of gays in a rainbow of colors. I wouldn't say that Alabama is backwards, let's just call it an intellectually challenged state. So much hatred in a matter of love, using religion as an excuse. Governor Wallace surely must be smiling from wherever he landed.
7
I was born in Bama & I can state emphatically that this is not Judge Roy Moore's Alabama & that zealot does not speak for me nor any of my close friends. It does not bother me in the least that gays want some type of union, whether it be called marriage or not. Unfortunately, the Christian Right is more prevalent here & I, for one, don't appreciate their tactics nor beliefs. They do not speak for all Alabamians nor Southerners & a lot of us wish those idiot hypocrites would just shut up & go away.
13
“The federal judiciary has no authority under the Constitution to inquire into a state’s reasoning for its public policy positions on marriage any more than the federal judiciary could question Alabamians’ selection of a state bird,” Judge Enslen
------------------
It's a sad state of affairs when judges don't even know how our legal system works. -- I look forward to the bigoted Justice Moore being removed from office and disbarred.
------------------
It's a sad state of affairs when judges don't even know how our legal system works. -- I look forward to the bigoted Justice Moore being removed from office and disbarred.
13
The federal judge should haul every single one of the defiant state officials, especially including the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, before him, cite them for contempt of court and sentence them to jail for the rest of the week.
On Monday morning, they can be released to go back to work, after the federal judge warns them that, if they come before him a next time, they better bring some changes of underwear and a couple of really long books.
On Monday morning, they can be released to go back to work, after the federal judge warns them that, if they come before him a next time, they better bring some changes of underwear and a couple of really long books.
12
gay and lesbian is not the same as the struggles to be free for Black people, stop with the nonsensical comparisons. just one more thing that just pushing Black people further to the bottom of the well.
1
BTW many gays and lesbians are people of color. Therefore black people are not being put at the bottom of the well. Furthermore like ones skin color, gays and lesbians are BORN this way. Got it?
13
"Judge James Hall of probate court explained to Beth Ridley and Rose Roysden that he would not issue a license, saying, 'I’m caught up in the middle of this.' "
Wow, Judge Hall makes it sound like he was struggling with this decision even a little. He's been very vocal about how he intended not to issue ANY marriage licenses because of his religious beliefs. “My faith prohibits me from performing same-sex marriages,” the judge said. “The law prohibits me from picking and choosing who I will and won’t marry. So I decided not to perform any ceremonies. This is my way of honoring God and honoring the law.”
It doesn't matter what the law says, no matter how he phrases it. He's had no intention of honoring the law from the beginning because it conflicts with his personal beliefs. Why do these judges still have their seats?
Second quote taken from Times Daily article: http://www.timesdaily.com/news/local/local-judges-won-t-marry-gay-couple...
Wow, Judge Hall makes it sound like he was struggling with this decision even a little. He's been very vocal about how he intended not to issue ANY marriage licenses because of his religious beliefs. “My faith prohibits me from performing same-sex marriages,” the judge said. “The law prohibits me from picking and choosing who I will and won’t marry. So I decided not to perform any ceremonies. This is my way of honoring God and honoring the law.”
It doesn't matter what the law says, no matter how he phrases it. He's had no intention of honoring the law from the beginning because it conflicts with his personal beliefs. Why do these judges still have their seats?
Second quote taken from Times Daily article: http://www.timesdaily.com/news/local/local-judges-won-t-marry-gay-couple...
7
Why don't I think gay marriage is a big deal to any of us that are not attempting to marry a gay person?
It is of no interest when you look at the world except to be happy that others are happy. What is the problem with others that are against it?
Against happiness? But, it still does not interest me as news news.
It is of no interest when you look at the world except to be happy that others are happy. What is the problem with others that are against it?
Against happiness? But, it still does not interest me as news news.
The young boy and girl on the lines with what I presume are his/her parents should be commended by their peers. Those who will choose to abuse them in the name of religion should be ashamed of their bullying and bigotry. The word religion comes from the Latin word for connection. Any abuse in the name if religion is disconnection from true religion.
6
Good at football, bad at civil rights. I wish I were young, athletic, and recruited by the University of Alabama so I could tell them where to go as I considered their legacy of bigotry and reluctance to accept progress.
8
I'm looking forward to a time when no Bible can be used to counteract scientific data, and moral and ethical principals that represent respect for the dignity of every person. There is nothing harmful about gay marriage, nothing it does to undermine community--unless that community is geared to prejudice against things new and people who express different points of view than whatever the norm may be. As we know, the norm doesn't always mean something wonderful.
We don't tend to talk about the Bible being written by humans, Jesus's principles having had little to do with the workings and gospel of Paul. This may be for another discussion, but as a secular Jew, I am weary of the Bible--almost always the New Testament no less--being used against progress, against working to stop global warming (no time off from preparing for Armaggedon) and more injustices among us.
Meanwhile, congratulations to the judges and justices who are marrying people so happy to be sharing their lives. And a toast to those of you who are allowed to consummate your love, finally, through marriage.
We don't tend to talk about the Bible being written by humans, Jesus's principles having had little to do with the workings and gospel of Paul. This may be for another discussion, but as a secular Jew, I am weary of the Bible--almost always the New Testament no less--being used against progress, against working to stop global warming (no time off from preparing for Armaggedon) and more injustices among us.
Meanwhile, congratulations to the judges and justices who are marrying people so happy to be sharing their lives. And a toast to those of you who are allowed to consummate your love, finally, through marriage.
13
Sorry but you are wrong, the Jewish Biblical Law as well as Christianity is against same-sex unions.
Same sex relationships break down the moral fabric of a society, this issue has nothing to do with love and everything to do with a licence to "do as one wants"
Same sex relationships are hardly ever monogamous, it is a multiple partner lifestyle. The Judge who blocked this should be nominated to the Supreme Curt, also please note that religious Jews are against same sex marriage but are just not vocal about it.
Same sex relationships break down the moral fabric of a society, this issue has nothing to do with love and everything to do with a licence to "do as one wants"
Same sex relationships are hardly ever monogamous, it is a multiple partner lifestyle. The Judge who blocked this should be nominated to the Supreme Curt, also please note that religious Jews are against same sex marriage but are just not vocal about it.
2
Amen, brother!
To Carol: The bible is the only thing that is keeping this world from falling into total oblivion. But apparently you really know nothing about the bible or who Jesus is. Thus your meaningless rhetoric.
To Carol: The bible is the only thing that is keeping this world from falling into total oblivion. But apparently you really know nothing about the bible or who Jesus is. Thus your meaningless rhetoric.
1
So, do you have sources to back up your claims, or did you just make that stuff up?
I know homosexual couples that have been together longer than I have been alive; and I know heterosexual couples that are splitsville inside of six months.
And just for the record, it is of no consequence the biblical laws of any sect in a secular country. Don't like it... move to a theocracy, I will not let you turn the US into Christian Iran
I know homosexual couples that have been together longer than I have been alive; and I know heterosexual couples that are splitsville inside of six months.
And just for the record, it is of no consequence the biblical laws of any sect in a secular country. Don't like it... move to a theocracy, I will not let you turn the US into Christian Iran
9
"Although Chief Justice Moore's Alabama is a different state from the one George Wallace led . . . " Obviously, not much has changed at all. Pseudo-Christian white men are still in charge.
8
George Wallace in his later years sought redemption, and in my mind received it.
2
Do Politicians actually care about gay marriages or is their real concern that single people pay more in tax than married couples? Money is always the name of their game and nothing else! We are and will forever be the United States of Amnesia.
1
We don't allow voters to determine the civil rights of others because we know how that works out for minorities. States rights are irrelevant when it comes to civil rights regardless of how those in disagreement feel. Religious doctrine is for personal use only and is not applicable to governance and the rights of others. Ironic how much conservatives fret about the rate of marriage in this country but still want to deny it to those they deem unworthy of it. Their intellectual dishonesty is a monument to hypocrisy.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
14
"The court looks the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo...." A veritable din of irony coming from no less than Clarence Thomas. How quickly some forget. I'm assuming he failed high school history. When all the homophobes volunteer to give up all the materialistic, secular advantages their special rights marriages and confine marriage to their untaxed churches, then we can talk about their biblical objections to treating all American couples equally, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Ah, Mississippi where I grew up, and Alabama, in a tight race to the bottom....
13
All o' y'all are getting holy matrimony mixed up with a courthouse wedding. Go to the courthouse and what you get is an acknowledgment that you and one other person can, for instance, send your tax return as "married filing jointly," which we know has its advantages; you and this person will be acknowledged as legally "next of kin" for emergency medical purposes; you and this person, I assume but am not sure without further research, should be able to own a home as "joint tenants by the entirety." These two persons can carry each other on their medical insurance, etc. The term "marriage" is a convenient shorthand for social benefits extended to persons who elect to share life responsibilities with one another.
Holy Matrimony, however, is between a woman and a man--no government and no phony feel-good church will change that.
Holy Matrimony, however, is between a woman and a man--no government and no phony feel-good church will change that.
Aren't all churches phony feel-good?
7
I knew you would say that.
Let's try a deeper insight here...LGBT crave what all groups crave in America a sense of normalcy and inclusion into the mainstream. Marriage civil or religious grants that last vestige of being in the mainstream. In most societies whether they are liberal or ultra conservative gays have been viewed on the fringes with polite indifference to outright hostility. Even though my views on same sex marriage are out of step with my fellow progressives, I do agree that gays should have equal protection under the law in all facets of life. This forum has shown the whole range of opinion on this issue. Just be glad we can air our differences with out reaching for each other throats. Better to dissent in public and know where a person stands on this hot button issue.
1
Think there's chaos now? Imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court suddenly reversed course, after having knowingly let marriages proceed in all of these jurisdictions when it plainly had the authority to stop them until a final decision was reached, and announced in June that states were free again to ban same sex marriages. States like Alabama would rush to unmarry couples who wed in the meantime, with disasterous results for families. Years of litigation would ensue about the status of these marriages. It is just not conceivable to me that the court could proceed in this manner.
7
As I see it, in the area of marriage, a state, while maybe setting a different standard for marriage than other states, must recognize the marriages of other states. This is the way it has always been done. And for a very good reason. As a nation, we have recognized that if a couple traveled from one state to another, the new state couldn't unmarry the couple. For example, my state once had a very young age requirement (14, I think). Couples married in SC could travel anywhere in the US without fear, that no matter how much in variance with the new state's law, the couple's marriage would still be recognized.
At the very least, I would think the Supreme Court should insist that states do what states have always done and recognize each others marriages. If that's the case, I don't think gays will find it too difficult to go to another state to get married.
At the very least, I would think the Supreme Court should insist that states do what states have always done and recognize each others marriages. If that's the case, I don't think gays will find it too difficult to go to another state to get married.
1
The judges in question are elected; some of them pander to their "conservative" base. This part of Dixie has a record that is unenviable what with its embarrassingly stupidity and unfairness to those who are disadvantaged.
So the current brouhaha comes as no surprise, albeit the predictable contempt that it will illicit from a common American. We do not condemn such ignorance, we simply finding it to be appalling.
So the current brouhaha comes as no surprise, albeit the predictable contempt that it will illicit from a common American. We do not condemn such ignorance, we simply finding it to be appalling.
2
As usual, Alabama will be in an upheaval, with urban population centers going ahead with same-sex marriage and rural areas not. Your rights are recognized, but only around the checkerboard map. Equal rights and the like will just take a bit longer. The good news, however, is that the job centers would be in agreement as already is the IRS--for income and estate tax purposes.
Must Alabama always be one o0f the last states to get the message?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Must Alabama always be one o0f the last states to get the message?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
How can you look at the joy in these pictures and not support same-sex marriage?
11
At least, consider this: this Sunday, there will be much shouting and condemenation coming from most of the Baptist pulpits in Alabama.
3
Remarkable how quickly the NYT devolved the issue of gay marriage by attempting to equate it to desegregation in the 1960's.
That is an opinion, not news. Sad that a moral issue that the people have spoken on by voting no on gay marriage are essentially being called racists by the NYT.
Many people of faith, including this writer believe in the traditional definition of marriage: the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and that to claim otherwise is offensive.
Hence the purpose of a civil union, all the same legal commitments as marriage. Have a civil union with your gay partner, you pet parakeet, your houseplant. Then celebrate the civil union however you choose.
Just don't offend the rest of us by calling it marriage, it's not.
And that's what the people of Alabama are saying and that is the right of their state. To claim otherwise subjects states to mob rule and the tyranny of federal government.
That is an opinion, not news. Sad that a moral issue that the people have spoken on by voting no on gay marriage are essentially being called racists by the NYT.
Many people of faith, including this writer believe in the traditional definition of marriage: the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and that to claim otherwise is offensive.
Hence the purpose of a civil union, all the same legal commitments as marriage. Have a civil union with your gay partner, you pet parakeet, your houseplant. Then celebrate the civil union however you choose.
Just don't offend the rest of us by calling it marriage, it's not.
And that's what the people of Alabama are saying and that is the right of their state. To claim otherwise subjects states to mob rule and the tyranny of federal government.
2
It's not up to you to decide what marriage is or is not. Who made you God? Who made you spokesman for millions of Americans? It is not asked for or wanted. You go take care of your business and others will mind their own. All the doom and gloom predictions about same sex marriage has come to naught. The only harm done it seems is that your feelings are hurt, and that you, it seems cannot get over it. With great humility I offer this simple prayer as we ALL try to manage challenges in our lives.
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Reinhold Niebuhr 1892-1971
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Reinhold Niebuhr 1892-1971
8
What if you don't believe in the traditonal definition of marriage? Why is your definition the "valid" one?
6
Gay people can procreate. And they can adopt. They can be parents. They are parents, There are children who are being raised by gay people and gay couples. Conversely, many straight people marry with no intention (or ability) to procreate. You are powerless to stop that and are simply choosing to disregard the reality under which millions of people live in this country. Instead of your way, I would suggest that you come up with a new word for the union of a man and a woman solely for the purpose of procreating. Because marriage is not that and hasn't been that for decades. How about "catholicmarriage"?
13
What can be expected from people that are still fighting the war between the states.
14
Wow. It seems that laws fortified by meanings of scripture is slowly but surely going by the wayside. USA will be the grandest country when its last shackle to scripture is busted. Madalyn O'Hair would be proud. Good on Alabama. I hope it remains calm.
7
The probate judges who ignored their own Supreme Court and the vote of "we, the people" will find themselves out of a job as soon as the state legislature comes back into session.
Further, the federal judiciary's behavior in all this will lead to a weakening of the judiciary. It's sad when one Supreme Court judge - Kennedy - puts his personal opinion ahead of the Constitution.
The federal government has no business in this issue.
Further, the federal judiciary's behavior in all this will lead to a weakening of the judiciary. It's sad when one Supreme Court judge - Kennedy - puts his personal opinion ahead of the Constitution.
The federal government has no business in this issue.
2
The American Taliban has no business insinuating themselves into the private lives of American citizens. It's none of their business. Why can't they mind their own business? The call for small government and personal freedom from these hypocrites is astounding.
9
Precisely, the government, particularly the FEDERAL government, has NO BUSINESS determining "marriage." Not in the Constitution and no "civil rights" involved.
The result of Kennedy's PERSONAL opinion WILL be a weakening of "the rule of law." SHAME ON HIM.
The result of Kennedy's PERSONAL opinion WILL be a weakening of "the rule of law." SHAME ON HIM.
1
So when during the ratification of the 14th Amendment was same-sex marriage debated as a consequence of its implementation???? The higher court rulings mandating same-sex marriage are laughable, illegal and unconstitutional.
Each official refusing to implement the same-sex marriage mandate is a "Rosa Parks" of our day, except what each is doing is so much more noble and profound.
Each official refusing to implement the same-sex marriage mandate is a "Rosa Parks" of our day, except what each is doing is so much more noble and profound.
4
Once again religious mythology being used to discriminate against fellow human beings. Roy Moore has a long history of placing his religious mythology ahead of the law. Hopefully humanity will reach a point of enlightenment when religious zealots will no longer try to inflict their dogma on others before we go extinct. Live and let live.
16
They might be signaling that it doesn't matter because Congress is going to have to void all same-sex marriages in every state when it gets around to it, so why not let people in Alabama experience a few months of same-sex marriage.
Congress will enact a Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act that prescribes the effect of marriage in the USA as approving and allowing the couple to procreate together, and prohibit creating a person except by joining a sperm of a man and an egg of a woman. It would rule out transgender and same-sex reproduction using stem cells and void all same-sex marriages.
Congress will enact a Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act that prescribes the effect of marriage in the USA as approving and allowing the couple to procreate together, and prohibit creating a person except by joining a sperm of a man and an egg of a woman. It would rule out transgender and same-sex reproduction using stem cells and void all same-sex marriages.
John Howard, I sincerely hope that your prediction never comes true. For Congress to even attempt to un-marry thousands of legally married couples across the country would be a massive attack on their civil rights!
The bottom line here, which you appear to be missing, is that same-sex marriage hurts no one and benefits our country in that it ensures safety and stability for these thousands of families.
The bottom line here, which you appear to be missing, is that same-sex marriage hurts no one and benefits our country in that it ensures safety and stability for these thousands of families.
7
In order to amend the constitution the amendment must be passed by a supermajority (2/3rds) of both houses of congress OR by a supermajority vote of a national convention called by congress at the request of at least 34 tsates. That will bring it up for a vote. The voting process requires passages by 38 state legislatures.
What you propose will never happen because it will never even get out of the federal congress with a supermajority of both houses. There are 100 senators and 435 members of the house. The senate has 54 republicans and 44 democrats with 2 independents. The house has 234 republicans and 201 democrats. In order to pass both houses separately, your proposed amendment would require at least every republican senator as well as 13 democrats or independents in the senate, and every republican member of the house plus at least 57 democrats. Or 359 total congressmen of a joint session.
They don't have the votes, sir.
What you propose will never happen because it will never even get out of the federal congress with a supermajority of both houses. There are 100 senators and 435 members of the house. The senate has 54 republicans and 44 democrats with 2 independents. The house has 234 republicans and 201 democrats. In order to pass both houses separately, your proposed amendment would require at least every republican senator as well as 13 democrats or independents in the senate, and every republican member of the house plus at least 57 democrats. Or 359 total congressmen of a joint session.
They don't have the votes, sir.
7
I wish they would just amend the law to call it "Civil Union" for all couples (regardless of sexual preference) and all laws that currently have "marriage" in the wording be reworded to "Civil Union" In doing this, you put the government in a neutral position. All "Civil Unions" would not require a ceremony, only the notarized form and then the couples has all the rights provided by law for couples including (but not limited to) taxes, insurance, healthcare decisions, adoptions, divorce, alimony.... etc
3
That idea has been bandied about for some time now, never gaining traction, because it never really was about the word "marriage", but about not ever being considered equal to inferior humans you loathe. That's precisely how this issue is no different from discrimination based on anything else, including gender and race, and why so many other minorities so adamantly object to that comparison. It's apparently not in our nature to be equALL.
4
So you're fine with "separate but equal"?
I've long held that people have the absolute right to be absolutely miserable with whomever they choose.
It's an interesting irony that those trapped in traditional misery so vehemently want to deny this misery to same-sex couples.
So if you're heterosexual, it's easy to marry but hard to divorce, because God. If you're homosexual, is not easy to marry but very easy to 'divorce', again because God.
So we have an entire moral construct based on deity that neither believers nor non-believers can prove nor disprove the existence of, but that a single, narrowly focused judge holds as truth. A judge, holding doctrine that cannot be proven or disproven, as truth, and his compass, while administering justice, whose prime function is to seek truth.
We all deserve the leaders we elect, I suppose.
It's an interesting irony that those trapped in traditional misery so vehemently want to deny this misery to same-sex couples.
So if you're heterosexual, it's easy to marry but hard to divorce, because God. If you're homosexual, is not easy to marry but very easy to 'divorce', again because God.
So we have an entire moral construct based on deity that neither believers nor non-believers can prove nor disprove the existence of, but that a single, narrowly focused judge holds as truth. A judge, holding doctrine that cannot be proven or disproven, as truth, and his compass, while administering justice, whose prime function is to seek truth.
We all deserve the leaders we elect, I suppose.
5
This is not really a "gay" issue. It's about equal rights under the law. It's about getting the same benefits from marriage that are granted by the Federal government, State government, and society. It has nothing to do with religion or God. It's about the legal institution of marriage.
Take away the advantages our government and society allows married couples, such as taxes, visiting rights, inheritance etc., and it's no longer an issue for the Courts.
Take away the advantages our government and society allows married couples, such as taxes, visiting rights, inheritance etc., and it's no longer an issue for the Courts.
12
Gay marriage being legal today is the effect of a ripple started decades ago by people who desired equal standing with heterosexual couples, its been a very long time coming. Like desegregation, the law will create immediate changes, however conversion of the heart will take much longer - it comes as a result when normalizing any discriminatory structure. Peoples resistance to Gay Marriage is not about love, its about sex. All the language and reasons points to what is going on in the privacy of people's bedrooms or whatever room. That's why there are still active sodomy laws on the books and language like "heinous acts and unnatural behavior," are used to describe what is in all other ways a loving relationship. Love is gender blind. Love is blind to color, class, age and other human made structures and sex is a happy coincidence in the arrangement. Blessings and best wishes to all the couples in Alabama who can now marry and be covered with the blanket of legal protection. Over time and looking back people will wonder, "What was the big deal?"
9
“The federal judiciary has no authority under the Constitution to inquire into a state’s reasoning for its public policy positions on marriage any more than the federal judiciary could question Alabamians’ selection of a state bird,” Judge Enslen said in an email.
How can a judge, schooled in the law, make a statement such as this? Did the Court not have the right under the Constitution to inquire into a state's reasoning for its public policy on marriage regarding anti-mescegenation laws in the 1960s? And when did we get to the point that the Tenth Amendment, written after the Constitution was ratified, trump the Constitution? The Bill of Rights is an amendment to the Constitution, not a replacement for the Constitution!
How can a judge, schooled in the law, make a statement such as this? Did the Court not have the right under the Constitution to inquire into a state's reasoning for its public policy on marriage regarding anti-mescegenation laws in the 1960s? And when did we get to the point that the Tenth Amendment, written after the Constitution was ratified, trump the Constitution? The Bill of Rights is an amendment to the Constitution, not a replacement for the Constitution!
7
A ratified Amendment becomes an integral part of the Constitution. One need only direct attention to the 14th Amendment when countering the 10th Amendment pronouncements. Nice call on the anti-mescegenation laws, which, btw, were ruled unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment's virtues.
Judge Enslen, playing disingenuous word games is twisting words inside-out to seem correct while making a wholly invalid and illogical argument. No, The Constitution of The US doesn't grant the federal judiciary authority to "inquire into a state's REASONING." The Constitution does, however, grant the federal judiciary the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of a state's ACTIONS. The federal judiciary, in deliberations, could careless on the 'reason' the state passed the law, their focus is on the constitutionality of the law itself.
Judge Enslen, playing disingenuous word games is twisting words inside-out to seem correct while making a wholly invalid and illogical argument. No, The Constitution of The US doesn't grant the federal judiciary authority to "inquire into a state's REASONING." The Constitution does, however, grant the federal judiciary the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of a state's ACTIONS. The federal judiciary, in deliberations, could careless on the 'reason' the state passed the law, their focus is on the constitutionality of the law itself.
1
Judge Allen King, halaluuuuuya! Your humanness and legal mind are a good combination that reflects your wisdom and is able to show the shadows of the past that cast doubt on Judge Moore's stuberness and inability to understand federal law. The red clay of Alabama will not change, similar to Judge Moore.
I grew up in Montgomery, not too much has changed.
I grew up in Montgomery, not too much has changed.
9
There are countless wedding halls in Alabama. Love, Inc., a wedding magazine, found five halls that confirmed that LBGT couples were welcome.
6
Dear people of Alabama who have finally found their love, we are all with you today. Do not worry about temporary hurdles, you have our support and blessing, which is the most important. Close-minded stances do not live forever, positive changes are at the doorstep.
8
Once again Alabama distinguishes itself in its inability or unwillingness to grant basic human rights to all of its citizens... the Civil War is over, the South lost. Get over it. Repression of civil and human rights has characterized the State and, sadly, continues to be its hallmark. In what way exactly does the issuance of an administrative document - a marriage license - threaten or affect anyone? Simple: It doesn't.
19
Well said. Way to keep that George Wallace thing alive Roy Moore. I cannot call him anthing like Judge, anything term dealing with justice. There are real problems in this world, what is wrong with this person, Moore? One more reason why we need to evaluate why we keep some people in a position to make decisions about people's lives, when clearly they have a personal agenda, not an interest in justice.
6
The entire nation "lost" the War between the States.
There is no need Federal Judges to force "Same Gender Marriages"
upon the States. The States were working it out one by one and that is
how the Founders and the Constitution envisioned change.
There is no need Federal Judges to force "Same Gender Marriages"
upon the States. The States were working it out one by one and that is
how the Founders and the Constitution envisioned change.
The South didn't lose. It just ran out of ammunition. It's not over yet.
To any couple in Alabama whose roadblocks to marriage were finally removed:
CONGRATULATIONS!
Finally!
CONGRATULATIONS!
Finally!
17
Welcome to "WE THE PEOPLE" Alabama. Almost there.
9
A bit of an awkward situation.
The Federal Courts back up other Federal Courts.
Meanwhile State Justices/Courts assert their Constitutionally guaranteed
rights under the 10th Amendment and the common agreement of the
States that created the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES of
America, not the Federation of America.
Please show me in the Constitution where it says Federal Courts have the
right to make law versus interpret the laws and while you are at it show
me where the 10th Amendment no longer applies to the rights of States
to make their own laws that are not in direct contradiction to the Federal
Constitution.
There is not a word in the Federal Constitution about Marriage.
Very disingenuous to say "Same Gender" Marriage is now legal in 37 states
when not all the people of those 37 states voted for it.
If you want a Dictatorship by the Federal Courts you are well on you way
to having one.
Why this issue could not be resolved by the people of each State is
baffling to me.
The Federal Courts back up other Federal Courts.
Meanwhile State Justices/Courts assert their Constitutionally guaranteed
rights under the 10th Amendment and the common agreement of the
States that created the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES of
America, not the Federation of America.
Please show me in the Constitution where it says Federal Courts have the
right to make law versus interpret the laws and while you are at it show
me where the 10th Amendment no longer applies to the rights of States
to make their own laws that are not in direct contradiction to the Federal
Constitution.
There is not a word in the Federal Constitution about Marriage.
Very disingenuous to say "Same Gender" Marriage is now legal in 37 states
when not all the people of those 37 states voted for it.
If you want a Dictatorship by the Federal Courts you are well on you way
to having one.
Why this issue could not be resolved by the people of each State is
baffling to me.
1
There's nothing baffling about it. Voters shouldn't have the power to prevent others from exercising their rights.
18
Skanik, read the equal protection clause in the Constitution. It guarantees equal protection for all citizens and is the reason this issue cannot simply "be resolved by the people of each state". Americans' civil rights are not up for a vote; they are inalienable. Wonderful to see happy couples celebrating their hard won equality
22
We fought a war to settle that we are a Union, not a confederation, and that citizens are entitled to equal protection in all states.
18
All the uproar over 2 percent of the population?
What they are seeking is validation of their lifestyle, which of course will never happen. It's not marriage, something else. I think we will stick with 2000 years of human history and morality. Not changing that to help a few folks feel like they are normal.
What they are seeking is validation of their lifestyle, which of course will never happen. It's not marriage, something else. I think we will stick with 2000 years of human history and morality. Not changing that to help a few folks feel like they are normal.
6
Correction: 6.8 percent of the population.
12
Yes I heard similar arguments advanced in the 50's/60's about the status of 10% of the population. The same under counting used to happen too.
14
No marches, no fire hoses, no police dogs, no bombings.
One nasty little man standing in the schoolhouse door again, but this time, history passes him by as gently and as irreversibly as smoke.
Witness change in our time. What a privilege it is to see.
One nasty little man standing in the schoolhouse door again, but this time, history passes him by as gently and as irreversibly as smoke.
Witness change in our time. What a privilege it is to see.
35
Cite Judge Roy Moore for contempt and arrest him ASAP.
21
Folks,
What is happening in Alabama is much more than a fight for gay rights.
It is the fight for the soul and future of our nation.
All of us need to remember that there is no storage of Justice Moore types in the deep south and much of rural America.
People like Justice Moore is what we need to target, because the ignorance of people like Justice Moore not only want to turn back the clock, but want us to turn us into a third world nation that has no respect equal justice under the law and no vision for a brighter future.
Remember this the next time someone says "don't worry, we are still one nation, strong as before" - because it is clear we are neither "one" nation nor "strong" so long as good people continue to sit on their hands by refusing to get informed, refusing to organize and refusing to vote types like Justice Moore will never stand a chance of being relegated to the trash heaps of history.
What is happening in Alabama is much more than a fight for gay rights.
It is the fight for the soul and future of our nation.
All of us need to remember that there is no storage of Justice Moore types in the deep south and much of rural America.
People like Justice Moore is what we need to target, because the ignorance of people like Justice Moore not only want to turn back the clock, but want us to turn us into a third world nation that has no respect equal justice under the law and no vision for a brighter future.
Remember this the next time someone says "don't worry, we are still one nation, strong as before" - because it is clear we are neither "one" nation nor "strong" so long as good people continue to sit on their hands by refusing to get informed, refusing to organize and refusing to vote types like Justice Moore will never stand a chance of being relegated to the trash heaps of history.
10
It does seem that Judge Moore dozed off in his constitutional law class when the Supremacy Clause was discussed.
26
Apparently, Mr. Moore needs to re-read Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, as it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
After that, Moore should re-read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), perhaps the most important opinion in Supreme Court history.
This landmark decision secured the Court’s power of judicial review; that is, its ability to uphold -- or deny -- the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions, and established the judiciary as an independent, co-equal branch of the federal government.
Then he should be disbarred.
After that, Moore should re-read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), perhaps the most important opinion in Supreme Court history.
This landmark decision secured the Court’s power of judicial review; that is, its ability to uphold -- or deny -- the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions, and established the judiciary as an independent, co-equal branch of the federal government.
Then he should be disbarred.
31
Well stated...when due process and equal protection of the law is denied anywhere to anyone in any State of the USA...thank God for Federal Courts & the US Supreme Court...
10
Self anointed messiah Chief Justice Roy Moore has made himself even more irrelevant today. He too will go into history as one more bigoted loser in Alabama history. It is a new dawn for Alabama. Five years from now almost every probate judge will be yawning over this.
20
I lived in Alabama for many years and I think this is going to be good for them even if they don't see it. Alabama is the kind of place where modernity has to be forced upon to take hold but, once it does, it helps the society evolve and improve. This just another crank on the wheel. They're going to get there kicking and screaming but they'll get there.
9
If a federal judge, interpreting the Constitution, is considered "activist" then hooray for judges doing their mandated jobs. When these federal rulings go against the mood of a specific location, the reaction is always the same. Fact is that the law is the law and everyone knows it. The federal system gives tremendous latitude to individual states and localities to establish their own laws BUT Alabama, like the other 49 states, is NOT an independent republic. Moreover, the so-called "will of the people" is not the issue at all. The majority of Alabamans were in favor of maintaining segregation during the Wallace era. Their "will" was DENIED by the overriding principles of the US Constitution (which was in many cases written to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the tyranny of the majority). Such is the case here. They are behind the times but their bigotry will not resist the rule of law. It IS a pity that Alabama seems always at the tail end of anything and everything that's for liberty and equality. WHEN will they let their hatreds go?
22
Little does Judge Moore realize that he has hammered another nail in the coffin of resistance to same-sex marriage. By creating chaos in Alabama he is also creating pressure on the Supreme Court to put this nonsense to rest. One can't have inequality festering throughout Alabama, and the point is driven home that the American people cannot have inequality festering throughout the nation.
I think judge Moore knows this, and as many commentators have noted, his grandstanding is selfish, egotistical and ultimately opportunistic. He is appealing to the lowest bigots in the state. Does he have ambitions for higher office? He was removed once before for violating Federal Law. His stunt might fly better in Texas where there is some mythology of separation from the United States, but that is not going to happen in Alabama.
Judge Moore should be forced to resign. He is a disgrace not only to Alabama, but to the nation.
I think judge Moore knows this, and as many commentators have noted, his grandstanding is selfish, egotistical and ultimately opportunistic. He is appealing to the lowest bigots in the state. Does he have ambitions for higher office? He was removed once before for violating Federal Law. His stunt might fly better in Texas where there is some mythology of separation from the United States, but that is not going to happen in Alabama.
Judge Moore should be forced to resign. He is a disgrace not only to Alabama, but to the nation.
35
"It was unclear how many of the judges were acting out of overt defiance"
Perhaps it is the Federal Supreme Court that is acting out of defiance of State's Rights and the Constitution.
Perhaps it is the Federal Supreme Court that is acting out of defiance of State's Rights and the Constitution.
1
There are no states' rights if they don't pass constitutional muster.
23
Warrantone wrote,
"Perhaps it is the Federal Supreme Court that is acting out of defiance of State's Rights and the Constitution."
Nope.
"Perhaps it is the Federal Supreme Court that is acting out of defiance of State's Rights and the Constitution."
Nope.
16
U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade could use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(e) to find Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in contempt of issuing an order contradicting hers.
19
As a veteran, I have some words for judges that are refusing to comply with the rulings! This is the United States of America not the Confederacy and Federal Law trumps state laws and especially the denial of human / civil rights. My words to the judges would be: CONTEMPT OF COURT & step down!
43
My husband & I, both USN (Ret.) thank you for your service and your words. BZ.
2
If Roy Moore wants to resign as a matter of principle, so be it but he cannot choose which laws he will enforce and which he won't. If he refuses, impeach him.
34
Always heartwarming when the Confederacy gets tugged a little further into the 21st. century. Granted, like a child, they must be led screaming and kicking, but like Most children they learn to cope with reality Hopefully they will adapt within the next 20 years or so.
Congrats to the gay community !
Congrats to the gay community !
29
Poor states like Alabama that protest the federal government so vehemently could not survive without it.
44
I find this to be utter nonsense that is going on in Alabama with the latest court ruling. The homophobes lost the battle on stopping same-sex marriage, and they need to stop acting like they can just deny it. If the probate judges choose not to marry homosexual couples they can either just blindly accept while still despising it or just resign and allow someone else to marry them. They are being paid to marry couples by the state and they can't just decline to do so just because they personally feel that it's wrong. Last time I checked, the states do NOT have the power override federal laws especially when it comes to court rulings. Although it's true that 10th amendment of the US Constitution does allow for states to have their own set of laws and even a constitution of their own, it doesn't allow them to have certain powers that are denied to them by Section 10 of Article I that reads of powers that are denied to states. On a side note, the 1943 US Supreme Court ruling of WV Board of Ed v Barnett ruled that states can't pass laws that violates the right of one's US constitutional rights be it flag salute or anything else. Then again, this resistance by Justice Roy Moore is no different from those who were doing the same thing after Brown v Board Ed back in 1954 ruled that segregation was no longer legal in anything serving the public and many schools and colleges in the South refused to integrate hence history has repeated itself with same-sex marriage.
18
Political demagoguery is almost always self serving and arrogant. Alabama has been the setting for states rights showdowns in the past, when an opportunistic politician tried to steal the show, despite knowing full well he stood on the wrong side of history. In the end, the main judicial performance was by the constitution, the rule of law prevailed, and it helped further along a more just, fair state and nation. After today's reports from Alabama and SCOTUS, there's little doubt in my mind that marriage equality is just around the corner for the United States. And I'm so proud my home state is playing a major role in helping usher that along more quickly.
14
Truly. Was it Mark Twain who said, "Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel"?
A state of hate, against blacks as illustrated by the movie Selma, and against gays as illustrated by the irrepressible man the state made its Chief Justice. Quite a record, and this from a state that committed treason by going to war against the United States of America. Does any wise person have any doubt that the fools and fanatics there have found a true home?
21
There is no doubt about Alabama's sorry history. But there are more than enough of us who keep a close eye on their shananagins and are ready to jump in our cars to stomp out the wickedness.
3
Is this really a States Rights issue at all? We had a patchwork of State laws back in the 50s and 60s that had some States outlawing interracial marriage and others permitting it. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that the Racial Integrity Act of 1942 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court indeed is supposed to ensure that all State laws are Constitutional. States can pass any laws they want as long as they don't violate the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Since "all men" are created equal then they need to be treated equally under the law. States like Alabama can thump the Bible all they want - but this is not a country run by religious law, but Civil law. What gives "Christians" the right to impose their Biblical interpretations on the Civil rights of Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, etc. If Christians don't want to recognize same sex marriage - fine. Don't perform those ceremonies in your churches. The Bible does not dictate our Constitutional Rights any more than the Bill of Rights can dictate Church dogma.
30
So I'm wondering if in fact the main basis is Federal Law always trumps State Law, how is it that marijuana is "ok" in CO and WA, as that clearly violates Federal Law. Why is it ok to then do that in CO and WA, but not in AL?
Because marijuana use is not a civil right that is unequally applied to residents of CO or WA. If, say, men were allowed to smoke pot in Colorado but not women, then it might well be a civil rights issue under the equal protection clause. But that's not what is happening.
Also, federal law would apply in the case of those states' marijuana statutes, but so far the federal government has judiciously, and in my view wisely, decided not to exert its federal authority. This could change depending on how things go.
Also, federal law would apply in the case of those states' marijuana statutes, but so far the federal government has judiciously, and in my view wisely, decided not to exert its federal authority. This could change depending on how things go.
17
My point is that on one hand you have a State judge refusing to carry out a Federal order, which is clearly wrong because the Feds legally top the States (even though the voters side with State law). But in WA and CO, you have those on the pro-marijuana side saying States top the Feds (again, by voter choice). Can't have it both ways; there are people in CO and WA who are livid that Federal law is not taking precedence. That is, you can't arbitrarily decide which State laws the Federal Laws supercede. The only argument I see is a Constitutional one, which I think is clearly valid in the AL case, but where does it say anywhere that we or any circuit or district or supreme court gets to only selectively choose which laws to enforce? Only if it's a constitutional one or violates the Bill or Rights?
Well, there will be a Divine reposte to all this, and it will not be pretty. The West has become hedonistic and pornographic. 911 was a warning, there have been many verbal/written warnings from myriad sources, and it is all falling on deaf ears. Now the Supremes will impose a new definition of "marriage" on us and the persecution of those who do not agree will begin in earnest.
2
Right, because the people against gay marriage are the ones being persecuted... Now all those poor, persecuted heterosexuals will have to become gay in order to conform to the newly imposed definition of "marriage."
18
"Now the Supremes will impose a new definition of "marriage"
I think you're the one with the new view on marriage. You think it's only for a man and a woman. Yet if you read your bible on occasion, you'll discover your god was fine with one man marrying many women.
By your strange logic, it all started going downhill for the U.S. when laws outlawed polygamy.
I think you're the one with the new view on marriage. You think it's only for a man and a woman. Yet if you read your bible on occasion, you'll discover your god was fine with one man marrying many women.
By your strange logic, it all started going downhill for the U.S. when laws outlawed polygamy.
13
We won't have to become gay. We'll be forced to "participate" in gay ceremonies in various ways. Those who force believers to participate in gay ceremonies are courting disaster(s) in the West of Biblical proportions, because God protects His believers. He also instructs the wayward, but that has involved things like being "exiled" or "invaded" or "losing the fight(s)" against enemies (after a long "warning" period, which we've had). Pretty much describes the West right now, wouldn't you say? We are being invaded, and we are losing the fight(s).
I am actually somewhat pleased about this. It will give the Supreme Court's cases more urgency, Any judge on that court that we could count on who had second thoughts will now more likely vote for marriage equality. It will help more than harm in the long view.
10
states rights loses another one. bless their hearts.
16
"In an interview Monday, Chief Justice Moore, a Baptist ..." Why should his personal religious view matter to administration of law?
5
It ought not, yet clearly he thinks it should.
16
Moore insists on trying to make it matter, and that's precisely the problem.
As unspeakably dreadful as Thomas and Scalia are, one has to give them credit, in that they are both able to switch off their Roman Catholicism when it suits them to do so. Both, for example, are vigorously supporters of capital punishment, whereas the Catholic Church rejects that policy.
As unspeakably dreadful as Thomas and Scalia are, one has to give them credit, in that they are both able to switch off their Roman Catholicism when it suits them to do so. Both, for example, are vigorously supporters of capital punishment, whereas the Catholic Church rejects that policy.
7
Alabama, moving into the 21st Century with all deliberate speed.
6
Well, maybe the twentieth century at least.
9
My 90 year-old uncle, who proudly served in World War II, recently came out of the proverbial closet. I am so proud of him!
While he had lots of friends and family, he wasn't able to have the kind of family he wanted - kids, house and the white picket fence - because society and the law shunned him.
I am so very happy that he is finally able to see this happening, and to finally be validated!!
While he had lots of friends and family, he wasn't able to have the kind of family he wanted - kids, house and the white picket fence - because society and the law shunned him.
I am so very happy that he is finally able to see this happening, and to finally be validated!!
45
Why do all of the people who disagree with gay marriage even care. It’s not their right to step in and illegalize something that is normal and cannot be prevented. It should be up to the actual person whether to have a same-sex marriage or not. It’s their choice, not the Supreme Court’s, not the state of Alabama’s, not the churches, it is their right and their right alone. There are probably many people out there that are offended by these horrible laws. Its no different than segregation. Open you eyes America.
16
Why? They hate the fact that two women or two men can love each other and commit to each other for life. If they can invalidate your love, they can invalidate your humanity. What they want is for lesbians and gays to skulk in the shadows, hate themselves, be despised, denied, discriminated against, to be less than human, to be the frightening monsters of their homophobic imaginations.
1
Here we go. The Supremes have finally got a case they're going to HAVE to take. A state WILLFULLY defying a federal judge's ruling.
Ultimately, this is going to lead to something similar to "The Tennessee Plan" requiring federal judges to be "reapproved" ever eight years.
It's how Iowa got rid of their three "gay marriage" judges and Tennessee radically altered theirs.
When there is no "rule of law" by and for the people, bad things will happen to those who defy "we the people."
Ultimately, this is going to lead to something similar to "The Tennessee Plan" requiring federal judges to be "reapproved" ever eight years.
It's how Iowa got rid of their three "gay marriage" judges and Tennessee radically altered theirs.
When there is no "rule of law" by and for the people, bad things will happen to those who defy "we the people."
2
Same sex marriage in Iowa was approved April, 2009, one of the first states in America to do so. It is still that way. So much for your half-story about same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is in Iowa BY the will of the people.
11
I guess you missed Jon Gruber's comments about "stupid Americans?"
"In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature."
NBC News, 4/3/09
"In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature."
NBC News, 4/3/09
2
Are you still only going to tell half the story? It does nothing for your arguments. Mr. Gruber said that his widely quoted comments were off the cuff. He said that the ACA "was a milestone accomplishment for our nation that has already provided millions of Americans with health insurance. I hope that the country can move past the distraction of my misguided comments and focus on the tremendous opportunities this law provides."
As partisan as I can be I can never feel that my argument is solid if I do not present an honest picture and display respect for my fellow readers. Half stories do not, and should not, garner such respect.
As partisan as I can be I can never feel that my argument is solid if I do not present an honest picture and display respect for my fellow readers. Half stories do not, and should not, garner such respect.
5
Well, at least Alabama is making some small progress, all the while kicking and screaming.........
4
The term "gay weddings" in this article's headline (at least on the online "front page") is both misleading and unhelpful. No wedding is gay, or, for that matter, straight. While the participants are gay or straight, weddings are not - they are simply ceremonies. Labeling a ceremony as "gay" only plays into the hands of those who are still fighting marriage equality (a far more accurate term) by implying, however subtly, that gays and lesbians are aiming to fundamentally alter an institution, a ceremony, a custom. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry don't want so much to change the club as to be allowed to join it.
14
...and good luck with that club thing.
Some women politicians wish to quote the bible saying that "same-sex marriage is against the bible," then they should sit down and shut up. If you are to follow any part of the bible you must follow all of it. The bible says "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." I thought we were past this. Lets move on America, "the past is in the past."
15
They can't be argued with that way; they just say that the parts of The Law that they don't like were rescinded and no longer apply.
7
There is no reason why the marriage of two people of the same sex should have any impact on your life. Just go on living as usual.
25
Except "unnatural" behavior being accepted as "normal" behavior sets a VERY bad example for our children.
Most unnatural behavior has taken place in straight marriages. Straights have done more damage to the good name of the institution of marriage than anything any gay couple has done. Let's put the blame for dysfunctional children who have suffered by the hands of "normal" parents.
17
@TPaine: please explain, in detail, how same sex marriage sets a "VERY bad example" for children. Also, I take it that you mean "unnatural" behavior is deviant or immoral; if so, what do you do when these kinds of behaviors are exhibited by your friends, their school friends or family members? Society in general? Do you allow your children to leave your home? I hope not, because there's all kinds of behavior out there...
Also, do you perhaps have links to studies to support your claim?
Also, do you perhaps have links to studies to support your claim?
11
I live in one of the counties in Alabama that did not issue same sex marriage permits today. When I saw the Times map that Lee County, AL was not issuing the permits, my son and I were ashamed and went to the Courthouse and spoke to our Judge. Judge Bill English was respectful and met with us with his attorney. He explained that he was set to issue permits bu Justice Moore's directions ordered him not to issue licenses that violated state law so and he was looking for further clarification. He knew that the US Supreme Court this morning had denied the requested stay and that a Federal Judge had ruled that the Alabama law was unconstitutional was clarified that it applied to all state officials. I was disappointed that our judge, whom I respect, didn't follow other probate judges did to issue licenses to same sex couples. I asked our Judge if he was committed to following the Constitution of the United States in carrying out his important civic duty and he said he was. It was important to me to take my son to talk to the judge today to advocate for civil fairness and rights for minorities. I enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of marriage with my wife and am glad that these benefits have been extended to same sex couples in Alabama. I wanted my son to see how important it was to advocate for civic rights and fairness in the law. At the court house we met a same sex couple who was denied a marriage permit in Lee County but who drove to Montgomery and were just married.
73
Your judge is not stupid. The few probate judges that did will find themselves sans a job once the legislature comes back in session.
The Supremes have done this to themselves. Like Roe v Wade, the overwhelming majority of Americans see "marriage" as between a man and a woman, not a father and a daughter, a man and his sheep or a man and a man.
Ultimately, you are going to see a weakening of the judiciary, but that's what happens when one Justice, Kennedy, has a homosexual in his family and puts his personal opinion above "the rule of law."
Zip in the Constitution about "marriage" which makes it a "state's right" issue.
The Supremes have done this to themselves. Like Roe v Wade, the overwhelming majority of Americans see "marriage" as between a man and a woman, not a father and a daughter, a man and his sheep or a man and a man.
Ultimately, you are going to see a weakening of the judiciary, but that's what happens when one Justice, Kennedy, has a homosexual in his family and puts his personal opinion above "the rule of law."
Zip in the Constitution about "marriage" which makes it a "state's right" issue.
@tpaine: perhaps you were out of the room during the discussion but the topic is SAME-SEX MARRIAGE not marriage between "a father and a daughter, a man and his sheep...".
16
Does your conclusion that there is zip in the Constitution about marriage mean you believe the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia and its holding striking down that state's ban on interracial marriage must be reversed?
Ultimately, your logic betrays 'state's rights' for what it truly is. A euphemism for state sponsored discrimination.
Ultimately, your logic betrays 'state's rights' for what it truly is. A euphemism for state sponsored discrimination.
13
I hope the people in Alabama and other states stand up to this nonsense. Something as foundational as marriage should not be determined by judges but the will of the people.
People keep making references to Blacks and our quest for civil rights. The thing is our rights were explicitly dealt with by the constitution. If gay marriage is a right when did it occur? Why hasn't one been declared until now?
Justice Thomas is correct and I pray his fellow judges shy away from their God like complexes and allow the states to make their own decisions.
People keep making references to Blacks and our quest for civil rights. The thing is our rights were explicitly dealt with by the constitution. If gay marriage is a right when did it occur? Why hasn't one been declared until now?
Justice Thomas is correct and I pray his fellow judges shy away from their God like complexes and allow the states to make their own decisions.
1
So the Supremes should not have declared the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional
7
Yes since the will of the people should always trump the constitution. Right? RIGHT!?
6
They should have since Blacks were being denied an opportunity to marry who they wish due to their race. They did not seek to redefine it. Once again the civil rights of Blacks are clearly delineated in the Constitution. Again which amendment explicitly says members of the same sex can marry?
1
Each country seems to have a fair share of issues which look quite funny from outside. This is one of them for two reasons, same-sex couples' insistence of recognition and strong resistance to this movement to the point of insanity. (To be fair if I list a prominent one from my country, Japan, it would be an issue surrounding Emperor.) But I also realize Japan will never recognize same-sex marriage because we fail to see this on the top of the agenda having no pro and con arguments. I hope the US not force the new norm of same-sex marriage on bigotry countries like Japan heavy-handedly when it becomes a leading country comfortable with that notion.
2
My sister is the kindest, most gentle woman on the planet. She is a devout Christian, tithing 10% of her income year after year and gifting thousands more each year to causes she and her church promote.. She believes that homosexuality is a sin because her Bible, her church and her upbringing tells her so. She prays for all non-believers (and me) every morning and every night after those her daily devotionals.
Please make room for my sister in your thoughts as you post here.
Please make room for my sister in your thoughts as you post here.
5
Why. Should her feelings rule the lives of others?
17
"She believes that homosexuality is a sin because her Bible, her church and her upbringing tells her so."
Why should we respect a person's beliefs? What if her upbringing, bible and church told her that women should have their genitals ritually surgically altered? Just believing a thing doesn't entitle it to respect just because it's held. There are lots of Christian churches and lots of Christian denominations. Some of them accept gay marriage. Just think about that for a minute. In what way can opposition to gay marriage be called "Christian" if not even all Christians agree that it should be prohibited?
She needs to check her biases.
Why should we respect a person's beliefs? What if her upbringing, bible and church told her that women should have their genitals ritually surgically altered? Just believing a thing doesn't entitle it to respect just because it's held. There are lots of Christian churches and lots of Christian denominations. Some of them accept gay marriage. Just think about that for a minute. In what way can opposition to gay marriage be called "Christian" if not even all Christians agree that it should be prohibited?
She needs to check her biases.
20
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Reinhold Niebuhr 1892-1971
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Reinhold Niebuhr 1892-1971
4
The personal and political motivations behind this outrageous action by Chief Justice Moore are so apparent it is shameful. Is this activist, Taliban judge the law unto himself in Alabama? Does the Alabama Supreme Court act by fiat of a single chief justice or by all members of the Court? There is NO legal or logical basis for anything this dangerous, "activist" judge is doing trying to relitigate long-settled, legal issues dating back to a bloody Civil War that tore this nation apart. Chief Justice Moore should immediately step down as a judge and run for state legislature where he can appropriately advance his own bigoted, political views. This zealot in no way belongs on any judicial bench.
17
What is hilarious is you call judge Moore "activist" for defending Alabama's right to resist the perversion (literal) of the institution of marriage, while never mentioning the radical "activist" federal judges who invented a "right" to homosexual "marriage" and overrode the voters of 30 states in the process.
The big difference is Roy Moore is standing up for Alabamians, while the judge who invented the marriage "right" is ripping away their right to participate in the political process.
The big difference is Roy Moore is standing up for Alabamians, while the judge who invented the marriage "right" is ripping away their right to participate in the political process.
1
You obviously don't understand the meaning of "activist." An "activist" state court judge is one who defies all legal precedents and single-handedly acts as one-person court issuing his own orders in contravention of a federal court order. Justice Moore singularly and outrageously acted on his own without consultation or support from any of his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court. Defend the wholly irresponsible actions of Justice Moore all you want, but I guarantee you he will ultimately be smacked down on his lost cause by the U.S. Supreme Court. You also need to read up on Amendment 14 jurisprudence on the meaning of "equal protection of the laws," on which the marriage equality rulings are based. By the way, for all you "strict constructionists," the Equal Protection Clause is in the very text of the Constitution, and it applies to all states, even Alabama. No, we're not going backwards and relitigating settled issues from the bloody Civil War. Welcome to the 21st century Alabama!
9
Awesome, Jack - you believe that the what voters want should count more than what the Constitution says. For example, the Supreme Court has apparently decided that equal protection under the law extends to all couples who wish to marry, no matter their gender.
You think, though, that any vote people make on local levels, even if it goes against the Constitution, should take precedence over the Constitution. That's the position some people came up with in 1860. That didn't work out too well for them.
Now you might find fault with the way the current Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution. Fair enough. But that's how our system works. I'm upset with many Supreme Court rulings over the past several years. But that's how our system works.
Over time, things equal out, as presidents from right and left appoint justices who have different political philosophies. So chill, you're turn will come again, even if you aren't around to enjoy it.
You think, though, that any vote people make on local levels, even if it goes against the Constitution, should take precedence over the Constitution. That's the position some people came up with in 1860. That didn't work out too well for them.
Now you might find fault with the way the current Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution. Fair enough. But that's how our system works. I'm upset with many Supreme Court rulings over the past several years. But that's how our system works.
Over time, things equal out, as presidents from right and left appoint justices who have different political philosophies. So chill, you're turn will come again, even if you aren't around to enjoy it.
4
With 32% voter turnout in the last election in Alabama... I hardly call that a mandate against anything!
19
There's a very popular comment posted about Alabama not being backwards; I beg to differ. Roy Moore, the state's chief justice, was *elected*, not *appointed.* He campaigned on the same platform that is the subject of this story. Alabamans elected him to their Supreme Court.
While that does not mean that every Alabaman supports his agenda, as (an elected judge) his statements are political and not judicial in nature, it does show with clarity that many Alabamans favor his position. So, it isn't hard to conclude that "backwards", "homophobic" etc. are hardly inappropriate descriptions for the marriage views of many Alabamans.
While that does not mean that every Alabaman supports his agenda, as (an elected judge) his statements are political and not judicial in nature, it does show with clarity that many Alabamans favor his position. So, it isn't hard to conclude that "backwards", "homophobic" etc. are hardly inappropriate descriptions for the marriage views of many Alabamans.
14
The Supreme Court needs to rule immediately on the broader issue of whether it is constitutional for any state to forbid same-sex marriage. If they decide the issue in a way that is inconsistent with the basic right of all people to be free and to pursue happiness, I expect this issue will then become the single most important issue in the next presidential election (though I hope it does not come to that).
It's incredibly sad that anyone feels the need to keep people who want to love and commit themselves to one another from doing so with the blessing of the state. Our country is not a Baptist congregation, it's a secular nation.
Part of me wishes Tim Cook was ready to marry and that he would go try to get married at one of the majority of courthouses in Alabama that is denying people the right to marry - an image of the law-abiding, patriotic, Alabama-born leader of the most successful company in America being denied the right to marry whomever he wants would speak volumes.
It's incredibly sad that anyone feels the need to keep people who want to love and commit themselves to one another from doing so with the blessing of the state. Our country is not a Baptist congregation, it's a secular nation.
Part of me wishes Tim Cook was ready to marry and that he would go try to get married at one of the majority of courthouses in Alabama that is denying people the right to marry - an image of the law-abiding, patriotic, Alabama-born leader of the most successful company in America being denied the right to marry whomever he wants would speak volumes.
10
Well, actually, while our Constitution is "secular, we should be able to agree that the Declaration of Independence was spiritual?
Same is true of our population, pretty evenly divided between the secular and the religious.
Interestingly, another parallel: those who are religious are happier and tend to be Republican while seculars are Democrats and see "the glass half empty."
God gives the believer and the non-believer "free will" so, ultimately, the choice is ours.
Same is true of our population, pretty evenly divided between the secular and the religious.
Interestingly, another parallel: those who are religious are happier and tend to be Republican while seculars are Democrats and see "the glass half empty."
God gives the believer and the non-believer "free will" so, ultimately, the choice is ours.
Tpaine, your idea of free will is bestowed by God, my idea of free will is bestowed by the Constitution. And nobody has free will if their equality is suppressed.
4
A decade ago, despite an order from a federal judge, Chief Justice Moore refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments that he had commissioned for the Alabama Judicial Building. In the years preceding his election as Chief Justice, he had refused to remove a plaque of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom, arguing that "a belief in the sovereignty of God" outweighed any federal court order. He was removed from office in 2003, but re-elected as Chief Justice in 2013.
Apparently, both Justice Moore and those who elected and re-elected him, feel that their particular religion and their beliefs override the legal system of the United States.
Apparently, both Justice Moore and those who elected and re-elected him, feel that their particular religion and their beliefs override the legal system of the United States.
14
Yawn. An Alabama judge defying a federal court is the sky being blue. The best gift Alabama has given us is Harper Lee who wrote this story over a half-century ago.
15
Why is it that I never hear people screaming about separation of church and state when it comes to marriage issues?
The government doesn't have any business marrying people to begin with, let alone say who can and who can't get married.
A so-called "right" that the government gives can be taken away as well.
The government doesn't have any business marrying people to begin with, let alone say who can and who can't get married.
A so-called "right" that the government gives can be taken away as well.
3
Think of the process as being more about contract law than religious or other folk traditions.
7
You're not paying attention. Lots of people (including myself) so scream. I am an atheist. Would you have me approach some witch doctor in order to obtain a civil marriage license? Please.
Marriage in the united states is and always has been a civil matter.
Marriage in the united states is and always has been a civil matter.
14
But "gays" already have all the "civil" rights associated with "marriage."
No this is a drive by Democrats to FORCE the rest of us to accept their ideology.
Like Roe v Wade before it, we will not EVER.
No this is a drive by Democrats to FORCE the rest of us to accept their ideology.
Like Roe v Wade before it, we will not EVER.
1
Roy Moore and all the probate judges that refuse to comply with the Federal court orders should be held in contempt of court and jailed. This case is about marriage rights, but it might just as well be about anything. State court judges that willfully disobey Federal court orders are acting outside the law, and should be held accountable. Put them in jail cells with copies of the Constitution and don't let them out until they demonstrate that they understand its contents.
14
If people wish to quote the Bible, Can I ask how many wives King Solomon had?
10
I guess you missed the part where God condemns Solomon for such things and Solomon loses his kingdom... or did you just stop at 700 wives?
3
If you mean, the Old Testament or Jewish bible, then you ALSO KNOW that Jews gave up polygamy 1500 years before the birth of Christ.
Neither the Romans nor the Greeks practiced polygamy, and they were PAGAN societies, so it has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. It's about basic human decency and the building blocks of family.
Neither the Romans nor the Greeks practiced polygamy, and they were PAGAN societies, so it has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. It's about basic human decency and the building blocks of family.
2
Call it what you like, but it ain't marriage.
6
Love, commitment, companionship, sharing their lives together...... Yes it is marriage. I wish them all the best.
13
Yeah, that's what she said.
Well, tell us what -you- call it?
6
I am not particularly favorable to this rush to "gay" marriage, but the actions by some Alabama officials show the blatant discrimination that those who differ from the majority in too much of the USA face. Racism and foolish homophobia continue to reign supreme in too much of the USA.
5
I think same sex marriage crosses the line. What's next man/robot marriage? Artificial intelligence is in it's infancy now but when it hits full stride, the possibilities are unimaginable now. At that time, why shouldn't a human and a robot be allowed to enter a marital relationship (and therefore legal benefits)? That proposition is about as ridiculous as same sex marriage was not long ago (perhaps 50 years). Food for thought. No trying to upset anyone.
4
No but you are hilarious
7
....and some of my very best friends happen to be robots.
11
With the amount of internet pornography produced in this "nation under God," most of it consumed by straight men, I think you may have a point. There are armies of straight men cheating on their wives with computer/robots as we speak. But I doubt that these philanderers would give up their marriages to marry robots because computers can't do the dishes. Straight marriage is threatened more by internet pornography than by gay marriage. Food for thought indeed.
16
The heroes of this moment are the local probate courts that are issuing licenses and marrying couples who ask for the right to formalize their commitments the same as others.
19
If Alabama does not want to abide by the U.S. Constitution (and the courts that interpret it) then perhaps the state should secede from the union. Congrats to all the newlyweds in Alabama who (finally) able to marry. This circus speaks volumes as to why SCOTUS must step in and decide that marriage equality is indeed the law of the land.
16
If "equal protection under the laws" means you have to be able to marry someone of the same sex, it can also mean I should be able to marry my sister, or three women, or my dog. After all, that's what I'm "attracted" to.
I have a law degree. What is "constitutional" is not in stone. It is determined based on the whims of judges who have no accountability. We have a system of checks and balances, yet there seems to be NO check on judges. Some hack who donated to a campaign and can now override millions of voters. They're tiny in number but immensely powerful and unaccountable.
GOP candidates, before you talk about taxes and obamacare (which, like it or not, was passed democratically), what do you propose to do about a system where our votes on something as fundamental as marriage never mattered?
I have a law degree. What is "constitutional" is not in stone. It is determined based on the whims of judges who have no accountability. We have a system of checks and balances, yet there seems to be NO check on judges. Some hack who donated to a campaign and can now override millions of voters. They're tiny in number but immensely powerful and unaccountable.
GOP candidates, before you talk about taxes and obamacare (which, like it or not, was passed democratically), what do you propose to do about a system where our votes on something as fundamental as marriage never mattered?
2
I don't believe that you have a law degree. It's hard to believe that someone who can't tell the difference between people and animals ever made it past 8th grade.
16
People hate judicial 'whims' when they disagree on the issue.
7
Must have missed contract law. The colonial and later the state governments were faced with land ownership and rights issues and, to be sure, and this goes to adoptions as well, that the burden of child support would not fall on the people (government). This same concern was visited again during slave emancipation.
5
It's ironic how some people who insist the government stay out of their lives have no problem injecting themselves into other peoples lives.
33
God's Own Party only believes in personal liberty when it comes to guns. Other wise there are nothing more than Evangelical busybodies who love to meddle in the personal lives of others.
17
I wonder if Justice Thomas would have been equally as strident about "waiting" if the issue was the allowing of interracial marriage.
I suggest not.
I suggest not.
22
Do conservatives ever get tired of being on the wrong side of history?
23
Unless you have psychic powers, you cannot decide what way history is going to go.
A GOP President could appoint several conservative Justices, who would overturn this obscene legislation (and that is assuming the SCOTUS vote goes exactly as this publication assumes it will. The opera isn't over until the fat lady sings!).
A GOP President could appoint several conservative Justices, who would overturn this obscene legislation (and that is assuming the SCOTUS vote goes exactly as this publication assumes it will. The opera isn't over until the fat lady sings!).
Dream on, Concerned Citizen. Life goes ever forward, never backwards.
12
I want to recommend this comment so many times.
1
Clarence Thomas... think a minute on this. Which side would you be on if the case Loving v. Virginia came before the court. Since you are married to a white woman, you would be impacted directly. The states made laws which infringed upon the rights of couple for no legitimate reason then. The law prohibiting gay marriage is the same thing. The majority cannot decide to infringe on anyone's rights even if it is enacted by a state.
21
Clarence Thomas is black in roughly the same sense as Al Jolson was black.
10
As someone else had commented, I wonder if Clarence Thomas feels that his opinion should be considered as worth only 3/5 of the opinion of other justices on the Supreme Court. He should of course also be thinking that by his own "logic" in Alabama he and his wife would likely be spending their nights together in separate beds in separate jail cells.
24
If Alabama had its way Clarence Thomas would not have a White wife but would have long ago danced on the end of a rope for looking at a White woman. I wonder if his last thought would have been 'is this Constitutional'?
11
I think of Neil Young's brilliant song "Alabama" when I read of the events unfolding there now:
What are you doing Alabama?
You've got the rest of the union
to help you along
What's going wrong?
What are you doing Alabama?
You've got the rest of the union
to help you along
What's going wrong?
9
The union of hundreds same-sex couples was consecrated today in Huntsville, Alabama, at Big Spring Park down the steps from our county courthouse. It was chilly and the sky was overcast, but well wishers filled the park applauding couples who walked down the steps waving their newly-issued marriage licenses. There were no protestors, just tears, smiles and tables filled with celebratory cupcakes. Alabama can never erase the stain of Selma, of George Wallace or the Sixteenth Street Church bombing. But today, this Alabamian was on the right side of history.
42
How would Justice Thomas have felt if this were about interracial marriage rather than same-sex marriage considering that he is part of an interracial couple? At one time, interracial marriages were considered by many just as he must consider gay marriages.
18
If the Alabama Bar has any integrity, it will bring charges against Judge Moore for his calculated effort to thwart the federal court ruling and for bringing Alabama, once again, into legal disrepute.
23
Disgusting. The so called impartial judiciary rules against the will of the people in Alabama. This is not democracy, nor is it a republic as America was meant to be by our founders. It is Democrat party and liberal political correctness. And it will not stand.
4
How many times does it have to be explained that the will of the people doesn't override other people's civil rights?
"It will not stand." Heh. What're you going to do about it, Paul?
"It will not stand." Heh. What're you going to do about it, Paul?
24
There clearly are a lot of people in Alabama who are happy with today's decision-- just look at the smiles of the couples in those photos!
20
Amazing, George Wallace thought the very same thing.
17
NYTimes coverage of this seems to me to be excessive. Is it that newsworthy? Gay marriage pales in significance to other major issues, like violence and the many threats to peace and stability around the world. I wish gays and lesbians the best in their marriages, but have reservations about whether the legal union will bring them what they think it will. I hope it means greater justice for them and less bullying from any source. But we are all struggling with what marriage and the family are. It's very difficult for any couple to make it work, especially in a culture that is widely uncertain about what constitutes a stable family unit. Personally, I would prefer a great deal more publicity about this uncertainty and how to address its root causes, assuming we MIGHT know what those causes are. I doubt we do.
2
This is a huge story. The chief justice of the state of Alabama has ordered lower courts to defy a federal court order. The Times not covering it would be highly suspect journalism. I agree that larger societal issues affecting marriage are very important but I respectfully disagree that this particular story, with its ramifications not only for the citizens of Alabama but also federalism, is the best place to make this point.
21
I suspect the case is murky. And its a fine issue of jurisprudence. Technically the tenth amendment, as far as I understand it, seems to provide the federal court with greater authority in this particular matter. But the letter of the amendment suggest also that state would in fact have the authority not to follow the federal order if this is not expressly prohibited by the constitution. Now, does the constitution actually state that a federal court order must be followed by state courts? Someone let these folks get married. Please. We can't stand this inequalities anymore.
1
No, actually we're not "all struggling with what marriage and the family are." Only you and some others who can't seem to grasp that it's beyond your reach now. It's happening and many of us are ecstatic especially my 90 year old uncle who served in World War II! He missed a whole lifetime of the kind of family he wanted, kids included, because society didn't provide that option for him.
Studies have found that it is indeed "difficult for any couple to make it work" but it has NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the couple.
Studies have found that it is indeed "difficult for any couple to make it work" but it has NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the couple.
10
So sad to see a great nation like the United States down the slippery road of decay and worse showing the rest of the world a path that will lead to the gradual undoing of society and human civilization.
5
Exactly HOW will human civilization have their "gradual undoing" by allowing same-sex couples to marry? Perhaps you can provide a Top Ten List!
Same sex couples have been marrying here for a few years now, and for many more years in other countries, so has the "gradual undoing" begun already?!
Same sex couples have been marrying here for a few years now, and for many more years in other countries, so has the "gradual undoing" begun already?!
16
The degradation of historic values and morals continues unabated. America is the last bastion of moral righteousness. Obama has capitulated to the liberal left after campaigning as a "marriage is between a man a woman" candidate. He has now done a 180 turnaround. What more do you expect from a Democrat politician?
3
Oh, I don't know Paul - you could always move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. I think they're standing strong for some very traditional values.
27
Bami will replay this federal supremacy thing 'til we get it right, 1860 secession right.
5
In this one instance, as a legal matter, Judge Moore has a point. Federal District Courts are federal trial courts. One judge, appointed for life, presides over the courtroom. It is generally assumed that District Court jurisdiction does not extend outside of its geographic area, which in Alabama usually comprises a dozen or so counties. If District Court constitutional judgments had effect anywhere and everywhere, it would mean that one lonely Federal District Court Judge might decide matters of national importance. And that shouldn’t happen. Constitutional questions of national or statewide import are for the appellate federal courts to decide, including if necessary the US Supreme Court.
But the gay marriage legal imbroglio could be resolved the nation over with just one case. All the US Supreme Court has to do is take a case questioning the enforceability of a gay marriage lawfully entered in a state different than the one in question. If the marriage is enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution*, as it well should be, then the federal legality of gay marriage need not be determined. If gay marriage is legal in one state, it will effectively be legal in all states, and marriage will remain, as it always has been, an issue left to the states to resolve, if only symbolically. But call it the Vegas ruling. Because what happens in Vegas wedding chapels doesn't stay in Vegas and never did. The infrastructure of federalism won't allow it.
But the gay marriage legal imbroglio could be resolved the nation over with just one case. All the US Supreme Court has to do is take a case questioning the enforceability of a gay marriage lawfully entered in a state different than the one in question. If the marriage is enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution*, as it well should be, then the federal legality of gay marriage need not be determined. If gay marriage is legal in one state, it will effectively be legal in all states, and marriage will remain, as it always has been, an issue left to the states to resolve, if only symbolically. But call it the Vegas ruling. Because what happens in Vegas wedding chapels doesn't stay in Vegas and never did. The infrastructure of federalism won't allow it.
District court opinions are the Supreme's way of taking a poll. They (or seven of them, anyway) have seen how the tide has turned. They've have had several chances to try and hold it back, and chose not to.
4
How come conservatives always read the law in a way that supports their feelings on a topic and liberals do as well. Just once I'd like to hear "Personally I support gay marriage but I don't think the existing constitution/laws do" or "although personally I am against gay marriage it is permitted by the laws of the state."
Makes you realize that everyone can interpret it to support their own beliefs.
Makes you realize that everyone can interpret it to support their own beliefs.
1
Well, here it is. I am a staunch conservative, and I have supported same sex marriage from a policy perspective since at least 2002, way before it was fashionable to do so. However, I know that the Constitution does not require it, no matter what activist judges rule. The Equal Protection Clause was written to prohibit rights from being denied to freed slaves. The people who drafted it could never have envisioned it applying to same sex marriage, nor would they have agreed with you had you posited that it applied in such a way. It was never intended to prohibit any instance of "unequal treatment," as that, read literally, could require a state to allow everyone to fly a plane, and not just those with pilot's licenses.
1
Sorry, Jon W., but in your reading of the Constitution African Americans wouldn't have rights either. The issue isn't what our founding fathers would make of the law (are you going to dig them up and ask them?), but rather what the law, written as it is in a language that bears meaning, could possibly be taken to signify today.
8
If your logic held true - that the framers could never have anticipated how their lawmaking might be applied in the future - we should all have just stopped living in 1776. Deference to precedent, stare decisis, is an important principle; deference for deference's sake is ignorant of an evolving society.
6
the folks in those photos wouldn't have found happiness with someone of the opposite sex anyway. Go for it!
3
“My guess is, that is actually the way Roy Moore sincerely understands the federal-state relationship[."] “He’s also an elected politician, and he knows who his constituency is.” And, that, in a nutshell, is the most important reason that judges should not be elected. It's yet another institution subject to purchase by the highest bidder. Do we really want another branch of government bought and paid for by moneyed interests? I think not!
14
Where is the harm? Whatever happened to separation of church and state? (Oh yeah, adding "under God" to the unnecessary, intrusive Pledge of Allegiance, first published in a magazine, for gosh sakes.)
17
I suppose except for the few...unanimity rules the narrative on this day, president's day.
1
These are nothing but abominations in the eyes of God. The Holy Bible is very clear about lying with other men as if with a woman, and the same goes for Lesbians. May God have Mercy on their souls. Hell exists !
3
The bible says nothing about lesbians. Bearing false witness is prohibited however. Repentance is encouraged.
17
Right, and you don't eat shellfish, wear blended fabrics etc. because of the bible, correct?
I'm not sure how you missed this but the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
I'm not sure how you missed this but the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
22
The "Holy Bible" is clear about a lot of things such as killing family members, crucifixion and stoning people to death.
Do you support those actions as well? If not, why do you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow?
Do you support those actions as well? If not, why do you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow?
15
The picture of Tori and Shante is resolutely beautiful and stunning. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then THIS photograph is worth a hundred thousand, at least. (Thanks for this one, NYT! It's my new screensaver!)
12
Sure, the probate judges in the rural counties disobeyed the federal court order -- it was cute of them to just stop issuing all marriage licenses, as not doing their jobs at all was somehow 'fair' to all. It will only take one or two contempt citations to bring them all along.
But, note how the probate judges in the city counties ignored Roy Moore's order. That is permanent damage to Moore's prestige. It appears as if the episode, among the power elite, is being interpreted as a power grab by Moore -- particularly his claim that on subject of marriage license issuance, they took their marching orders from him.
That a political self-inflicted wound -- likely many probate judges agreed with Moore, but certainly many of them didn't like the idea that he could tell them what to do.
But, note how the probate judges in the city counties ignored Roy Moore's order. That is permanent damage to Moore's prestige. It appears as if the episode, among the power elite, is being interpreted as a power grab by Moore -- particularly his claim that on subject of marriage license issuance, they took their marching orders from him.
That a political self-inflicted wound -- likely many probate judges agreed with Moore, but certainly many of them didn't like the idea that he could tell them what to do.
5
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all ... will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Free at last! Free at last!
10
If the Bible and the US Constitution are in conflict about the rights extended to gay and lesbian citizens, then we must decide if we prefer a constitutional democracy or a Bible-based theocracy.
14
Hasn't that already been decided?
16
The Bible and the US Constitution are not "in conflict" because they're not even in the same race!
The United States is a secular democracy; it is not now nor ever been a theocracy. Really, I kid you not! Open up a history book...it's all right there!
The United States is a secular democracy; it is not now nor ever been a theocracy. Really, I kid you not! Open up a history book...it's all right there!
17
I believe that has already been decided. Any States wishing to become a Bible-based Theocracy would need to secede.
9
Here's hoping that 10 years from now the next generation of teenagers will laugh themselves silly when they learn that gay people used to be banned from marrying, just as my generation laughed itself silly when it learned that black people used to be forced to use separate water fountains, and my mother's generation laughed itself silly when it learned that women used to be banned from voting.
16
but it's revealing that the ever nasty Clarence Thomas, who could not legally have married his white wife when I was growing up, is standing strong against allowing OTHER people to marry the person they love.
13
As the parent of a teenager, I can assure you that you don't even have to wait 10 years. Gay marriage is part of their worldview. They think we are nuts to even be debating it - "duh".
Alabama, once on the vanguard of denying full rights to one minority group, is now busy at work denying full rights to yet another minority group. Shame on them. Very, very sad.
19
This judge has been removed from the bench before for his antics and may yet again. And the people of Alabama can reelect him over and over and over. That is their right. What is not their right or the right of any other person is to discriminate and cause harm to another because their biogrtry blinds them, whether via the ballot box in hate codified into a constitution, or forcing them to the back of the bus, or firehosing children marching peacefully. Alabama is pretty skilled in all those things but it just isn't going to happen this time.
12
Curious that I haven't heard much from the GOP about these activist judges.
13
Thomas has spoken, I have made a vague reference. There will be an article without comment later probably.
2
I have a niece who converted to Mormonism and has 8 kids; her husband worked on Huntsville for NASA. They were originally from Portland, Oregon. They decided enough is enough. They've seen all the bigotry etc. and the effect on their kids, and are moving back to the Northwest. Go figure.
11
This practice of marrying hundreds of couples on the first day that gay marriages are allowed has unintended consequences. For Alabama, it likely means that Hallmark will have to offer a Happy Anniversary/Happy Valentine's Day card beginning in early February at a two for one price. Valentine's Day shoppers will have to make sure they buy the Valentine's only cards. And for couples who have lost the spark, this could be a distressing time of year. There is no good reason why a moment of marital bliss should cause a lifetime of greeting card confusion.
3
These conservative judges like Moore seem to pick and choose what they want to abide by in the Constitution the same way they pick and choose in living by the suggestions in the Bible.... Makes no sense to me but they probably find some twisted logic in it....
8
Courts do not have the power to make laws, only legislatures do. Courts only
have the power of judicial review- to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Courts cannot appropriate money to make this happen or rewrite the law on their own. This is because of the separation of powers, embraced by our founders.
So basically, If the court adheres to separation of powers, they only have the right to strike down the Alabama marriage law as discriminatory. This would make all marriage in Alabama (civil marriages) stop until the legislature fixes this issue. The constitution gives the power to make laws and appropriate money to the legislature.
have the power of judicial review- to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Courts cannot appropriate money to make this happen or rewrite the law on their own. This is because of the separation of powers, embraced by our founders.
So basically, If the court adheres to separation of powers, they only have the right to strike down the Alabama marriage law as discriminatory. This would make all marriage in Alabama (civil marriages) stop until the legislature fixes this issue. The constitution gives the power to make laws and appropriate money to the legislature.
Huh? Alabama has a statute and a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. The judiciary doesn't have to strike all marriages in the state to strike the specific statute and constitutional provision as unconstitutional under the federal constitution. The statute was passed in 1998 and the constitutional amendment in 2006. They didn't exist before then so removing them is trivial. I don't see what barring all marriages in the state has to do with the ability of the courts to remove the wording of those two specific provisions.
I seem to remember a few decisions, Brown vs The Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, Miranda, just to name a few where the courts did indeed make new law by striking down old law. That is how the system works. ALL laws are subject to interpretation by the courts in light of the Constitution and a law which is found to be unconstitutional is "voided" so to speak and a new law which complies with decision of the court takes it's place. It stays in place until it too is challenged in whole or, more commonly, in part. Consider the Miranda decision which has been modified a great many times over the years. Or Roe vs Wade which has been chipped at by the states ever since the Supreme Court handed down the decision.
1
Alabama officials have come down on the side of bitterness and division. History will not remember kindly what they did. Let's hope they eventually come to a place of tolerance and don't keep waving around Confederate flags.
3
The invention known as "gay marriage", forced upon America by unelected judges and a homosexual-dominated media, is nearing final victory. It's in Alabama now, which is mind blowing. Of course, this is against the wishes of the people of Alabama, who voted quite loudly for traditional marriage. Even in my moderate Pennsylvania, gay "marriage" was created by one unelected judge. We voted for a republican governor, who won. We voted for a republican legislature. And yet, one hack with a law degree can override millions of votes and thousands of years of marriage laws.
The message is clear: if the elites want something, they'll get it, and our votes mean nothing. And even for those who say gay "marriage" doesn't affect them, your vote rendered meaningless certainly affects you.
The message is clear: if the elites want something, they'll get it, and our votes mean nothing. And even for those who say gay "marriage" doesn't affect them, your vote rendered meaningless certainly affects you.
5
Have you considered what the US Constitution says? We are all equal under the law. But you want to deny that to millions of us. Not right!
16
If Alabama had their way, segregation would still be legal.
You don't seem to know much about the history of marriage. You might want to learn some history before spouting ignorance.
You don't seem to know much about the history of marriage. You might want to learn some history before spouting ignorance.
14
Jack, you're logic is mistaken. We have 3 branches of govt. and the judicial branch exists to protect the system from unjust laws that have popular appeal. The rights in the Constitution trump any elected officials / state legislatures laws, when those laws are deemed unconstitutional. What part of this system do you not understand? People are capable of passing all kinds of state laws, they are not sacrosanct. They are subject to judicial review based on Constitutional mandated rights.
11
Regardless of how courts rule on the legality of these prohibitions, I think state lawmakers don't seem to be creative in restricting activities they don't agree with, except in the case of abortion. I believe if they wrote the law as such "In order to advance biodiversity and to acknowledge our belief that marriage enhances the opportunity to properly raise children to be a positive force in society, and to encourage a diverse household to nurture any children, no two people of the same sex may marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. This government believes that children are best served by being raised in a household in which the parents consist of one man and one woman." This would effect gays and straights equally as neither would be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Should gay people be allowed to marry? Yes.
The order of operations used to allow for this is not the story, and distracts us from whether or not the above justice has been carried through to its humane conclusion.
The order of operations used to allow for this is not the story, and distracts us from whether or not the above justice has been carried through to its humane conclusion.
4
This is a civil rights issue plain and simple. The Constitution is clear about equal treatment for EVERYONE in the fourteenth amendment's equal rights clause. It would appear that Chief Justice Moore's objections are as much religiously based as states rights based. Neither argument will suffice in this case. He is, however, an elected official and he does need to "play to the base" but I thought he might have learned something about the separation of church and state after the Ten Commandments problem. Guess not.
6
It would appear from many of the commenters here that they do not understand constitutional law. Voter approved laws or amendments cannot trump the US Constitution.
19
And the U.S. Constitution was supposed to have a clear, original intent meaning. It wasn't supposed to be subject to the political whims of modern judges.
3
What is so whimsical about the 14th Amendment?
14
And the US Constitution says clearly and unambiguously that STATES have the right to make marriage law and ONLY the states.
I thought the issue was federal supremacy, in that absent a Supreme Court decision - an official ruling, not an opinion - federal district judges have no - repeat no - authority over State governments. Even with the "Supremacy Clause", it is fact that the Constitution states that those powers not SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED to the federal government are reserved to the States and to the People. As such, no matter how it is dressed up, any claims of power over State Courts are nothing less than unco0nstitutional assumptions of power, which, under the Constitution, constitute crimes committed by the Feds.
If the Supreme Court wants to assert authority, then let it follow the Law and issued a statutory ruling which affects all.
Any decision less is worthy of contempt and should be ignored, since law-abiding officials do not wish to be seen as committing crimes under the aegis of just following orders.
Now, marriage is of course not something which falls under the authority of government. Marriage is a church matter. Civil unions, and the affect on laws of inheritance, insurance, et al, do fall under government, but that does not grant government the rightful power to force others to abridge their consciences. You want to fix this issue? Then fix all the issues where government has inserted itself where it has no constitutional authority to do so. Marriage, Taxes, Right To Work, and on and on . . .
If the Supreme Court wants to assert authority, then let it follow the Law and issued a statutory ruling which affects all.
Any decision less is worthy of contempt and should be ignored, since law-abiding officials do not wish to be seen as committing crimes under the aegis of just following orders.
Now, marriage is of course not something which falls under the authority of government. Marriage is a church matter. Civil unions, and the affect on laws of inheritance, insurance, et al, do fall under government, but that does not grant government the rightful power to force others to abridge their consciences. You want to fix this issue? Then fix all the issues where government has inserted itself where it has no constitutional authority to do so. Marriage, Taxes, Right To Work, and on and on . . .
1
This is so tiresome. You are not married until the marriage certificate is signed. You can march up and down the aisle in your local church for hours on end, but you are not married until the certificate is signed and filed. and.....you can be married really mearried without setting foot in a church, or have children too
19
Yeah, you would have been right before 1816. Hunter's Lessee….. Your legal philosophy is only 199 years out of date, Mr. Wallace.
12
Miriam. The "walking up and down the aisle for hours on end" thing was absolutely hilarious. Thank you.
4
So, this top Alabama Judge believes that his God, which didn't exist until the rise of Jewish people that followed a different path, is better than the Jewish God, who also didn't exist until the early monotheistic Jewish culture arose, made marriage.
That means that in the thousands of years before the Abrahamic God came about, and in allllllllllllll other non Judeo-Christian cultures, marriage never occurred.
And this guy was voted in.
And Alabama residents wonder why the rest of the country views them as rather backwards and stuck in the past.
I just really hope that he and the other judges get disbarred. I really really do.
That means that in the thousands of years before the Abrahamic God came about, and in allllllllllllll other non Judeo-Christian cultures, marriage never occurred.
And this guy was voted in.
And Alabama residents wonder why the rest of the country views them as rather backwards and stuck in the past.
I just really hope that he and the other judges get disbarred. I really really do.
11
For CIVIL marriage sanctioned by the state of Alabama, the view of the BIBLE is irrelevant. If a given church does not want to marry same sex couples, that is within their rights. The state cannot impose any religious viewpoint on its people. That is ACTUALLY what the US constitution says.
14
Tell that to the bakers and florists and B&B owners in gay-marriage states, who were and are being sued to force them to participate in gay marriages.
Yes, that's terrible for the poor bakers and florists and B&B owners -- it's almost as bad as restaurants being forced to serve black people when they don't believe in it!
7
Roy Moore's still fighting the Civil War. Thanks NYT for making the connection that "state's rights" is code for segregation and always has been.
Perseverance, my Alabama brothers and sisters! It will happen!
Perseverance, my Alabama brothers and sisters! It will happen!
12
The human heart, and our undeniable love for one another, will supersede and triumph over the failed musing and posturing of outdated political policy - Thank God for that!
11
Justice Moore's comment that "marriage is a divine institution ordained by God" (and being an avowed Baptist) makes me wonder if he would support a similar court action made by an Islamic judge in a community with a majority Islamic population...I suspect not.
13
"Although much has changed from Wallace’s era ..."
The only thing that has changed materially from the Wallace era is that the University of Alabama and Auburn don't "discriminate" anymore based on race for their footbal and basketball teams.
Tjhat's the only way they can stay competitive on the national stage.
But love is stronger than fear and hate, Roy Moore. You can check out Jesus on that.
The only thing that has changed materially from the Wallace era is that the University of Alabama and Auburn don't "discriminate" anymore based on race for their footbal and basketball teams.
Tjhat's the only way they can stay competitive on the national stage.
But love is stronger than fear and hate, Roy Moore. You can check out Jesus on that.
8
If only the courts would support equality for blacks as much as they're supporting equality for gays, we'd be in business.
1
While discrimination still happens and prejudice still exists and police unfairly target African Americans and the judicial system incarcerates them more harshly, you can not point to one law on the books anywhere in the USA that holds African Americans subject to unequal treatment based on their race. You really can't. And if you DID find a law on the books it is unenforceable and unconstitutional. But again, you can't. Not one.
Can you say the same for LGBT Americans?
Can you say the same for LGBT Americans?
12
To every one of these couples - may you have a long and joyful life together.
May your public displays of affection be frequent. The rest of us need to loosen up on this topic, for all of us.
NYT - kudos. Your pictures are powerful photojournalism at its best.
May your public displays of affection be frequent. The rest of us need to loosen up on this topic, for all of us.
NYT - kudos. Your pictures are powerful photojournalism at its best.
24
With all the issues confronting us, it is unfathomable that the courts are wasting so much time on whether two people can marry. Why are we legislating the right to happiness ?
8
Because it is apparent we need to do so to gain equality. I know you're a supporter of marriage equality, Marj, however others passed unconstitutional laws that need to be overturned. The country has always and will for always be confronting many important issues, but that can never be an excuse to sweep some issue under the rug. We can do more than one thing at a time - except for republicans in congress, it seems.
Finally, we are not "legislating the right to happiness" - for that is truly impossible (but not a bad idea!) - but rather we are enfranchising all citizens to equal status with regards to marriage rights.
Finally, we are not "legislating the right to happiness" - for that is truly impossible (but not a bad idea!) - but rather we are enfranchising all citizens to equal status with regards to marriage rights.
8
Alabama wouldn't be Alabama if it were on the right side of history. One day, when that starts to change, it would be a good idea to re-name the state to mark the difference.
But from reading the comment sections in a couple of local papers, they have some time to think of a good name.
But from reading the comment sections in a couple of local papers, they have some time to think of a good name.
13
I have some friends in Alabama who were waiting for today.
And drove to Florida to avoid it.
And drove to Florida to avoid it.
Well, then, they are confused since Florida legalized marriage equality in January…. should have drive west toward Missistan.
15
My favorite representation of same-sex marriages in Alabama is clearly the two gay Republican gentlemen, each wearing their bright red Republican neck ties, getting hitched. Congratulations to Alabama. Congratulations to all who love and wish to have their love memorialized in the very odd union we call marriage. Wouldn't cave men call this whole thing silly?
12
A judge denying the legitimacy of the American Federal system, in order to avoid recognizing the rights of American citizens to equality under the law -- treason in the cause of evil. We've seen that before.
14
Please don't use the word "treason" lightly. it is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
I agree that what Judge Moore is doing is reprehensible and probably illegal. He lost his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court after defying a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse in 2003, but the people of Alabama re-elected him to the court a few years later. Maybe he'll be removed from his seat again, but then he'd probably be re-elected a few years later.
Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
I agree that what Judge Moore is doing is reprehensible and probably illegal. He lost his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court after defying a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse in 2003, but the people of Alabama re-elected him to the court a few years later. Maybe he'll be removed from his seat again, but then he'd probably be re-elected a few years later.
I'm politically incorrect as they come. So let them get married. They don't affect me or my family. If they want to get married then they can be as miserable as the rest of us.
11
I would point out a self-evident inconsistency in Mr. Roy Moore's statement concerning the possibility of extending the definition of marriage to include polygamy. If he is a Christian fundamentalist - as he self proclaims - then is he denying the valid of the "unions" of major figures as set forth in Jewish scripture (e.g. Abraham, David, Gideon, Moses, Solomon....) or this merely a further inconvient "truth"?
7
Judaism abandoned polygamy 1500 years before the birth of Christ.
Even when it was practiced (and that was the Bronze Age and the Jews were nomadic tribesmen), it was only the case for the wealthiest men that they could afford more than one wife. It was not "the norm" for average people.
Even when it was practiced (and that was the Bronze Age and the Jews were nomadic tribesmen), it was only the case for the wealthiest men that they could afford more than one wife. It was not "the norm" for average people.
So the 1% existed even then and made sure their world was special.
2
Can someone please tell me why polygamy is not allowed if same-sex marriage is allowed? It's a slippery slope...
3
For the same reason that when Man was allowed to marry Woman, it did not lead to Man marrying a female dog, DESPITE the slippery slope of the female dog being mans "best friend"
9
Oh please with the slippery slope. THe world did not end when black women were allowed to marry white men either.
12
Because people are not inherently polygamous whether sexual orientation is inherent.
8
Aren't the justices that disobey the law aware that they will go down in history remembered for bigotry? They will be mocked for generations as an embarrassment to their state, and in the future museums will use their photos in exhibits that teach children about evils of the past. The captions will quote their unbelievable excuses for discrimination.
11
It's Alabama, they don't care. The "chief justice" has lost his bench once for judicial malfeacence and he was elected AGAIN.
11
I want to thank the Court fro clarifying the fact that they along with the Executive branch no longer recognize any responsibility to the will of the People in the form of votes.
1
The will of the people was to continue slavery, then Jim Crow, not allow women to vote and on and on. ....really.....
9
The will of the people, when it violates the Constitution and the rights of minorities, should be ignored. If the will of the people was that blonde people may not get drivers licenses, would that be a valid law? Or would we recognize that our laws are not set up to maintain or enforce a tyranny of the majority, but to protect fundamental rights--like equal protection under the law--for all.
Majorities elect candidates. They don't get to re-write the Constitution.
Majorities elect candidates. They don't get to re-write the Constitution.
17
If enough people voted to allow the legal lynching if males of dark skin color does that make it ok?
The answer is obviously no.
The answer is obviously no.
11
Obviously conventional marriage in Alabama is extremely vulnerable and subject to threats. I am heterosexual and never once have I ever felt my homosexual friends (some of legal couples) threaten my love for my wife.
25
The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court should be indicted for obstruction of justice. He is interfering with a lawful Court order.
12
File ethics complaints against each Alabama judge who refuses to enforce the federal court order. No attorney should be allowed to disregard a court order.
If Alabama has an issue with the federal court order, then litigate it and let a final decision be made.
In the meantime, Alabama judges who refuse to enforce the law should resign. Failing that, they should be disciplined (private reproval, public reproval, suspension, disbarment).
If Alabama has an issue with the federal court order, then litigate it and let a final decision be made.
In the meantime, Alabama judges who refuse to enforce the law should resign. Failing that, they should be disciplined (private reproval, public reproval, suspension, disbarment).
7
My 2 friends were a couple for 54 years and I have their herring bone blazers, and Alabama can kiss me in the fish. I'm tired, man. Tired of kids being brought up to say, 'ooooo' when hands are held, tired of old people who have no other fight in them so they fight with their messed up ideas, just tired. Because if you remember what marriage takes, what is it of anyone's biz? I don't ask where ya put that thing. I don't say 'she is dressed like a clown', I don't. She's yours, good luck. Get off my backside.
13
I almost wrote a comment reminding Chief Justice Moore that this is the 21st century, after all. But then I decided not to waste my time, because regardless of how this situation turns out, (and we all know how it will turn out - ALL the counties in Alabama will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the end of the week), Chief Justice Moore will attend his Baptist church this coming Sunday and be hailed as a martyr. It will probably make him feel like Jesus.
21
When the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Blacks and whites could marry (Loving vs Virginia) it basically said that all people could marry as the State has no legitimate reason not to permit adults to marry.
Alabama is fighting a States Rights battle that was settled after the Civil War.
Perhaps no one in Alabama has read Tom Friedman's Book, "The World Is Flat."
State laws were important when we had 13 Colonies that were, in fact, 13 nations but States cannot violate the 13th Amendment which states that the Government must treat all citizens equally.
The Civil War is over, segregation is over, anti-miscegenation laws are over and anti-gay rights legislation is over.
The United States is one nation and not 50.
Alabama is fighting a States Rights battle that was settled after the Civil War.
Perhaps no one in Alabama has read Tom Friedman's Book, "The World Is Flat."
State laws were important when we had 13 Colonies that were, in fact, 13 nations but States cannot violate the 13th Amendment which states that the Government must treat all citizens equally.
The Civil War is over, segregation is over, anti-miscegenation laws are over and anti-gay rights legislation is over.
The United States is one nation and not 50.
22
Alabama is the Land of Irony. For example, it's a right wing state that lives of the labor of blue states like Cali, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Jersey, since it receives $3.28 for every federal dollar it contributes. Then there's the greater irony that 37% of its revenue comes via Washington from the blue states. So, an industrious liberal like myself is paying part of Moore's salary and bennies. Yeah, I'm paying for his foolishness. Sigh.
22
The same people who think that the majority shouldn't be allowed to vote away people's civil rights don't seem to have any problem with voting away explicit rights to own and carry a gun. It'd be nice to see a little intellectual consistency, for a change.
3
THere is no way that anyone can equate a piece of metal with a living, breathing human being...and not look silly
6
There's no way a person can so completely miss the point, and not look silly.
3
The major difference is that the constitution clearly mandates gun rights, while it says nothing regarding marriage laws.
Gay marriage in Alabama? Scary... Oh wait. I apologize. That isn't what scares me. What scares me is that in the United States of America we the people have a person like Roy Moore supposedly presiding over us. That probably seems legit by Alabama standards but I have to tell you, having a judge that doesn't know or recognize the law? Scary stuff indeed.
With people like that allowed to run amok, soon we could see, prejudice, discrimination,segregation and...oh wait. Alabama. Do something correct for a change.Stand up and vote! Get these backwards people out of office and clean up your rep. The bad taste the south left in our mouths should be allowed to be forgotten. We can not forget until the change towards common sense and decency is made. Southern folk rise up. For the right reasons this time. Thank you.
With people like that allowed to run amok, soon we could see, prejudice, discrimination,segregation and...oh wait. Alabama. Do something correct for a change.Stand up and vote! Get these backwards people out of office and clean up your rep. The bad taste the south left in our mouths should be allowed to be forgotten. We can not forget until the change towards common sense and decency is made. Southern folk rise up. For the right reasons this time. Thank you.
6
So put the judge in jail where he can receive a quick education about other forms of sexuality that don't mirror his professed moral ideologies. How can people be so stupid that they would attempt to dictate to anyone else who they should fall in love with? Perhaps someone should ask this judge what he was thinking about the last time he played with himself in front of a mirror.
16
They aren't dictating who to fall in love with.
They are dictating who to have sex with.
In their minds none of this has anything to do with love. Ever.
It is really funny, not ha,ha funny.
But a friend of mine that I have known for years and I were riding in the car and she told me that a boy who knew her son was probably facing an arranged marriage because his parents are from India. I said how sad. She said don't get so maudlin, not all marriages begin in love any way. I said but what if he's gay. She sort of stopped and said, of yeah, I guess there is that. So I often wonder what sort of culture we are bringing our kids up in. It's okay to spend your life with people you don't like for the purpose of bringing unhappy kids into the world--you know the only reason(according to the religious freaks) for marriage is to have kids--in an adversarial marriage, right. It's fine having women who don't like the guys they are with be forced to submit to their will in order to bear their children, right? But when two people are genuinely in love, they cannot be united.
They are dictating who to have sex with.
In their minds none of this has anything to do with love. Ever.
It is really funny, not ha,ha funny.
But a friend of mine that I have known for years and I were riding in the car and she told me that a boy who knew her son was probably facing an arranged marriage because his parents are from India. I said how sad. She said don't get so maudlin, not all marriages begin in love any way. I said but what if he's gay. She sort of stopped and said, of yeah, I guess there is that. So I often wonder what sort of culture we are bringing our kids up in. It's okay to spend your life with people you don't like for the purpose of bringing unhappy kids into the world--you know the only reason(according to the religious freaks) for marriage is to have kids--in an adversarial marriage, right. It's fine having women who don't like the guys they are with be forced to submit to their will in order to bear their children, right? But when two people are genuinely in love, they cannot be united.
4
Good to see that old-fashioned states' rights anti-federalism is alive and well in Georgia 150 years after the Civil War.
7
It's Alabama...
5
From Vermont, they all look the same.
7
Obviously, the Constitution forbids denying the same rights of married hetro couples to same-sex couples. However, the beef comes from a forced re-definition of an ancient religious right of passage. The re-definition is being forced on people who don't believe "marriage" should include same sex couples. Where is the tolerance for those people? What is the problem with civil union? The government is in the classification business, and I think the difference is big enough to warrant distinct terms, and that should make the religious folks happy and provide equal rights for all couples. Seems more like an assault on Judeo-Christian values to me.
1
Oh, so you didn't have a problem using the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples when they got married outside of a church. To suddenly have a problem with "marriage" outside of a church because gay people are getting it is bigoted, plan and simple. Furthermore, why take away "marriage" from those straight couples who marry outside of a church, which is what you're suggesting?
It's a civil marriage, not holy matrimony.
It's a civil marriage, not holy matrimony.
18
A state capitol, or the Supreme Court, is not your church.
15
Would you be comfortable with separate drinking fountains and waiting rooms for "Christians"? This country tried the separate but equal route and decided it wasn't for us. This has nothing to do with marriage as a religious rite. This is all about marriage as a legal contract in the eyes of the state.
As a gay man and an atheist, I'm sick and tired of having religion forced on me and used as a weapon against me. I'm all for freedom of religion but equally am in favor of freedom from religion. If you're going to use your religion to dictate how I live my life, then I'm going to want a say in how your religion is run.
This is a secular country, The Founders had every opportunity to make this a Christian country but they didn't. I think their omission speaks volumes about how they felt about religion.
As a gay man and an atheist, I'm sick and tired of having religion forced on me and used as a weapon against me. I'm all for freedom of religion but equally am in favor of freedom from religion. If you're going to use your religion to dictate how I live my life, then I'm going to want a say in how your religion is run.
This is a secular country, The Founders had every opportunity to make this a Christian country but they didn't. I think their omission speaks volumes about how they felt about religion.
22
Common sense says that equality is not something that has to be demanded but part of our inalienable rights. The court is finally on the right page and religion and backward societies have to be dragged screaming and yelling into the 21 century. Our society not withstanding. Now how does one convince the right wing republicans and evanglicasl that religion does not rule our country but the constitution does and no god can tell us what to do with our lives.
11
A bunch of hooey over nothing. Let LOVE shine on.
9
Justice Scalia may yet make Justice Moore look rational on the subject of same-sex marriage.
10
Given that the anachronistic Justice Scalia is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the Supreme Court, query how much heft there would be in his support of Justice Moore.
2
This is what I've been telling my friend's kids about. Don't get complacent I tell them...things can change. I was explaining to my best friend's daughter it was important to stand up for her rights and I realized, these kids never really had to. When I was raised in the 60's, there were still more boys in colleges than females, barely any minorities and, if you were gay, you sure never said it. So I found myself having to explain to someone who couldn't comprehend why equal pay was important. This is where the apathy is coming from I said.
So in my lifetime I have seen the Civil Rights Act.
Roe v. Wade.
Hopefully now acceptance of gay marriage.
But many of the people we've fought to gain it for are so cavalier with their privileges that they do not guard them. There are too many who would step out and just as quickly snatch them from their hands...either bit by bit as they are doing with Roe or all at once like they did by declaring the Civil Rights Act unnecessary. Be wary.
So in my lifetime I have seen the Civil Rights Act.
Roe v. Wade.
Hopefully now acceptance of gay marriage.
But many of the people we've fought to gain it for are so cavalier with their privileges that they do not guard them. There are too many who would step out and just as quickly snatch them from their hands...either bit by bit as they are doing with Roe or all at once like they did by declaring the Civil Rights Act unnecessary. Be wary.
18
Absolutely. A very keen observation and a reminder to all.
7
Your comment applies equally well to the current activities of our secret government agencies.
After reading this article, I chose to view the photo show that the Times compiled. What beautiful pictures of loving couples who can now enjoy having their long-term relationships recognized as legally married. I always find myself tearing up when I see these pictures - these are people who truly value marriage.
17
"Amid conflicting signals from federal courts and the chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court, some Alabama counties began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday in a legal showdown with echoes of the battles over desegregation in the 1960s." Excuse me, there is no conflict. The federal courts have spoken on a federal question (the US district Court found Alabama's same-sex ban violated the US Constitution, and the US S. Ct. refused the state's request for a stay), and the state courts are powerless to contest those rulings. So-called Chief Justice Roy Moore should be censured. removed from office, and disbarred. Since he does not believe in the rule of law, he is manifestly unfit to hold any judicial post, or to hold any position in our legal system.
38
Alexander Hamilton - Amen!
8
As a side bar to the discussion, a speaker I heard a month ago or so said something I thought was interesting: if you want to move *forward* and not get into flaming arguments every time you broach a difficult subject, try these three "no's"--No history, No blaming, No religion. It actually works, although it is still painful. The trick, of course, is to get the ground rules in place before blood starts flowing. :-(
12
Wow, I'd never thought I'd see the day when gay marriage would be legal in the state of Alabama. I used to live in Birmingham in the late '90's. There were plenty of all types of people there, in other words, free spirits. Nonetheless, discrimination and worse were simmering under the smiles of the masks people wore, so to speak.
During that time in Alabama between '96-'99, there was Ellen DeGeneres's infamous coming out episode which was banned, the only place in the country to do so, the New Woman All Women Clinic in downtown Birmingham was nailed bombed, killing one, the security officer named Robert "Sandy" Sanderson, severely injuring another, the nurse, Emily Lyons, by someone who admitted to planting bombs at gay clubs. It all culminated with Billy Jack Gaither, who was gay bashed and brutally murdered near Sylacauga, AL in 1999
After all of that troubled and violent history, I'm happy out of the darkness gay couples of Alabama can get married if they so choose. Congratulations.
During that time in Alabama between '96-'99, there was Ellen DeGeneres's infamous coming out episode which was banned, the only place in the country to do so, the New Woman All Women Clinic in downtown Birmingham was nailed bombed, killing one, the security officer named Robert "Sandy" Sanderson, severely injuring another, the nurse, Emily Lyons, by someone who admitted to planting bombs at gay clubs. It all culminated with Billy Jack Gaither, who was gay bashed and brutally murdered near Sylacauga, AL in 1999
After all of that troubled and violent history, I'm happy out of the darkness gay couples of Alabama can get married if they so choose. Congratulations.
105
I think we all knew that Bama would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a fairer universe, just like they did in the desegregation era, so this is no surprise. Let them kick and scream all they like, maybe through that process they'll exorcise some of their many demons, but I doubt it. Fun to watch from afar, I must admit, but I'd hate to have to live there.
29
The fireworks in the south have not even begun. Wait until Texas gets its turn. You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Texas will be the very last of the last to implement same sex marriage. As we speak, they're drafting legislation to thwart every type of legal or illegal loophole. My bet is, Bama will have a gay, black female governor before Texas has same sex marriage. I'm standing by that bet.
4
I don't understand the big deal. If two people love each other why shouldn't they be able to get married? What's everyone's problem about this? These people are still going to be your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers. Nothing is going to change from that perspective. The only thing that does change is their rights under the law. To be a legal parent, to be able to make end of life decisions for each other. Things that are very private and none of our business. How can their right to get married not be a great thing?
42
Well, sure, and I suppose for the same reason it is still legal to deny housing and fire people based on their being gay: a certain segment of the population seems that is entirely cool, so your notion "These people are still going to be your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers" is actually something some people can legally prevent in certain states. Nice, isn't it?
9
Because I don't want MY marriage to be redefined -- degraded, demeaned and water down -- to appease a small, loud, WEALTHY minority group that has used their great wealth to corrupt the Federal judiciary.
Concerned Citizen:
Is your marriage not one between two consenting adults, because otherwise, I can see no reason your marriage would be redefined...
Sometimes, things just aren't about you.
Is your marriage not one between two consenting adults, because otherwise, I can see no reason your marriage would be redefined...
Sometimes, things just aren't about you.
6
Arguably, a non-party (Judge Moore) could be held in contempt by Judge Granade on the aiding and abetting principle, since he has now aided and abetted (indeed, directed) local probate judges to defy a federal court order. I expect Judge Granade, however, being more temperate and thoughtful that Judge Moore, to let that opportunity pass at least for a little while.
14
Alabama courts and politicians should have paid attention to same-sex marriage in Florida, where county clerks of court, who issue marriage licenses, had obtained a law firm's opinion that any federal court orders in a marriage case would apply only to one county, and perhaps only to the couple who had brought the suit. The U.S. district judge, Robert Louis Hinkle, made it clear that, at present, in all of Florida, it's the U.S. Constitution, not a mere court decision, that requires marriage licenses for same-sex couples on the same basis as for opposite-sex couples. There's no further need for county-by-county litigation.
12
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to allow weddings to continue. Reason wins over fear. The US is a nation of laws. We are not ISIS or Iran.
42
Thank God we have a secular Constitution which protects us from theocracy.
46
And thank god god had nothing to do with it.
12
I will never understand why people are against people finding happiness. This odd group, who also fervently declare their right to no government (whatever that is) and stockpiling firearms, need to learn to care about others.
28
If the state does not abide by federal courts, it should be immediately ineligible for any federal funding. If Alabama thinks it can survive without providing equal civil rights to all U.S. citizens, it should learn that lesson the hard way.
39
So if folks want to save traditional marriage maybe we should show the same energy banning all forms of divorce? I mean half of all current marriages end in divorce. A zero percent divorce rate would surely please the Lord :-)
Matthew 19:4-6
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Matthew 19:4-6
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10
The Catholic Church let Ted Kennedy divorce. They called it annulment. Gays can may in Alabama. Priests can't marry anywhere.
2
Do away with Alabama income taxes And food tax. .. Allow the lottery and bring on the gambling. oh yea and allow Alcohol sales in the whole state of Alabama after all theses are all the things we have voted for and voted down on after all our votes don't count so why not . Now this case opens the door for any attorney who brave enough to change the law . And don't forget to use this case as a prime example that the Alabama voters don't have a say in what Alabama does and doesn't do .
2
Alabama voters -- just like every other voter -- don't get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.
13
So, you do not support the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution?
You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens - not just for heterosexual rightwingers. The one that negates attempts by states to put people's constitutional rights up for a popular vote of the majority. That one?
You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens - not just for heterosexual rightwingers. The one that negates attempts by states to put people's constitutional rights up for a popular vote of the majority. That one?
13
The civil rights of Americans are not up for a vote. That is a founding principle upon which our government was established and is enumerated in the constitution. No matter what some bigots in Alabama might say.
11
Not sure why so many straight people and more than a few states think they can simply vote away the civil rights of gay people. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it is a violation of federal law to single out minorities for unequal treatment, which is what Alabama has done by voting to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples only. Alabama really should know better--it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
29
It's not some weird eccentricity of Alabama. It is what 33 states already did also. It is what was the LAW not just in the US, but in every part of westernized society for millennia. It dates back to the earliest human societies, in every time period and era and religion (or even no religion in Communist China or USSR, where only traditional marriage occurred).
It is gay marriage activists who wish to impose something abnormal and contrary to EVERY religion, and force it on the majority of people who voted against it.
It is gay marriage activists who wish to impose something abnormal and contrary to EVERY religion, and force it on the majority of people who voted against it.
Clearly the time has come for gay marriage to just slide into the normal dial tones of daily life in America. The tsunami has come ashore, agree with it or not. Our ever-inflamed world can, indeed must, encourage all of the love it can find. And it's absolutely, utterly absurd to imagine that forms of marriage could or should be sanctioned on a state-by-state basis. That any lawyers believe they can construct a container of legal precedent and mumbo-jumbo to hold that idea intact speaks volumes against the use of law to dictate such behaviors.
8
All legal and constitutional arguments aside, just look at the joy on the faces of the newly wedded couples. If this is so deeply troubling to you then I suggest you take a look in the mirror next.
26
This isn't a conflict about the finer points of the law but a case where the chief justice of Alabama conflates his personal beliefs with the interests of Alabama and, in doing so, exceeds his authority.
34
82% of the voters in Alabama also agree with the Judge on this.
Yet another state that rational visitors to the U.S. should avoid until there are signs that it has entered, at least, the 20th century if not the 21st.
33
Marriage rights for all. And I thought it would never happen in my lifetime. Thanks to all of you, gay or straight, who cared enough about justice to make this happen.
29
If only all the people who are fit to be tied (or worse) because of gay marriage would take a cue from Alabama probate judge Alan King. Judge King surely got to the crux of the matter: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
23
Alabama, you've got a wheel in the ditch and a wheel on the track....
14
See Alabama that wasn't so bad after all those histrionics you pulled last night and this morning. You're not burning down, no unexpected shadow of death, no brimstone, you all just didn't disappear as in the rapture and that's a good thing. It's a good time to reflect. What you did do was gain some more taxes... married people always pay more, made some people very happy 'cause now they can get health benefits (that's part of the reason I married, 24yrs now), and legally they can be buried together. They get to share all the best and worst parts of marriage. So welcome to Gay Marriage Alabama it isn't all that bad unless you get divorced.
19
Know why the rest of the country distrusts "States' Rights"? Because the idea is only ever used by ultraconservative pols from the former Confederate states when they're trying to defend their HABITUAL cruelty, bigotry, and ignorance.
There is no better way to push people toward Statism and blind deference to federal authority than by giving the impression that everyone who cares about Federalism is a vicious theocrat -- and that is exactly what the South has been doing for 150 years now.
There is no better way to push people toward Statism and blind deference to federal authority than by giving the impression that everyone who cares about Federalism is a vicious theocrat -- and that is exactly what the South has been doing for 150 years now.
33
How terrible for LGBT citizens of Alabama to confront outright bigotry & willful disobedience of the law on their special day.
24
Outside of the US, "Alabama" is often used by the rest of the world as a byword for rural backwardness and know-nothingness. Judge Moore surely lives up to the reputation of his state.
35
We use it inside the US as well...
1
Is there an isolated island somewhere to which we can ship Mr. Moore? What a national embarrassment he has become, with little to no purchase on the concept of law and how it should and must be applied.
25
The only thing that matters in re the law of the US is the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. What the Bible says don't mean squat in court.
47
Yesterday, my wife and I saw the movie "Selma." The bigotry, discrimination, intimidation, denials of rights, indignities, police brutality and worse, that were perpetrated upon African Americans in Alabama, as shown in the picture, are inconceivable to anyone who understands the United States Constitution and its Amendments. Although racial discrimination in Alabama may not be as bad now as it was in 1965, in my opinion the picture casts Alabama in a very bad light. Today's actions by Chief Justice Moore and local judges in Alabama lead me to wonder what has been achieved there during the last 50 years. It is sad to see that the lessons of 1965 still have not been learned in Alabama.
24
There is no doubt about racial discrimination in the US, particularly in the South, 50 years ago. However, that particular movie, like "the Butler" last year, took "artistic license" with the truth. It is not a good source of real history, despite the continuing marketing hype trying to sell it as "entertainment." No dice. Trashing the truth, trying to rewrite real history and twisting the truth is disgraceful. If you are going to make a movie about someone as important as Martin Luther King Jr, at the very least have respect for the man and don't try to rewrite actual events - they were tough enough without embellishment. Shame on all involved in that film.
1
I enjoy all the "states' rights rhetoric" used by some politicians. Where is the states' responsibility talk. AL takes in over $2 in fed largess for each $1 contributed in revenue. And has for years before Geo Wallace. Time to walk the talk and get with the times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
16
Roy Moore's regard for the law is no different than that of someone who loots their own neighborhood. If his faith is greater than the oath of office he should resign from office so he can be replaced by someone who respects the United States Constitution.
17
Why should I, or anyone, be surprised that a state of the original, or neo-, confederacy would not support the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Kudos to those who do...
Kudos to those who do...
19
The Chief Justice of Alabama is a tent revival entertainer ... he always will be, because Alabamians like it that way. It's their right as a State.
That has nothing to do with the law of the land, which at this moment is not clear, and won't be until the King decision is handed down by the SCOTUS later this year.
Having a trained ape play "Here comes the judge!" is infinitely preferable to the histrionic secession movement that got carried way too far back in 1861.
That has nothing to do with the law of the land, which at this moment is not clear, and won't be until the King decision is handed down by the SCOTUS later this year.
Having a trained ape play "Here comes the judge!" is infinitely preferable to the histrionic secession movement that got carried way too far back in 1861.
11
Ain't no stoppin' us now! Judge Moore - move on. Your time is gone. Go sit on your porch, pour yourself a drink, a have a talk with the ghost of Governor Wallace.
28
Some judges to Moore: We played this story in the 1950s. Now, we decline.
Other judges: We want to stop up the doorways and block up the halls.
Other judges: We want to stop up the doorways and block up the halls.
3
Same-sex marriage is not about marriage but about legislating the "gay" lifestyle and coercing acceptance on the part of those who disagree on a moral basis. Here in South Africa they have had same-sex "marriage" since the end of 2006 yet only 3500 same-sex couples have availed themselves to it meaning that less than .5% of the gay population is interested in same-sex "marriage" for the sake of marriage. In Holland, the first country in the world to have gay "marriage" less than 1.5% of the gay population has tied the knot. In the US, once the political euphoria wears off the number of gay ceremonies will drop drastically, but the LGBT will use state-sanctioned matrimony to punish all who disagree and to curb religious liberties of Christians (Islam gets a free pass by the LGBT because they don't have the courage to take on Islam) with their erotic liberties. They may have won the battle, but they have already lost the war.
1
My state has had same sex marriage for quite a while now. No one has ever been "punished" because of it, nor have I ever witnessed any mention of "erotic liberties" by the married gay people that I've met at work or socially. Every gay person I know just wants the same things we all do, and there is no subversive agenda about wanting to take other people's freedoms away.
You are living in a shell of manufactured fear that has no basis in reality. Luckily most Americans are emerging from their own similar shells and realizing that this just isn't an issue that affects their daily lives. I hope you can one day do the same.
You are living in a shell of manufactured fear that has no basis in reality. Luckily most Americans are emerging from their own similar shells and realizing that this just isn't an issue that affects their daily lives. I hope you can one day do the same.
24
Great argument for allowing gay marriage - so few will take advantage of it that it won't be visible at all. Good, logical, thinking.
14
By your line of reasoning, inter-racial marriage has probably also "won the battle" but "lost the war", as only a small percentage of black people end up marrying a white spouse after inter-racial marriage was allowed.
31
Children of a future age
Reading this indignant page
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love! was thought a crime
Wm. Blake
Reading this indignant page
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love! was thought a crime
Wm. Blake
19
What I always love about folks in some of the Southern states is that they don't want to take any direction from the federal government, but they're happy to accept its largesse. Alabama receives $3.28 in federal money for every dollar residents pay in federal taxes. That translates to an awful lot of gay people in America helping to keep the state afloat.
33
The frightening thing in this is how many of the Republicans likely to be running for president would have Judge Moore high on their list of Supreme Court nominees.
15
Despite years of protests against gay marriage, not one person has ever shown that he or she was harmed by it in any way. Plenty of gay people have clearly been harmed by their inability to marry, however. In the end, that's why gay marriage must be permitted under the law in every state.
21
How about these young boys? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-...
1
If I wanted to waste my time I could find 100 instances of where a child was harmed by a heterosexual marriage.
10
Mr. Moore (Don't dignify him with "Justice" or demean others who perform their judicial tasks honorably and within the bounds of their offices.) has issued an "order" directing Alabama probate court judges to ignore a federal court order. Judge Alan King gets it. Mr. Moore doesn't.
Will those who shout about "activist judges" label Mr. Moore as such? Don't bet the ranch on that one.
Will those who shout about "activist judges" label Mr. Moore as such? Don't bet the ranch on that one.
10
Justice Moore demands that probate judges of Alabama defy and purposely disobey a federal decree that has declared that State's marriage law unconstitutional under OUR Federal Constitution. Neither Alabama's [c]onstitution or its laws trump OUR Federal Constitution - the days of barking dogs, bloody police batons, and state officials crying defiance are long gone. Justice Moore is "old hat," ignore him as most of the probate judges are doing.
9
There is an old show biz saying that all publicity is good publicity. Unfortunately for Alabama this is not the case regarding Justice Moore's actions.
9
Interesting interplay between politics and the law. The Chief Justice is elected which makes him bow to political whim. The whole event reminds me of the overturn of miscegenation laws. Would the good chief justice enforce those laws if the public passed them again?
10
Oh yes he will ;)
3
If Republicans are so for "state's rights", then why are Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma trying to overturn Colorado's cannabis laws? "state's rights" are only "state's rights", when the GOP agrees with a law. As in this case, in Alabama; they do not agree and are condemning the US Supreme Court.
Alabama joins a long list of states, for now, that allow gay marriage. Though, there is an upcoming case, in the US Supreme Court, to decide the legality of gay marriage once and for all. Today's ruling may not be a hint what the US Supreme Court will do.
Like much of our politics, the Bill of Rights are interpreted at the convenience of politics. Just like The Bible is interpreted by the convenience of a pastor giving a sermon.
I like to see if the US Supreme Court decides for "state's rights" in regards to obstructionist voting laws. Or better yet, subsidies under so called "Obamacare". June could prove very interesting.
it is interesting the red states celebrate when the US Supreme Court finds their way, but condemns it when the court does not.
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29. See play "Inherit teh Wind" and information on the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Alabama joins a long list of states, for now, that allow gay marriage. Though, there is an upcoming case, in the US Supreme Court, to decide the legality of gay marriage once and for all. Today's ruling may not be a hint what the US Supreme Court will do.
Like much of our politics, the Bill of Rights are interpreted at the convenience of politics. Just like The Bible is interpreted by the convenience of a pastor giving a sermon.
I like to see if the US Supreme Court decides for "state's rights" in regards to obstructionist voting laws. Or better yet, subsidies under so called "Obamacare". June could prove very interesting.
it is interesting the red states celebrate when the US Supreme Court finds their way, but condemns it when the court does not.
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29. See play "Inherit teh Wind" and information on the Scopes Monkey Trial.
7
All I can say is, thanks Modern Family for opening so many people's eyes.
11
Chief Justice Moore knows his future employment is not dependent on those fancy constitutional scholars. Nullification still sells in a state whose motto is: Thank God For Mississippi!
8
At least conservatives are consistent.
They pick and choose what to follow and hold dear from the Constitution and ignore the rest.
Just like their bibles.
They pick and choose what to follow and hold dear from the Constitution and ignore the rest.
Just like their bibles.
19
This is not about opinion polls nationwide being in support of gay marriage or locally, Alabama, being against gay marriage. It is not about the couples being happier, etc. It is about civil rights. People cannot benefit from being part of this country, while choosing to ignore its constitution.
16
George Wallace tried to bar African Americans from entering the U of Alabama, but famously, within 16 years, came to the realization that he was "wrong": "Those days are over, and they ought to be over." I hope that at least some of those who are blocking the doorway to justice today will likewise some day come to their senses.
21
The irony in all of this is that some marriages both straight and gay are being denied in some counties of Alabama due to the conflicting signals from the Alabama state supreme court. I guess Alabama is the last throwback of states including my own(Tennessee) in the deep south on the issue of same sex marriage.
9
It's funny how Moore claims that God is on his side.
I assume he knows this because God told him personally?
Because if he claims it is based on scripture, someone should point out to him that the same book of the bible that prohibits homosexuality also advocates the killing of disobedient children and embraces slavery. Why embrace one message in the book and not all of them? If one message is outdated and a reflection of more primitive times, maybe other messages in that book are?
If Moore claims any adherence to Christianity, he might want to recall the Golden Rule. Yet, this is the one rule he seems to have the biggest problem with. Clearly, he has a problem marrying those who love one another.
Does Moore think these people will cease to love each other because he prohibits their marriage? What arrogance. His image of God is basically a cover for his bigotry. Nothing more.
I assume he knows this because God told him personally?
Because if he claims it is based on scripture, someone should point out to him that the same book of the bible that prohibits homosexuality also advocates the killing of disobedient children and embraces slavery. Why embrace one message in the book and not all of them? If one message is outdated and a reflection of more primitive times, maybe other messages in that book are?
If Moore claims any adherence to Christianity, he might want to recall the Golden Rule. Yet, this is the one rule he seems to have the biggest problem with. Clearly, he has a problem marrying those who love one another.
Does Moore think these people will cease to love each other because he prohibits their marriage? What arrogance. His image of God is basically a cover for his bigotry. Nothing more.
33
Ecclesiastes 4:11
2
Jesus is against homosexual relations and definitely against gay marriage.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Where is gay marriage mentioned in there?
11
marriage is simply not in the constitution. But lets get real; the constitution has not mattered since any live person today was born. It is a joke that we even talk of it like it matters.
Civil rights are. And if there are special rights and privileges guaranteed to persons of married status, then marriages should be a viable option to all.
And the Constitution doesn't matter?
What do you think allows you the right to even give your opinion in this paper?
If you worship freely do you think you could do so without Constitutional guarantee?
Do you own a gun?
Do you vote?
Need I go on?
This is what I am continuously trying to impart to my friends' children when I explain why it is important to vote.
And the Constitution doesn't matter?
What do you think allows you the right to even give your opinion in this paper?
If you worship freely do you think you could do so without Constitutional guarantee?
Do you own a gun?
Do you vote?
Need I go on?
This is what I am continuously trying to impart to my friends' children when I explain why it is important to vote.
17
Did a parliamentary system with a hereditary king replace the democracy whose operation is outlined in the constitution while I was not paying attention?:
7
I believe these actions meet the definition of sedition: "In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition."
When will this cretin named Moore be charged?
When will this cretin named Moore be charged?
26
If people who vote for or against something no longer have their vote count; then why vote at all.
This is dis-enfranchisement all they way.
This is dis-enfranchisement all they way.
People aren't supposed to vote on civil rights issues.
22
Marie, voting on some OTHER citizens' rights and freedoms shouldn't be happening in the first place.
17
The population does not get to view on whether this minority or that one is entitled to the same rights as everyone else. If gay Americans are citizens with full legal standing and the laws of our country recognize marriage as a legal right of its citizens, then it doesn't matter if you or anyone else is personally comfortable with gay marriage-- it's their right to do it despite your opinion.
18
It never ceases to amaze me how often people will say "But the people voted on it!" At no point in our nation's history has that been how it works. If a majority could take away the rights of the minority by a simple vote, then the Constitution would mean nothing. As an example, the First Amendment wasn't enacted to protect popular speech. Why would popular speech need to be protected? Ergo, the Constitution protects the rights of the minority (here, gay couples) because what's popular and in the majority doesn't need to be protected. How this is so difficult for some people to understand is beyond my comprehension.
Equally, what kind of dream world does Justice Moore live in where he believes that federal court holdings aren't binding on state courts? This man is a justice of a state supreme court? Amazing.
Equally, what kind of dream world does Justice Moore live in where he believes that federal court holdings aren't binding on state courts? This man is a justice of a state supreme court? Amazing.
302
He is an ELECTED judge of the supreme court. So his main qualification is basically "We voted in it! ".
4
@resipa I wish I could Recommend your comment a thousand times because the logic (based on history and The Constitution) can not be refuted. It is a sad day when Americans have been so dumbed down that many believe it is simple majority rule for everything (or worse yet: I don't believe in it so I don't have to abide by it) to the point where the very thing they claim to hold dear is in jeopardy.
10
He lives in the same world that forced the Federal Government to send in troops to desegregate. These are hateful people, and the Civil War has never ended.
8
How do we get word to Alabama regarding the outcome of the Civil War?
45
Perhaps Judge Moore--he who is already infamous for having defied the 10 Commandments by casting and installing a multi-ton graven image of the 10 Commandments in the lobby of his building--should cast himself in stone, have himself installed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building and thus become the fossilized relic he strives so hard to be.
27
Is Roy Moore the reincarnation of George C Wallace and Bull Connor? What a sad coincidence that 50 years ago Wallace and Connor held the national state in Selma. Half a century later, Roy Moore is performing the same dance, he is truly a disgrace and a laughing stock that is doing less than zero for the state of Alabama and the United States. A hate-filled bully and bigot. All the best to the newly weds in Alabama. Amen.
21
Chief Justice Moore clearly doesn't understand the concept of separation of church and state. A decade ago he defied a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a Montgomery building, and now he refuses to acknowledge the legality of same-sex marriage. America is NOT Christian nation, and we must be loud and clear when reminding Christian fundamentalists of this FACT.
25
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
2
Yes indeed. The need of the many gays and lesbians to get married most definitely outweighs the need of one Judge Moore to stop them.
11
On the one hand, a bright day we should rightfully celebrate --equality, at least as Federal Marriages is concerned. Yet, there has always been an unresolved tension between the Supreme Court, and the Federal government, and State government. The State judicial system of Montana, for example, felt that it trumped the US Supreme Court's Citizen's United. And, so did to a certain extent, the Florida Supreme Court in Gore v. Bush. But in these cases, the constitutional crisis was avoided by the states blinking at the last minute.
Looks like in Alabama this was not the case --which means perhaps that it will become established (or not) which Court system will prevail. Frankly, I think neither --the People speak in favor of gay marriage, and so does the arc of history, so the State Supreme Court in Alabama will fail. But the arc of history also points away from the US Supreme Court, and we can expect that via signing statement, or simply lack of adherence at the state and executive level, also will Citizen United, and the killing of Obamacare, will be nullified by fiat, yet also prove the undoing of the Supreme Court. Which is, at the end of the day, is exactly what the Supreme Court deserves once it became clear it turned into a political cabal.
Looks like in Alabama this was not the case --which means perhaps that it will become established (or not) which Court system will prevail. Frankly, I think neither --the People speak in favor of gay marriage, and so does the arc of history, so the State Supreme Court in Alabama will fail. But the arc of history also points away from the US Supreme Court, and we can expect that via signing statement, or simply lack of adherence at the state and executive level, also will Citizen United, and the killing of Obamacare, will be nullified by fiat, yet also prove the undoing of the Supreme Court. Which is, at the end of the day, is exactly what the Supreme Court deserves once it became clear it turned into a political cabal.
1
Sadly, the intent of the Founders was to avoid politicization of the Federal Court system through lifetime appointments, rather than elections and short terms.
We all know how that worked out. If nothing else, Bush v. Gore proved that that just doesn't work. Scalia palling around with the same officeholders he has to rule on is another.
Oh well, it's still the best system we have until we can think of a better one.
We all know how that worked out. If nothing else, Bush v. Gore proved that that just doesn't work. Scalia palling around with the same officeholders he has to rule on is another.
Oh well, it's still the best system we have until we can think of a better one.
2
The most salient quote in this article:
Here in Jefferson County, Judge Alan L. King of Probate Court said he had no hesitation, despite the Sunday night order on marriage licenses from Chief Justice Moore.
”At the end of the day, it’s still a very simple legal analysis: You’ve got a federal court order,” Judge King said in an interview as he watched the couples line up, near a white ribbon and red balloons.
He added: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Here in Jefferson County, Judge Alan L. King of Probate Court said he had no hesitation, despite the Sunday night order on marriage licenses from Chief Justice Moore.
”At the end of the day, it’s still a very simple legal analysis: You’ve got a federal court order,” Judge King said in an interview as he watched the couples line up, near a white ribbon and red balloons.
He added: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
30
50 years ago, the Governor of Alabama was fighting to maintain segregation of the races. Thanks to Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson (a liberal Republican appointed by Eisenhower), justice prevailed. Today, many Alabama politicians are objecting to another group's quest for justice and equal protection under the laws. I am grateful today for the efforts of the judiciary in moving us toward a "more perfect union" and further away from a loose confederation of individual states where demagogues pander to racism and homophobia in the name of states' rights or religion.
21
The sad citizens who support this bigotry and discrimination are too gullible to even realize how they have been used and manipulated - by politicians, pundits and pastors who have been scapegoating LGBT Americans in order to fill their polling places with votes, pockets with dollars and collection plates with the hard-earned wages of their uneducated, ill-informed flocks.
They have been sorely used, and don't even realize it.
They have been sorely used, and don't even realize it.
7
Judge King:
“This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Amen.
“This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Amen.
27
”At the end of the day, it’s still a very simple legal analysis: You’ve got a federal court order,” Judge King said in an interview as he watched the couples line up, near a white ribbon and red balloons.
He added: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
I think he gets it. Bravo!
He added: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
I think he gets it. Bravo!
20
Once again the federal government infringing on states rights.
We are getting to the point where a state government will be useless, as Uncle Sam seems to centralize power.
This is not a LGT issue , it's a states rights issue.
We are getting to the point where a state government will be useless, as Uncle Sam seems to centralize power.
This is not a LGT issue , it's a states rights issue.
2
I don't think you want to fight the segregation battle again, or the interracial-marriage battle. There is no state right to deny constitutional rights and protections to members of a minority group. Period.
18
Go read a book on the history of law in the United States. There is no "getting to the point where a state government will be useless...". Throughout our history states have been slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court for constitutional violations.
15
It's an issue of discrimination, plain and simple. No, it's not an "LGT" (sic) nor is it a states right's issue. It's a matter of fairness. If the spouse in a heterosexual relationship can claim life insurance benefits, etc., but the same privilege is not extended to homosexual couples because they are not allowed to marry, then that is separate treatment under the law. I.e. discrimination. I.e. doesn't jive with the law. You understand now?
14
Fifty years after the actions of Alabama's "law enforcement community" were seared into memory on the Edmund Pettis bridge, Ray More wants to reprise the despicable George Wallace, this time standing at the Courthouse door. Thank God, however, that there are people like Jefferson County Probate Court Judge Alan L. King of Probate Court, who said, “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.” Amen.
214
Of course a few would also have 'joy' at being able to 'marry' a underage child as well. I have no problem denying the them that 'happiness' either. Wrong and not something society should, or ever has, encouraged.
1
If Judge Moore feels so strongly about State vs Federal governance, then Alabama doesn't need the $14 billion of Federal military contractors, the additional $10 billion earmarked for new missile productions in the state or the 4 military bases providing the only source of income in those areas.
Seeing how Alabama is ranked 3rd in the nation on dependence of Federal funds and the sixth poorest state, that contributes the least amount of taxes to the country, perhaps Judge Moore should keep his trap shut about Federal vs State powers.
Seeing how Alabama is ranked 3rd in the nation on dependence of Federal funds and the sixth poorest state, that contributes the least amount of taxes to the country, perhaps Judge Moore should keep his trap shut about Federal vs State powers.
59
The conservative block of SCOTUS will undoubtedly be taking note of Alabama's last stand on the matter and the visceral public reaction to same.
As a result, I expect Robert's will garner a near-majority ruling on gay marriage because even Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have limits as to how much public ridicule they can suffer.
History is in the making.
As a result, I expect Robert's will garner a near-majority ruling on gay marriage because even Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have limits as to how much public ridicule they can suffer.
History is in the making.
13
In the end the US Supreme Court must return to the 14th Amendment granting equal protection under the law, an amendment that grew out of treatment of African Americans in the post Civil-War period.
As for states' rights, Lincoln put it best (quoting scripture): a house divided against itself cannot stand. We can't have legal gay marriage in some states, but make it illegal in others.
Both for legal and moral reasons, then, the ban on same-sex marriage in must fall across the whole nation.
As for states' rights, Lincoln put it best (quoting scripture): a house divided against itself cannot stand. We can't have legal gay marriage in some states, but make it illegal in others.
Both for legal and moral reasons, then, the ban on same-sex marriage in must fall across the whole nation.
14
If the issue was a woman's right to vote, or the rights of an African American to sit down to eat in a restaurant, would anyone today argue states' rights or the Tenth Amendment?
18
Sure: Judge Roy Moore, after checking with the ghost of George Wallace (before he wised up).
9
Sadly, actually yes. Rand Paul made exactly that argument when he was first elected mostly on a libertarian argument rather than 10th amendment. He walked it back after public outcry.
11
They're arguing the second part in Indiana even as we speak. They call it the religious freedom bill.
4
This line in the story is bizarre" "Some legal scholars say that the chief justice may be correct in his interpretation of the immediate scope of the federal court’s rulings and how they apply to the probate judges."
What legal scholar believes that the federal Constitution permits a state official to defy a district court order that the Supreme Court lets stand? The supremacy of federal law and power of federal judges to enjoin conduct that violates it is firmly settled. At a minimum, the Times needs to name whoever they found who believes this, and it probably needs to explain that person's view.
What legal scholar believes that the federal Constitution permits a state official to defy a district court order that the Supreme Court lets stand? The supremacy of federal law and power of federal judges to enjoin conduct that violates it is firmly settled. At a minimum, the Times needs to name whoever they found who believes this, and it probably needs to explain that person's view.
34
I couldn't agree more. The mere insertion of that line without further explanation or quotes leaves some to believe these "some legal scholars".
8
It is true that the INJUNCTION applies only to those who were specifically enjoined.
However, that's only one part of the ruling, and these self-appointed "experts" seem to ignore the rest - that Judge Granade also declared the law and amendment UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It's true, she has no power to force all Alabamians to stop violating the U. S. Constitution, but she can entertain, and issue, summary judgment against any individual brought into her court for violation of the U. S. Constitution. Which is why the ACLU is standing right outside courthouses all across the state to identify any judge who refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples. They can either face a brand new Civil Rights Federal suit or be added to the existing one. In any case, when they are ruled against, they will be liable for the legal fees earned by the ACLU, court costs, and potential damages to the plaintiffs.
Welcome to bankruptcy, to all you judges who refused to honor the United States Constitution! Serves you right!
However, that's only one part of the ruling, and these self-appointed "experts" seem to ignore the rest - that Judge Granade also declared the law and amendment UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It's true, she has no power to force all Alabamians to stop violating the U. S. Constitution, but she can entertain, and issue, summary judgment against any individual brought into her court for violation of the U. S. Constitution. Which is why the ACLU is standing right outside courthouses all across the state to identify any judge who refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples. They can either face a brand new Civil Rights Federal suit or be added to the existing one. In any case, when they are ruled against, they will be liable for the legal fees earned by the ACLU, court costs, and potential damages to the plaintiffs.
Welcome to bankruptcy, to all you judges who refused to honor the United States Constitution! Serves you right!
91
Aakalan,
By what Constitutional right does Judge Granade have to ignore the 10th Amendment ?
But what right does she have to fine State Judges who follow the State
Constitution and State Officials ?
Judicial Intimidation by the levying of Cruel and Unusual fines is hardly justice.
By what Constitutional right does Judge Granade have to ignore the 10th Amendment ?
But what right does she have to fine State Judges who follow the State
Constitution and State Officials ?
Judicial Intimidation by the levying of Cruel and Unusual fines is hardly justice.
1
I find it unfortunate that politicians use same-sex marriage as a political football. Politicians can establish political credentials by denouncing or supporting same-sex marriage while conveniently eschewing other substantive issues, like taxation, social spending, trade, etc.
11
Not to mention religious leaders and quasi-religious organizations like NOM and the AFC who have exploited the suffering of LGBT Americans in order to fill their coffers. Their heads are now exploding as they face the unpleasant prospect of having to actually get a real job and earn a living instead of getting rich peddling hate through their ill-informed, uneducated, fearful flocks.
Brian Brown is already feathering his nest as his organization, National Organization For Marriage is rapidly going under - he's exporting his anti-gay campaign to Russia, Nigeria and Uganda.
Wow, these people are really, really despicable.
Brian Brown is already feathering his nest as his organization, National Organization For Marriage is rapidly going under - he's exporting his anti-gay campaign to Russia, Nigeria and Uganda.
Wow, these people are really, really despicable.
5
It's low-hanging fruit. Much easier to appeal to the base with this stuff. Substantive issues are hard (and real yawners to this base, in any event).
1
It is my thought that God, Jesus, Allah, The Great Spirit, Buddha, or any Hindu God or gods would be over joyed to see humans loving each other whether opposite sex or same sex, than sitting round trying to come up with the best methods of killing each other.
26
When the evenhandedness of the law trumps a bigoted interpretation of what it means to be human, one that says not all people are created equal, I just want to shout "Amen!" and "God Bless your family!"
15
If gay marriage equality affects your traditional marriage... one of you is gay.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay.
US Constitution guarantees even the gays: their pursuit of happiness by Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay.
US Constitution guarantees even the gays: their pursuit of happiness by Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
35
My guess is that none of these bible thumping probate judges had any problem handing out marriage licenses for couples who were divorced or had sex before marriage. I wish the Times would call them what they are - bigots.
50
It must be something in the water. This state is totally retrograde. I wonder if we can petition for it to "self-secede"?
28
Despite the despicable and backward thinking of many folks in Alabama and elsewhere, the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong etc., is a dying belief as well it should be. Thankfully, the majority of today's young people have moved beyond such ignorant thinking which will one day be laid to rest in history's dustbin where it belongs.
25
Apart from religious beliefs, why would anyone deny two individuals who meet the requirements of the institution deny anyone the right to marry?
22
Because gay couple cant reproduce naturally.
1
And the last time I checked, this country had not devolved into a theocracy.
11
John - Neither can elderly people or many straight people. Marriage isn't about reproduction.
9
He has attempted to impede the execution of the law. I call for federal law enforcement to swing the sword of the state at him.
29
In the Middle East, religion is used and abused to justify repression of women, religious minorities (including the few remaining Christians in Iraq), and rival tribes. In this country, some in power still use religion as an excuse to discriminate against women, minorities and,especially, homosexuals. While the method of repression is certainly more extreme in the Middle East than here, I dare say the temperment of The Alabama Supreme Court Judge Moore is not unlike the dictators and religious zealots in the Middle East. He seems to think that his interpretation of the Bible allows him to ignore federal courts while imposing his religious beliefs on others.
Judge Moore is not a conservative, he is a reactionary. True conservatives believe in the rule of law, even when it may sometimes conflict with their personal belief system.
Judge Moore is not a conservative, he is a reactionary. True conservatives believe in the rule of law, even when it may sometimes conflict with their personal belief system.
48
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia:
'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race *resides with the individual* and cannot be infringed by the State.'
The Tenth Amendment, cited often in these comments by opponents of marriage equality, says:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*.'
It seems to me a fair case could be made that the right resides with the individual, i.e., the people, and that the same logic applies to same-sex marriage as to interracial marriage.
You can thump the Bible if you like - it would take a separate post to rebut all that in detail, and others have so done. But aside from the fact that we're talking about civil marriage, not religious ceremony, let's consider Judge Leon M. Bazile's invocation of Scripture in the 1964 Loving case: 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.'
So much for the 'Adam and Steve' objection.
'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race *resides with the individual* and cannot be infringed by the State.'
The Tenth Amendment, cited often in these comments by opponents of marriage equality, says:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*.'
It seems to me a fair case could be made that the right resides with the individual, i.e., the people, and that the same logic applies to same-sex marriage as to interracial marriage.
You can thump the Bible if you like - it would take a separate post to rebut all that in detail, and others have so done. But aside from the fact that we're talking about civil marriage, not religious ceremony, let's consider Judge Leon M. Bazile's invocation of Scripture in the 1964 Loving case: 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.'
So much for the 'Adam and Steve' objection.
82
And when a Federal Judge rules that Polygamy must be allowed
what will you say ?
what will you say ?
1
Should have hanged the top 100,000 Johnny Rebs back in 1865-66 and started all over again with "Dixie." It would surely be a better place now, but instead the southern white elites were left alone to lick their wounds and talk themselves into believing that they didn't really lose the War Between the States in any way that mattered.
So it was in 1965, so it is now.
So it was in 1965, so it is now.
21
Sweet Home, Alabama...
What obviously is a problem here is that the defiance of Judge Moore can be read as a license by some people to do things to these gay couples that exceed the law, similar to what was done to Blacks during the 1960s desegregation fights.
I hope that this one judge and his god don't fan the fires of hatred in the way Gov. Wallace did when he stood in that doorway at the University of Alabama. I remember those black and white grainy live television images and my dad telling me to pay attention because history was in the making. I also remember churches being bombed and people being shot and dumped into rivers, or simply disappearing.
What Moore sees as his divine law, others like me see as the seeds of hatred. I suppose god is in the eye of the beholder. Moore's god in not in the eye of this beholder.
What obviously is a problem here is that the defiance of Judge Moore can be read as a license by some people to do things to these gay couples that exceed the law, similar to what was done to Blacks during the 1960s desegregation fights.
I hope that this one judge and his god don't fan the fires of hatred in the way Gov. Wallace did when he stood in that doorway at the University of Alabama. I remember those black and white grainy live television images and my dad telling me to pay attention because history was in the making. I also remember churches being bombed and people being shot and dumped into rivers, or simply disappearing.
What Moore sees as his divine law, others like me see as the seeds of hatred. I suppose god is in the eye of the beholder. Moore's god in not in the eye of this beholder.
19
The rights and publicly voted on wishes of 81% of the population of the State of Alabama were overturned by one judge in Mobile. The citizens of the state felt so strongly about this issue, that they actually agreed by that large margin to make it part of the states constitution. I cant even think of anything 81% of people in Alabama would ever agree about. Regardless of your stance on this issue, whatever the winds of the federal ruling elite is what goes now regardless of what the population that elected them says they want. Every citizen should be deeply upset by this.
2
People don't get to vote on the civil rights of others. Why hasn't Alabama figured that out yet?
29
I'm pretty sure I can think of one thing that 81% of the voters of the state of Alabama could agree on in the 50s and 60s...
Fortunately, basic civil rights are not subject to a vote.
Fortunately, basic civil rights are not subject to a vote.
40
It's a civil rights issue.
In a similar vein, a majority of citizens in southern states didn't want to end slavery or allow African-Americans to vote, two of many examples of egregious civil rights violations. Those issues were finally rectified by federal laws.
Do you understand now?
In a similar vein, a majority of citizens in southern states didn't want to end slavery or allow African-Americans to vote, two of many examples of egregious civil rights violations. Those issues were finally rectified by federal laws.
Do you understand now?
22
Anti-gay discrimination has always been like the proverbial emperor's new clothes, a visceral (and mainly religious) prejudice that can only be sustained for so long as one avoids casting a critical eye on the specious and intellectually dishonest arguments made in its defense.
23
When a federal judge decides that the U.S. Constitution means something, state judges must obey that ruling unless a higher federal court (like the federal appeals court for their region) says otherwise. This is a doctrine that dates back 200 years to the Hunter's Lessee case.
This issue does not implicate the 10th Amendment. No, the question whether states can allow marriage to opposite-gender couples but not same-gender couples implicates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
States do not have freedom to deny constitutional rights because a majority of their residents have religious objections to those rights.
This issue does not implicate the 10th Amendment. No, the question whether states can allow marriage to opposite-gender couples but not same-gender couples implicates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
States do not have freedom to deny constitutional rights because a majority of their residents have religious objections to those rights.
30
You wrote: "Chief Justice Moore’s position on the balance of federal and state power has deep resonance in a region with a history of claiming states’ rights in opposition to the federal government."
Replace "the federal government" with "human rights" or "generally accepted standards of human compassion," and the sentence is correct.
Replace "the federal government" with "human rights" or "generally accepted standards of human compassion," and the sentence is correct.
26
Judge King of Jefferson County should have the last word on this issue, not just in Alabama but everywhere:
”At the end of the day, it’s still a very simple legal analysis: You’ve got a federal court order ... This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Case closed.
”At the end of the day, it’s still a very simple legal analysis: You’ve got a federal court order ... This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Case closed.
15
If Alabama had its way they would ban interracial marriages. That is why we have a Federal government to protect the rights of all Americans.
42
Like the one Justice Clarence Thomas has?
19
Electing judges has to be the most bizarre way of running a Justice system.
13
The Supreme Court has revealed prejudicial bias. This ruling shows they have reached a conclusion before hearing a case. Their clear message is that a Constitutional right cannot be restricted or prohibited by local jurisdictions. All jurisdictions must issue unlimited permits, and recognize those issued by all authorities, even foreign. Outstanding! Think what this judgment does for concealed firearms carry! Any permit, any place, NO restrictions! Just like a new world marriage! Wow.
1
Convenient to forget about the well regulated militia part....
1
Admittedly, I'm a bit of a dinosaur and a bit behind my times. But having said that, I believe that this is exactly what I fought for as a Marine, the right of every American to be treated fairly.
110
On the surface, this is about same sex marriage. The underpinnings, however, are about equal access to the economic benefits that accrue to married partners. Going back to the ancients, this was important in marriage. Marriage for love came much later. You can argue historically that marriage was between opposite sex partners. Hence, in an ideal world, one can argue that civil unions would be more appropriate for same sex couples vs. marriage. This is not an ideal world. Especially in the south. Civil unions would reek of 'separate but equal'. We all know how that worked out. Same sex marriage seems to be the only viable option.
13
The Federal Supreme Court has overturned the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court. Great news! Since it takes at least five for a stay,this ruling indicates which way the wind is blowing. I am not well-versed ( as in not at all ) does the Federal Supreme Court have to make a ruling for each individual State? Why not a blanket ruling for all States? Or the States which don't allow same-sex marriage could get wise and take the decision themselves and do the right thing by it's citizens and also save a lot of our tax dollars. Or perhaps,there could be an Amendment changing the very definition of marriage. So many options!
5
The Supreme Court will hear a case regarding same-sex marriage from the 6th Circuit in March and probably issue a ruling in June if not earlier.
That ruling will apply to the entire United States.
That ruling will apply to the entire United States.
1
Civil rights trump states' rights. Those who mistakenly think this issue is about states' rights need to RE-think.
I propose a new amendment that would outlaw any civil rights issue being put to popular vote. Left to popular ballots in individual states, America might still have slavery and women who aren't allowed to vote. The notion that something like the right to marry should be put to a popular vote (or be denied by knuckle-dragging troglodytes) is preposterous!
I propose a new amendment that would outlaw any civil rights issue being put to popular vote. Left to popular ballots in individual states, America might still have slavery and women who aren't allowed to vote. The notion that something like the right to marry should be put to a popular vote (or be denied by knuckle-dragging troglodytes) is preposterous!
24
To deny people a legal service as punishment for not complying with a religious doctrine, is by definition religious persecution.
38
When I was in 5th grade in the early 1960's, my teacher started the talking about a new court decision and ended saying, "They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it. We will now recite the Lord's Prayer."
That same teacher, who was from the deep south, told our class, when discussing the Civil War that the slaves her family owned were treated so well that none of them wanted to leave once they could.
That same teacher, who was from the deep south, told our class, when discussing the Civil War that the slaves her family owned were treated so well that none of them wanted to leave once they could.
15
If only "Christians" would realize their beliefs are personal. They are not and cannot be the law of the land. The Bible is a tool for us to live our life, not a weapon to hold over others. God does not tell us to force our beliefs on others, he knows we have trouble enough trying to keep our own lives clean. Before you condem others, make sure you are perfect. Which will not happen because none of us are God.
19
Perhaps Hank Williams, a native of Alabama, said it best--minding other people's business seems to be high tone; I got all that I can do just minding my own.
7
So here is the Idea.Whatever happened to separation of Church and State? Marriage started as an institution of the Church. It seems that (D)imwits want it both ways...no prayer in schools but marriage for gay people?!? How about this.Instead of the States being involved in Church business(marriage),the States start issuing Civil Unions to everyone. That way the State is out of Church business and vice versa.
I have no objection to your church refusing to marry gays. The issue here is in the GOVERNMENT county courthouses. Run your church any way you like, but under the law, gays are equal.
35
I've been saying the same thing for years. This entire discussion could be mooted just by getting the word 'marriage' out of the debate.
One law would convert all existing *civil* marriages - the ones you get licensed at City Hall, which are separate from any ceremonies your religion may mandate or perform - to 'civil unions'. (Paperwork changes in terminology could be phased in, as is done now with similar technical changes.) Any two consenting adults, same-sex or mixed-sex couple alike, would get a *civil unon* license. 'Marriage' would be solely a religious ceremony.
The government doesn't involve itself in baptisms. It doesn't judge whether transubstantiation has occurred when a priest prays over the wafer at Mass. The government doesn't say whether you've made a true confession. Those are purely religious issues.
The Church can't nullify your auto warranty and as a rule it doesn't co-sign your car loan. It may approve or disapprove of your business dealings depending on its teachings, but it doesn't get a veto.
Once you distinguish 'rites' from 'rights', your problem is solved.
One law would convert all existing *civil* marriages - the ones you get licensed at City Hall, which are separate from any ceremonies your religion may mandate or perform - to 'civil unions'. (Paperwork changes in terminology could be phased in, as is done now with similar technical changes.) Any two consenting adults, same-sex or mixed-sex couple alike, would get a *civil unon* license. 'Marriage' would be solely a religious ceremony.
The government doesn't involve itself in baptisms. It doesn't judge whether transubstantiation has occurred when a priest prays over the wafer at Mass. The government doesn't say whether you've made a true confession. Those are purely religious issues.
The Church can't nullify your auto warranty and as a rule it doesn't co-sign your car loan. It may approve or disapprove of your business dealings depending on its teachings, but it doesn't get a veto.
Once you distinguish 'rites' from 'rights', your problem is solved.
1
It doesn't matter what you call it, if they called it Civil Unions for everyone there would still be those who would want to deny civil unions to gay couples.
It's also not a "church business" because, guess what? Not everyone who is married goes to the same church, or any church at all. I know Hindu couples, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist couples, and Atheist couples all married by the same legal definition.
It's also not a "church business" because, guess what? Not everyone who is married goes to the same church, or any church at all. I know Hindu couples, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist couples, and Atheist couples all married by the same legal definition.
15
No matter how you twist the so called polls, the fact remains that the majority of the American populous consider homosexual behavior to be abnormal and disgusting. Consequently, the desecration of the traditional marriage sacraments between a man and a woman is ever so saddening.
2
It has nothing to do with what a majority of Americans might or might not think. Left to the people--especially in states like yours--America would still have slavery, indentured servitude, and male-only voting rights.
Civil rights are not the purview of popularity contests. Right is right even when everyone--or a majority--thinks it's wrong.
Civil rights are not the purview of popularity contests. Right is right even when everyone--or a majority--thinks it's wrong.
16
You are wrong. A majority are for gay marriage.
19
I find bigotry disgusting and anti-American. I also find a 50% divorce rate against traditional marriage sacraments, but I also believe that people's private lives should be their own business. The majority is often ruled by ignorance and small mindedness.
16
Conservatives seem to be incapable of understanding that America does not discriminate against people for their sexuality. What part of freedom don't they understand?
23
Polygamy is next on the list. Lets face, if ten consenting adults want to marry what is the legal reason to not issue a marriage license? There really is none if civil rights is at the heart of this case.
2
Polygamy is 'de facto' legal here in Utah. (In spite of the fact that the national congress forced the Utah territorial legislature to prohibit it in the constitution before granting statehood.) I see the polygamists whenever I go to the local Walmart.
As individuals, they're OK except that they tend to abuse the welfare system and their leaders are frequently guilty of fraud - I do have a problem with that. But if they would obey the same laws I do, I would have no problem with them. I think any woman (or any man, for that matter) who would put up with that is nuts, but that's a personal problem.
As individuals, they're OK except that they tend to abuse the welfare system and their leaders are frequently guilty of fraud - I do have a problem with that. But if they would obey the same laws I do, I would have no problem with them. I think any woman (or any man, for that matter) who would put up with that is nuts, but that's a personal problem.
6
Nope. No slippery slope here.
10
I have no objection to contracts that specify a max of two consenting adults per marriage for purposes of recognition for federal benefits. Wouldn't want my husbands to fight over my estate ;)
1
Apparently this Moore person never heard of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to which Alabama was bound when it became a state. Now some of the probate courts are violating the equal protection rights of citizens by refusing to abide by the law. Given his history of picking and choosing which federal laws he will honor, Moore looks like a good candidate for an impeachment.
28
Alabama is one of our poorest States. It has one of the lowest levels of voter registration, and one of the lowest levels in terms of the education level of its citizens. There is effectively, no freedom of religion, either.
There is a white, rightest, "Christian" oligarchy and they runs things. That said, If you want freedom, Alabama, you have to stand up and demand it.
We needs another March on Selma.
There is a white, rightest, "Christian" oligarchy and they runs things. That said, If you want freedom, Alabama, you have to stand up and demand it.
We needs another March on Selma.
18
We are in California about 5 miles from Berkeley. Went out for coffee yesterday and found ourselves (my husband of many years and I) next to a black woman who looked about 75. We were discussing this situation and she inserted herself into the conversation.
The momentum of approval of same sex marriage, according to this lady, is proof that the Devil himself is behind the whole thing. Followed a lecture on the fall of the Northern Kingdom in the Old Testament, and a criticism of Mr. Obama because he has some white blood. (This from a very pale-skinned African American!)
Not all our bigots are in Alabama, and not all of them are white. You can't talk to people like this. They talk (on and on) but they do not listen. Reason plays no part in this calculation. If you ask why they take the positions they do they quote the Bible, usually out of context. I can only be glad that reason is prevailing here. It can't come too soon.
The momentum of approval of same sex marriage, according to this lady, is proof that the Devil himself is behind the whole thing. Followed a lecture on the fall of the Northern Kingdom in the Old Testament, and a criticism of Mr. Obama because he has some white blood. (This from a very pale-skinned African American!)
Not all our bigots are in Alabama, and not all of them are white. You can't talk to people like this. They talk (on and on) but they do not listen. Reason plays no part in this calculation. If you ask why they take the positions they do they quote the Bible, usually out of context. I can only be glad that reason is prevailing here. It can't come too soon.
30
Congratulations to Alabama! The Supreme Court denied the request by religious fanatics to stay the gift of marriage. For all the haters and you know who you are may this be a warning to you that this United States is not just yours it is all of ours. You shouldn't be picking and choosing what fits your sharia law. When you wake up tomorrow you are going to find that the end of the world did not happen. What you choose to do from here is up to you but remember that Christ , Jehovah, and Allah never would have reacted the way these "so-called" Christians have behaved. He would be appalled at your hatred. He said to Love one Another as I have Love you. Now stop your belly aching and move on!
27
Three words for the last of the homophobes: give it up!
Oh, and these two: be nice!
Oh, and these two: be nice!
31
Would you offer the same advice to the christiophobes?
1
Which civil rights are Christians being denied, Los Angeles?
7
The don't want to see their right do discriminate infringed upon.
3
I wonder if Judge Moore is laying the groundwork for a future campaign?
5
Congratulations to all the newly married couples in Alabama. As always, as was the case fifty years ago in the same state, love always wins in the end!
27
Wishing all the newly married couples in Alabama all the best on their wedding day. May it be a sweet start to the rest of your lives together.
55
If only straight couples in the counties not granting marriage licenses to anyone would demand that they re-open and grant licenses to everyone... Of course one might wish that straight couples everywhere had done this long ago...
9
A former slave state, Selma, Wallace, the seat of segregation continues to bring shame to the USA.
28
I offer four words: separation of church and state.
29
That's five words.
10
That's five words, but since they are irrelevant to the instant situation, why quibble.
2
I would add Freedom From Religion.
14
How can one activist judge throw out a state law passed by 81% of the state's voters? Fortunately SCOTUS can rule in favor of state bans which will allow states to decide whether they want morality or perpetuate sham "marriages". Eventually the country will no longer be analyzed as Blue vs. Red but Moral vs. Homosexual.
2
"Moral vs. Homosexual." Wow. Can we all just take a moment to ponder exactly when the entire argument against marriage equality jumped the shark?
25
Human rights can not be and should not be voted on. Your particular moral view of the world is for you to evaluate your actions on, not others. If you don't like gay marriage...don't marry a gay person. Let others alone, they are just as moral as you. It will be okay.
43
I don't see anything "moral" about trying to mandate how people form their families. I don't see anything "moral" about trying to deny people living according to how they were created. I don't see anything moral about making anyone feel like an outsider in society. I don't see anything moral about not sheltering someone's family with the law because it includes two genders. I don't see anything moral about judging how other people LOVE each other. I don't see anything moral about hateful and discriminating behavior. I don't see anything moral about making other people feel bad just so that your version of world order is undisturbed.
I hope you never have to look into the eyes of someone you love and tell them that you think God and the law intended better for you than them.
Love is love. Hate is hate. Choose what side you are on but don't you dare confuse hate with morality. The two are simply not the same.
I hope you never have to look into the eyes of someone you love and tell them that you think God and the law intended better for you than them.
Love is love. Hate is hate. Choose what side you are on but don't you dare confuse hate with morality. The two are simply not the same.
26
I would really like to get into the head of anyone who, in this day and age, still has an issue with gay marriage.
I have a beloved relative who came out decades ago. In the initial teary coming out, one of the things he said was "I will never be able to get married," which hit me like punch to the gut. My relative did not "make a choice" unless you count standing up for who you are a choice. He just wanted to live a life of integrity and truth and therefore came out. In other words, gays and lesbians are inherently so and as such, deserve the same rights and protections as the rest of us.
Beyond that, look at the number of families that are LGBT. Whether or not people approve, THIS is happening and best the law get in line to protect the people not currently under its shelter.
My heart still hurts remembering that sad conversation. We have come such a long way but I won't rest until every little boy and girl who begins recognizing they hold same sex attraction doesn't flinch at this recognition. Love is love, no matter it's form.
.....and for those homophobic who still cling to the whole sex thing, may I just point out? There is NO sexual act that is exclusive to the LGBT community. At the risk of being indelicate, there is no act in the LGBT's bedroom that doesn't occasionally happen in the bedroom of everyone else...and I don't see a big public outcry about that!
Meaning, in the end, any objection to LGBT's are really an intrusion into who they love, not how.
I have a beloved relative who came out decades ago. In the initial teary coming out, one of the things he said was "I will never be able to get married," which hit me like punch to the gut. My relative did not "make a choice" unless you count standing up for who you are a choice. He just wanted to live a life of integrity and truth and therefore came out. In other words, gays and lesbians are inherently so and as such, deserve the same rights and protections as the rest of us.
Beyond that, look at the number of families that are LGBT. Whether or not people approve, THIS is happening and best the law get in line to protect the people not currently under its shelter.
My heart still hurts remembering that sad conversation. We have come such a long way but I won't rest until every little boy and girl who begins recognizing they hold same sex attraction doesn't flinch at this recognition. Love is love, no matter it's form.
.....and for those homophobic who still cling to the whole sex thing, may I just point out? There is NO sexual act that is exclusive to the LGBT community. At the risk of being indelicate, there is no act in the LGBT's bedroom that doesn't occasionally happen in the bedroom of everyone else...and I don't see a big public outcry about that!
Meaning, in the end, any objection to LGBT's are really an intrusion into who they love, not how.
29
@GWE:
Actually, many states did have laws against certain sexual practices, including sodomy, and CT had one against birth control.
Never under-estimate the ignorance of the average American, especially our Southern fellow citizens. They once thought separate was legal in schooling.
Actually, many states did have laws against certain sexual practices, including sodomy, and CT had one against birth control.
Never under-estimate the ignorance of the average American, especially our Southern fellow citizens. They once thought separate was legal in schooling.
4
Here in Utah, the territorial government tried to use the probate courts to circumvent federal authority in the 1860's and 1870's. Back then, the issue was polygamy and the prosecution of the Mountain Meadows massacre murderers. The territorial legislature passed laws to shunt all cases possible to those courts. In my historical research, I recently found a civics textbook used in Utah schools in the 1930's that stated quite directly that a Mormon "bishops court" was far superior to actual legal courtrooms.
In other news, I see that Taliban religious courts are being used more in Afghanistan now.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
In other news, I see that Taliban religious courts are being used more in Afghanistan now.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
21
Interesting how opponents of gay marriage, like opponents of abortion all seem to be self-righteous busy bodies who like to tell other people how to live their lives. I'm still having trouble understanding if the gay couple down the street gets married, how it can possibly affect anyone else's marriage. It doesn't stop a man and a woman from getting married, so why not let other people have their happiness? Why is there so much effort wasted on pontificating to other people about things that are the other peoples' business?? The Supreme Court's final ruling on this can't come soon enough. It really must be agony for those couples still waiting for this piece-meal approach to legalizing gay marriage to finally be finished.
36
They are also some of the same individuals who "want to get government off the people's backs."
5
I suppose Judge Moore would also support states ignoring Federal Court rulings on gun rights and continue to enforce stricter laws than what those rulings allowed.
14
Next the gays will want to vote!
46
Or their own drinking fountains.
17
No one mentions the horror of an interracial gay marriage, say an African American and an Asian adopting a white child , then later a Latino. Somewhere over the rainbow.
5
As someone who grew up in the state and has since left, I could not be more thrilled beyond words for my friends and fellow citizens back home with this huge leap forward! Roll tide!
For those of you who seemingly sneer at Alabama revel in the schadenfreude in the "backwardsness" of the place, there are still 14 other states in the union where gay marriage is not legal. Why don't you get off your high horse and direct your attention there?
For those of you who seemingly sneer at Alabama revel in the schadenfreude in the "backwardsness" of the place, there are still 14 other states in the union where gay marriage is not legal. Why don't you get off your high horse and direct your attention there?
9
KB, I'm sure Alabama is a lovely place. The reason it is the focus of the current discussion is because its chief justice is defying the federal courts.
2
Thank you Judge King, Jefferson County's Probate Court. For anyone who has missed the point you so articulately reminded the rest of us: "This is a happy day for all these couples and if you can't be happy for people then I'm sorry. If someone can't understand the joy and happiness of others, then I do't know what else I can say." I think that sums it up pretty well.
47
Alabama, willing as always to seek ugly martyrdom instead of accepting common sense.
Fortunately for them, this example won't be as bloody and humiliating.
Fortunately for them, this example won't be as bloody and humiliating.
27
Disgraceful. Why should the mandarin class mostly from Northeast liberal circles dictate to the rest of the country what marriage should be? States are sovereigns and the people of these states have every right to organize marriage as they see fit.
1
The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the judiciary, is the supreme law of the land.
17
Shall we vote on your marriage next, Ed? Would you be okey dokey with that? Any other civil rights you want to put up to a vote?
Some people will just never get how this country works. It's sad. And It's dangerous when they become judges like Moore.
Some people will just never get how this country works. It's sad. And It's dangerous when they become judges like Moore.
31
You're wrong. States don't get to deny their citizens their civil rights.
25
What I find deeply disturbing about the conduct of the Alabama state court judge and the commentary of those who support him is their collective willingness to say anything. justifiable or not, to keep their fellow humans from getting married. Their opposition to same-sex marriage blinds them to the consequences that might ensue if similar language were used to justify similar results in cases involving the rights of groups other than gays and lesbians. Their arguments--like the Republican "doctrine of no"--might well arise to bite them someday. I hope it does, just as I am enjoying the spectacle of the Republicans in Congress having to deal with the Democrats treating them the same way that the Republicans treated the Democrats when the Republicans were in the minority.
18
@ barbara8101: I agree with you, especially your sentence, "Their opposition to same-sex marriage blinds them to the consequences that might ensue if similar language were used to justify similar results in cases involving the rights of groups other than gays and lesbians."
As an Alabamian (transplanted from New York), I have often wondered if one would put it to a statewide vote, whether marriages that did not include God or Jesus in the ceremony would be considered legal. My hunch is that the majority would rule that they would not be legal.
My (female) wife and I decided to have a non-religious wedding and decided from the get-go not to have children. I cannot imagine a majority of Alabamians approving of this, and even venturing to make our union illegal.
As an Alabamian (transplanted from New York), I have often wondered if one would put it to a statewide vote, whether marriages that did not include God or Jesus in the ceremony would be considered legal. My hunch is that the majority would rule that they would not be legal.
My (female) wife and I decided to have a non-religious wedding and decided from the get-go not to have children. I cannot imagine a majority of Alabamians approving of this, and even venturing to make our union illegal.
1
The issue here is that rule by the majority does not mean at the expense of the minority... Those in the minority have the right to seek life, liberty and happiness too, and whether one agrees with gay marriage or not, the majority does not have the right to infringe on minority rights, when the exercise of those rights is not harming the majority.
40
It has been so interesting to note the strong emphasis on States' Rights the states of the old Confederacy stress. Very few people, even in the South, know that BEFORE the Civil War Southern states were much opposed to States' rights.
I have looked at some of the documents of that time, and this is very clear, and very understandable.
Before the civil War the Southern white electorate was given extra weight in the House of Representatives by the Constitutional provision that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of accounting the population of a House district. Since only whites were allaowed to vote, this gave the Southern state voters an excessive number of representatives in the House of Representatives, based on the number of slaves in each district.
You can look this up - it's in the Constitution of the United States of America - sections that were conveniently left out by the Repulicans during the 'Reading of the Constitution' they staged a few years ago.
The Southern Representatives and Governors were all for Federal dominance against States's Rights before the Civil War. The Civil War WAS about Slavery, NOT about States' Rights. Find and read the newspapers, the congressional documents, and the commentaries of Southern lawmakers of that time. You will see the truth of this.
The idea set forth for many decades of the South rallying around States' Rghts is a dreadful hypocrisy that Southerners themselves have been seduced into.
I have looked at some of the documents of that time, and this is very clear, and very understandable.
Before the civil War the Southern white electorate was given extra weight in the House of Representatives by the Constitutional provision that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of accounting the population of a House district. Since only whites were allaowed to vote, this gave the Southern state voters an excessive number of representatives in the House of Representatives, based on the number of slaves in each district.
You can look this up - it's in the Constitution of the United States of America - sections that were conveniently left out by the Repulicans during the 'Reading of the Constitution' they staged a few years ago.
The Southern Representatives and Governors were all for Federal dominance against States's Rights before the Civil War. The Civil War WAS about Slavery, NOT about States' Rights. Find and read the newspapers, the congressional documents, and the commentaries of Southern lawmakers of that time. You will see the truth of this.
The idea set forth for many decades of the South rallying around States' Rghts is a dreadful hypocrisy that Southerners themselves have been seduced into.
38
Yes--the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, which REQUIRED residents of free states in the North to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South, fully supported by Southerners and hated by Northern states, is proof that to these people, "states' rights" means "the right for me to do what I want, and to not do what I don't want, and to force everyone else who doesn't agree with me to do what I tell them." The juvenile, poisonous mindset has afflicted states like Alabama throughout its history.
19
Very good point. In fact, a reading of the Confederate Constitution makes it clear that it was not a "States Right" document. And it quite clearly expressed a preference for slavery (and territorial expansion).
7
Had the terrible-looking 3/5 rule been replaced by the 1 man/1 vote rule, the South would have gained a large number of House seats, given per unit of population per census, -- and, so for the historical moment, at least, destroyed the chances for eventual abolition of slavery. In fact, the Constitution itself would have been impossible.
Blacks were 35% of Alabama's population, e.g. Once again the Framers were leaving us room to grow up, which Lincoln finally took advantage of in freeing the slaves. It looks awful, but failure of the Constitution and vastly enlarging slave states' representation would have been much worse. What Founders. What brave, forward-looking men. It must havebeen a gut-wrenching decision for many.
Blacks were 35% of Alabama's population, e.g. Once again the Framers were leaving us room to grow up, which Lincoln finally took advantage of in freeing the slaves. It looks awful, but failure of the Constitution and vastly enlarging slave states' representation would have been much worse. What Founders. What brave, forward-looking men. It must havebeen a gut-wrenching decision for many.
1
If Marriage is, as Clarence Thomas argues, solely a State issue in his dissent, than he would surely have voted against Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 if he were on the court at that time, given his clear opposition to federal interference in such matters...
That would have rendered his own marriage illegal in places like Alabama and Virginia if the state of Virginia had its way back then.
I believe he currently resides in Virginia.
I guess he's more than happy to let the Federal government interfere in "state issues" and enjoy Federally guaranteed rights, like marrying a person of a different race, when it benefits him personally, but happy to deny the same type of rights to others if he can.
A hypocrite by any other name...
124
He is one of the most despicable people in the history of our country.
10
Justice Thomas, a hypocrite? Gee, that's news. Perhaps the most unfit associate justice in SCOTUS history, certainly recent history.
1
He should be ashamed of himself. People of good will of both races fought, and some died, to secure the rights he currently enjoys as an American of partly African descent; and yet he would deny these same rights to others of our citizens on the grounds of "States rights." What is this? The "I've got mine too bad for everyone else" of jurisprudence?
1
Alabama is once again showing an intolerance that makes the state look ignorant and bigoted.
It is amazing, though not surprising, that the people of Alabama can find it in their best interests to be suspicious of the federal government when it comes to equal justice under the law, yet have seemingly very little suspicion of the federal government when it comes to federal aid of all sorts. Alabama is always high up on the recipient lists.
This battle is essentially over nationwide, save the bigoted holdouts and religiously doctrinaire who wish to impose their personal views on others in violation of federal laws, among which the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides an insurmountable obstacle to those who wish to deny equal rights.
It is amazing, though not surprising, that the people of Alabama can find it in their best interests to be suspicious of the federal government when it comes to equal justice under the law, yet have seemingly very little suspicion of the federal government when it comes to federal aid of all sorts. Alabama is always high up on the recipient lists.
This battle is essentially over nationwide, save the bigoted holdouts and religiously doctrinaire who wish to impose their personal views on others in violation of federal laws, among which the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides an insurmountable obstacle to those who wish to deny equal rights.
39
It doesn't look ignorant and bigoted. It IS ignorant and bigoted.
9
Just trying to be polite, though it gets harder and harder...
3
This is so wonderful. 37 states!!! There was less acceptance of mixed marriages and less states had it legal by 1967, when SCOTUS ruled that marriage is so fundamental to LIFE itself, that to deny it to anyone would be cruel and not a social benefit.
Congratulations to all the couples getting married in AL. I am so happy to bear witness!
Congratulations to all the couples getting married in AL. I am so happy to bear witness!
34
You expect Roy Moore to disgrace himself, his state and his fellow citizens--and he never disappoints. The good news here, though, is that, at least for the moment, bigotry, hate, and fear have taken a back seat in Alabama. We can only hope that this marks the beginning of a trend.
26
The best things to have come out of Alabama in the last 30 years are Forest Gump and gay marriage, in no particular order. On the one hand I'm happy for these couples, on the other hand I'm so sorry they have to live in the font of bigotry.
17
Take a break from excoriating Roy Moore and take a look at Luther Strange, the AG of Alabama who, as of this weekend, apparently discovered his job is meaningless and he has no authority whatsoever. Heck, he doesn't even feel qualified to offer advice..
15
Many in Alabama seem bent on consistently being on the wrong side of history. I lived in Alabama for 6 years and came to the conclusion that the state is hopelessly awash in bible-induced ignorance and complacency. It is going to take many generations for the arc of the moral universe to fix, what could be, the great state of Alabama.
33
By then it will be under water.
9
Everyone who is denied a license should sue this judge so that he spends the rest of his days hiding from collection agents collecting on all the judgments he will owe.
27
Late Sunday evening Chief Justice Moore whistled in the wind : “[In]effective immediately.......".
Freedom is on the march, Conservatives. Rejoice!
Freedom is on the march, Conservatives. Rejoice!
7
States like Alabama have been living on the tax payer dollars of people in Urban Centers in the United States--especially supporting their health care. If they are so into States Rights, let them fend for themselves. Bunch of welfare queens! And now they want to defy the law of the land and claim they have the right in the Constitution. Amazing hubris.
40
that's usually the case in the freeloader states
9
Some people need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Bravo to the probate judges defying this bigoted quack.
I find it interesting that bigots like this always cite religion for their reasoning... aren't we all equal in their god's eyes?
I find it interesting that bigots like this always cite religion for their reasoning... aren't we all equal in their god's eyes?
12
No, sadly the religiously motivated seem to love to reserve the right to pass judgement against things they do not like.
9
From my point of view, the law of the land, whether derived from the legislative or judiciary is based on civil law, not biblical example.
8
21st century, let's hope Alabama makes it to the 20th century before the 22nd comes along.
8
Every time I read comments from Chief Justice Moore, listen to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CJovhhVq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CJovhhVq8
3
The Civil War was and is never over for those in the South.
States rights is and has been a rationale for every reprehensible social and economic practice...the list is substantial and growing...
slavery
segregation
anti abortion laws
voter suppression
virtual no regulation of firearms
state control over scientific teaching and evolution
...and now this joker.
Rome is burning but no one smells the smoke.
States rights is and has been a rationale for every reprehensible social and economic practice...the list is substantial and growing...
slavery
segregation
anti abortion laws
voter suppression
virtual no regulation of firearms
state control over scientific teaching and evolution
...and now this joker.
Rome is burning but no one smells the smoke.
31
The word beginning with"s" is not smoke
Well said.
1
At first I was angered by Justice Moore's ruling but after a few minutes introspection it became clear its just political theater. He's pandering to his support base nothing more. Pity the old bigot and his ignorant followers. Meanwhile life and love move forward to a bright new day in Alabama! Congrats to the newly married couples and the decent judges who are preforming their duties. Mazel Tov!
26
States have rights, in fact more rights than the Federal Government, but they don't have the right to do anything they want. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land; where ever it contradicts another law or constitution, the U.S. Constitution (and its interpretation by Federal Courts) wins. You can either appeal the rulings you like or try to change the Constitution through the amendment process, but you can't simply disregard the parts of it that you don't like.
You can also, personally, just leave the country.
You can also, personally, just leave the country.
24
Two observations: first this means there are at least five and probably six votes on SCOTUS to overturn bans on same sex marriage and secondly Alabama, in the person of its Chief Judge of its State Supreme Court, is again on the wrong side of history.
16
Excerpts from a couple of suggested readings for Chief Justice Moore:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
--Article VI, section 2, U.S. Constitution
"[T]he federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."
--Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
--Article VI, section 2, U.S. Constitution
"[T]he federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."
--Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958)
10
A state in the deep south is attempting to defy the federal government in the name of "States' Rights"? What could possibly go wrong?
In all seriousness, I am glad to see that justices are ignoring judge Moore's edict. Alabama must get tired always being on the wrong side of history.
In all seriousness, I am glad to see that justices are ignoring judge Moore's edict. Alabama must get tired always being on the wrong side of history.
31
I wonder if these probate judges will ever be held accountable for violating the order from the federal judge.
I understand that we don't want to make a martyr out of them, but at the same, these are some of the same people who throw the book at others when they violate the law.
Do we owe them mercy?
I understand that we don't want to make a martyr out of them, but at the same, these are some of the same people who throw the book at others when they violate the law.
Do we owe them mercy?
16
They are subject to the Supreme Court rulings far more than to some lone state justice.
Think there's a pattern here? Since the 1860s this state has been at the core of resistance to social change and progress--remaining in the Union, slavery, civil rights, voting rights, and now same-sex marriage. Still, those of us who enjoy these rights in our states should salute the bravery of those who live there to stand up for those same rights themselves. You show 'em, Judge Graffeo! Bravo!!!
30
Take note that the great liberal state of California also had to be forced by the federal courts to allow same sex marriages. The majority of Californians voted against it.
2
When the Southern States decided that they could not abide by the laws of the Union, they seceded.
We know how that turned out.
And in later years, they still could not bring themselves to acknowledge the equality of humankind.
Once again, the South is proving that it will not let go of old practices and prejudices.
We know how that turned out.
And in later years, they still could not bring themselves to acknowledge the equality of humankind.
Once again, the South is proving that it will not let go of old practices and prejudices.
38
Somewhere in the law books, I would think, you would find it to be a felony for an officer of an inferior court to disregard a direct order from the United States Supreme Court. I would think you would also find there that it is prohibited for a felon to serve as a public official or to practice as an attorney.
I'd say this chief justice in Alabama needs about 10 years in federal prison followed by a few years of probation and a lifetime ban on serving in any public office and a similar ban on practicing law. He would be free, of course, to attend the church of his choice and pray for forgiveness.
Amen.
I'd say this chief justice in Alabama needs about 10 years in federal prison followed by a few years of probation and a lifetime ban on serving in any public office and a similar ban on practicing law. He would be free, of course, to attend the church of his choice and pray for forgiveness.
Amen.
34
Nah, let him do 2 things:
1. Spend 100 hours serving drinks in a gay bar in the Village. What he'd learn!
and 2., let him discover that his child is gay or Lesbian or transsexual or undecided. (Be sure to lock up his guns).
What he'd learn to feel.
1. Spend 100 hours serving drinks in a gay bar in the Village. What he'd learn!
and 2., let him discover that his child is gay or Lesbian or transsexual or undecided. (Be sure to lock up his guns).
What he'd learn to feel.
3
I am proud to live in a country that recognizes and protects the rights of minorities in the face of prejudice. Marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage and increases American social stability.
27
I applaud all the judges (and others) making same-sex marriage possible for others. The key is to keep momentum going in this direction; it makes it harder for others, nationwide, to legally or morally deny this basic right.
20
If we stopped all the nonsense of discrimination, divisiveness and hatred, imagine what we could accomplish with our energy and resources?
51
The Fat Lady sings soon. The tune has already begun.
16
I suspect the Supremes' refusal to halt same-sex marriages in Alabama is another sign of what I've suspected for awhile - that SCOTUS couldn't see how it could possibly justify a vote against marriage equality, especially after its ruling that tossed out part of DOMA and extended federal rights to same-sex couples in states where their marriages are legal. With that opinion, they basically created an untenable situation in which there are two classes of citizen and one can lose essential rights by stepping across a boundary line. That situation is untenable. We fought a war 150 years ago specifically to establish that you can't lose basic rights just by crossing a line from one state to the other.
1
Chief Justice Moore of Alabama makes the judiciary a dirty joke--and a dated one at that.
19
Moore should be held in contempt and stripped of his judicial authority and his law license. He isn't there to promote his religious beliefs; that he thinks otherwise proves he is unfit for the bench.
33
I can only hope that my home state of Mississippi will be next.
Congratulations to those in Alabama who are now able to marry.
Congratulations to those in Alabama who are now able to marry.
32
For the life of me, I simply cannot understand why there is a large segment of society in these United States that is so outraged about same sex marriage. After sixty-five years on this planet I have come to the conclusion that it is in the natural order of things that some people are attracted to the same sex in ways not only sexual but in ways that heterosexual couples are. It isn't all about sex. To put things in perspective, a hundred years ago women fought for equal voting rights. Is there still outrage about that? Fifty years ago our nation struggled through guaranteeing rights for black Americans. Now, one hundred years after women were guaranteed the right to vote, common sense has prevailed again, though not without a struggle. Give it twenty-five years and people will wonder what all the fuss was about. To the point, I'm cool with it.
76
From what I've seen, the most virulent homophobes are very conservatively religious and uncomfortable with human sexuality in general, and/or secretly gay (and can't face it, so turn their self-hatred towards others).
And the people who aren't hate-filled, but against gay marriage, are uncomfortable with the notion that others aren't like them. They're scared of the unknown.
And the people who aren't hate-filled, but against gay marriage, are uncomfortable with the notion that others aren't like them. They're scared of the unknown.
1
I do take some satisfaction in thinking about Moore stewing in his vitriol after being defied by his minions.
49
The question isn't legal, per se, any more than it was when George Wallace "stood in the schoolhouse door" (symbolically for the teevee) regarding segregation in public education. What is remarkable is the degree to which nothing ever changes in the State of Alabama. Sorry if he embarrasses some native sons, but the plain truth is that Judge Moore probably reflects the opinions of a large number of Alabamians. A similar phenomenon is on display in parts of Syria and Iraq--not in every particular, perhaps, but in the insistence on living in a different era to no point or purpose.
Gay marriage doesn't affect straights in any way whatsoever. My long marriage, the root source of my happiness, is in no way diminished by any other two people who "get married," regardless of what the details of their marital bedroom. Marriage is in the heart; the law is an afterthought--of consequence, but an afterthought nevertheless.
The most plausible explanation for zealots in both Alabama and ISIS territory may lie in some deep--very deep--insecurities about individuals' own [herero]sexuality. Can anyone enlighten us on scientific studies? If that's the case, it's all the more too bad, because it doesn't matter, boys, it really doesn't! Go with your flow!
Gay marriage doesn't affect straights in any way whatsoever. My long marriage, the root source of my happiness, is in no way diminished by any other two people who "get married," regardless of what the details of their marital bedroom. Marriage is in the heart; the law is an afterthought--of consequence, but an afterthought nevertheless.
The most plausible explanation for zealots in both Alabama and ISIS territory may lie in some deep--very deep--insecurities about individuals' own [herero]sexuality. Can anyone enlighten us on scientific studies? If that's the case, it's all the more too bad, because it doesn't matter, boys, it really doesn't! Go with your flow!
58
Oh that's the standard bait. If you don't like it you must be closeted. Please. That is such a tired old canard. The United States is slouching toward Gomorrah.
There was of course a lot of sex and patriarchy mixed up in white supremacy in the South as well. And it continued with 17 states having miscegenation laws until the Supreme Court similarly killed them in 1967. The same Confederate states tried to defy that too, just like every previous equality issue.
6
"The United States is slouching toward Gomorrah."
Speaking of tired old canards...
Speaking of tired old canards...
9
It's a done deal. A long time in coming, with no turning back the clock to some imaginary time when 'men were men' and 'mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.' Just think, right down there in Alabama...
19
"I didn't start this," Chief Justice Moore said of the controversy. "This was a federal court case pushed on our state."
Let's be honest. If it weren't for the Civil War, many of these retrograde "rebels" would still have slaves--and justifying it with their fundamentalist Biblical philosophies.
Let's be honest. If it weren't for the Civil War, many of these retrograde "rebels" would still have slaves--and justifying it with their fundamentalist Biblical philosophies.
177
The civil war never ended, and the incivility keeps on.
2
Judge Moore should judge less.
70
Hah! Good one!
2
Cooper v. Aaron, right?
4
My grandmother, because of her sincere religious convictions, disowned me when I married my husband forty-five years ago. Sincere religious convictions are fine, even admirable, but they are entirely personal. They cannot and should not be pushed on to other people nor should they have any legal impact. What protects all of us from the tyranny of someone else's belief system is the rule of law.
256
I'm sorry for your situation. I'm sure it's stating the obvious for you, but sincere religious conviction is the source of much death and destruction over the millennia. And the scariest part of all of it is each religious group is certain of their correctness in figuring out this God and what He wants us to do. An absurd notion when all people are athiests for 99% of the other gods. How can anyone know they've picked the right one? Yet all are certain they have and know His will for not only them, but for all.
One of these sorts sits at the top bench in Alabama, and apparently one also sits silently on the SCOTUS bench until it's time to write a dissent. I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate there are more like this in legislatures and judciaries across the nation...
One of these sorts sits at the top bench in Alabama, and apparently one also sits silently on the SCOTUS bench until it's time to write a dissent. I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate there are more like this in legislatures and judciaries across the nation...
To me, this is a very sad day in American history. We have finally thumbed our noses at the founding principles our forefathers used as the foundation for this country. We used to be great; today we have become less than mediocre. Truly the days of Noah have caught up with us and we will pay the price for ignoring the laws and commandments of God.
Activist will applaud this as another step toward an "enlightened society" that they so lustfully crave. I'm not sure when, perhaps it was the French Revolution, the world decided ignorance was enlightenment, but we seem to have made another step toward the pinnacle today with this decision. I suspect that in June the Court will put its stamp on the total rejection of truth and wisdom. How unfortunate.
Activist will applaud this as another step toward an "enlightened society" that they so lustfully crave. I'm not sure when, perhaps it was the French Revolution, the world decided ignorance was enlightenment, but we seem to have made another step toward the pinnacle today with this decision. I suspect that in June the Court will put its stamp on the total rejection of truth and wisdom. How unfortunate.
5
This thumbing of noses has occurred in several other states over the last decade or so, and the Union has somehow survived. I doubt very much that gay marriages in Alabama will lead to the unraveling of the United States.
35
America is not "less than mediocre," but the states with the highest percentage of regular Christian churchgoers are. They feature poverty, poor schools, high crime, and even higher than average divorce rates. The state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.
17
YES, I absolutely applaud this as another step toward an "enlightened society"!!
10
Come on Man, I know you read this in Law school:
"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." You don't need to be coy, Roy.
"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." You don't need to be coy, Roy.
52
Roy Moore is not alone. Comment sections in local media are filled with unrepeatable words. Even members of the Public Utilities Commission are spewing hate and Moore-like rhetoric, instead of, you know, keeping an eye on public utilities.
On my street in Montgomery, there are at least five gay couples, including an interracial couple. They're all good neighbors and if they choose to be married, they have that right. At long last, government is recognizing that right, though the usual troublemakers are refusing to abide the US Supreme Court.
Tears of joy will overpower the screams of hate and states' rights.
On my street in Montgomery, there are at least five gay couples, including an interracial couple. They're all good neighbors and if they choose to be married, they have that right. At long last, government is recognizing that right, though the usual troublemakers are refusing to abide the US Supreme Court.
Tears of joy will overpower the screams of hate and states' rights.
862
No, they don't have a right to be married as homosexuals. Before all this smokescreen came up, all homosexual and heterosexual men and women had the right to marry, no restriction based on sexual preference. No man could marry another man, no woman could marry another woman, no restriction based on sexual preference. Therefore no discrimination. Nothing in the civil marriage licensing laws requires love as a precondition, and anyone married more than a couple years understands that love is a constantly moving target.
2
Yup. Better tears of joy than the fire hoses and angry canines of the past. What a history!
29
Are you truly that obtuse, or are you merely playacting at it?
19
"Don't forget what the good book said, southern change going to come at last".
8
Thank you Marcus. A lot of us have been waiting all our lives for it to change. Bout time. And well wishes to all the newlyweds today.
1
Interesting about this is the strong love sensed by even an old bachelor like myself at these good people waiting for their big day outside a courthouse. What I notice is that there seems to be an unusually high level of integrity to these marriages, probably because they've been forced to wait, and so THINK for a longer than average time about what they are getting into. Hence the decisions here are very likely more durable than average. Good things coming to those who have been forced unreasonably to wait!
There's a lesson in there for heterosexuals, who seem to marry the way people adopt dogs at the pound. Roll in, pick out a lovable looking model, and set up a bowl next to the fridge. In ten years they'll be doing it again.
There's a lesson in there for heterosexuals, who seem to marry the way people adopt dogs at the pound. Roll in, pick out a lovable looking model, and set up a bowl next to the fridge. In ten years they'll be doing it again.
25
Well-put!
4
Because gay couples never break up, and married gay couples will never divorce.
The remarkable transformation that marriage equality has brought to some conservative thinking is breathtaking. While way too long in the coming, it has created momentum for dialogue on the substantive issues how we treat one another - regardless of political affiliation or religious ideology. I have seen this with my conservative in-laws and friends - the shift has occurred and our charge is to carry it forward...
13
In the future, perhaps not in my lifetime but soon enough, people such as Judge Moore and his ilk will be looked back on as aberrations on the path of human development. In the past year it has been a pleasure to see these Bible-thumping Neanderthals, one by one, fall by the wayside. Really. It has been.
30
It is wrong to damn an entire state -- or region -- for what its government officials do, even if they do it with the support of most who bother to vote and who organize to advocate for their views. Many times during the term of President George W. Bush, people would ask me, with immense, exasperated, self-righteous indignation, how I could even think of going to Texas, let alone go there, as I did on a number of occasions.
I read the comments here trashing Alabama from those who, I expect, would be the first to insist that they, as Americans, be differentiated from the actions of the American government in Iraq under Bush.
Not only is such hypocritical, but it is also self-defeating, much like the views of those who wanted to boycott Arizona a couple years ago because of its policies regarding immigrants. If you isolate a community, you largely accomplish naught but the strengthening of its attitudes and the increasing marginalization of those residents who agree with you. Think what would have happened a half century ago if people outside of Alabama had chosen to boycott the place rather than go there to march, to protest, to organize its residents. Would anyone, especially Black residents, be better off?
That said, I would also note that it is Huntsville, Alabama, which chooses to "honor" and "glorify" the major international Nazi terrorist, Werner von Braun, with accolades in their museum and the naming of their arts complex (and other institutions) after him.
I read the comments here trashing Alabama from those who, I expect, would be the first to insist that they, as Americans, be differentiated from the actions of the American government in Iraq under Bush.
Not only is such hypocritical, but it is also self-defeating, much like the views of those who wanted to boycott Arizona a couple years ago because of its policies regarding immigrants. If you isolate a community, you largely accomplish naught but the strengthening of its attitudes and the increasing marginalization of those residents who agree with you. Think what would have happened a half century ago if people outside of Alabama had chosen to boycott the place rather than go there to march, to protest, to organize its residents. Would anyone, especially Black residents, be better off?
That said, I would also note that it is Huntsville, Alabama, which chooses to "honor" and "glorify" the major international Nazi terrorist, Werner von Braun, with accolades in their museum and the naming of their arts complex (and other institutions) after him.
7
This very article states "The chief justice’s misgivings speak to widespread concerns here about federal overreach and same-sex marriage in Alabama, where about 81 percent of voters in 2006 supported a constitutional amendment banning gay nuptials."
I think if 81% of voters support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it pretty well illuminates the mind-sent of the citizens of Alabama.
I think if 81% of voters support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it pretty well illuminates the mind-sent of the citizens of Alabama.
18
The citizens of Alabama elected this fool for chief justice and you wonder why people pick on Alabama?
10
The Nazis brought us to the moon, make no mistake about it.
If Judge Moore is so intent on making sure that state law would always trump federal law (despite what the Constitution says) he might want to advocate for secession. Not sure how well that turned out last time or how well positioned Alabama would be to do such a thing now.
23
I think counties not issuing licenses is more widespread than the Times article would have you believe. There is a lot of confusion right now in Alabama with some counties issuing licenses for same sex couples and some not. A few counties have decided to not issue licenses of any kind. The Birmingham News, a good source of updated info on what is going on in Alabama, is reporting that some couples are having to driving around to neighboring counties in the hopes of finding a Probate Judge willing to grant them a license, so there is flux and confusing in Alabama with more than just a few counties there refusing to issue licenses to same sex couples which I don't think you get from reading the article.
14
Check AL.com as well for some good local coverage. Seems like a lot of folks are getting married, but not in every county.
3
In a week, a month, a year, I predict that all those non-conforming counties will fall in line, because their own officials will be dragged into court (and held accountable in a jail, perhaps) for defying the law as set down by the Supreme Court. At least, let is hope so. Defying the Court is defying the law of the land.
7
Some people wonder why the vast majority of Americans hate Washington. It's because of overreach like this, where the federal government forces local communities to deny the tenets off their religion and their history. The imposition of same-sex marriages on a state and its people, by the feds and a vocal minority claiming "rights" they never had, is the real shame of this story, not the actions of one brave state judge.
35
People can believe anything they want. Here in the U.S. they are not allowed to force others to abide by their religious beliefs. Your religion doesn't trump any other citizen's civil rights.
How did you miss that?
How did you miss that?
134
You and your community members are being forced to marry persons of the same sex? Do tell us more about how same-sex marriage is being "imposed" on your, Dawn.
94
Oh, poor Dawn. "Imposition of same-sex marriage"? No one is forcing you to marry a woman. And you are free to continue to personally disagree with same-sex marriage.
It doesn't matter how "small" a minority is... they need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority and provided equal rights by, yes, government.
It doesn't matter how "small" a minority is... they need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority and provided equal rights by, yes, government.
118
The phrase: "You may now kiss the bride.", has been replaced with: “You can show your affection.” Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that a better replacement phrase would be: "You may now show your affection.”
11
Or, how about: "You may now kiss your bride" ? (or "your husband").
They're both brides (or husbands) and the justice is speaking to both of them, so it works:-)
They're both brides (or husbands) and the justice is speaking to both of them, so it works:-)
5
Will the seemingly unstoppable momentum of marriage equality lead to a decades long culture war like Roe V Wade? The defiance in Alabama suggests that the answer may be yes.
I'm seeing a future with mandatory waiting periods for gay couples who want to get a marriage license, and then they'll be forced to look at pictures of loving hetero couples before they can get the certificate.
I'm seeing a future with mandatory waiting periods for gay couples who want to get a marriage license, and then they'll be forced to look at pictures of loving hetero couples before they can get the certificate.
9
I have always held this view that the rights of the LGBT community are deeply related to the basic tenets democracy stands on. It's about how we can tolerate behaviours and views that differ from those of ours, but are harmless to us. The issue is about separation of religion and the state law. The issue is about acceptance of those who have been wronged and ridiculed for centuries. The issue is not about us; it's about something far greater than us.
23
A democracy is only strong as the people who practices it.
1
Jodge Moore has just proven once again that he is not competent to administer the laws of any state. If the people of Alabama do not want to be the laughingstock of the whole world, they will unelect this guy at the first opportunity.
17
A Justice such as Judge Roy Moore wouldn't last a New York minute here in California - we tend to quickly recognize bigotry, intolerance, and religious dogma interfering with liberty and justice for ALL. If one wants to believe the Fairy Tales of the ancient religious doctrines - by all means do so, but stay away and out of government so the people of the US can be better served by that little thing called separation of church and state...
28
Yes and no, California is currently living with an outbreak of preventable disease because people aren't vaccinating their children.
4
I wouldn't be to sure about that, you did pass Prop 8.
7
Let's not go all boastful about "enlightened" California, one of the epicenters of vaccination-autism hysteria. No state has a monopoly on deeply misguided fixations.
4
From "schoolhouse door" to "courthouse door". Same sentiment, different subject.
I once turned down an otherwise great job opportunity because I'd have to relocate to Alabama. This is a reminder why I don't regret that decision.
I once turned down an otherwise great job opportunity because I'd have to relocate to Alabama. This is a reminder why I don't regret that decision.
28
He added: “This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
Beautifully put, Judge Alan King! And well done, Judge Michael Graffeo! These Alabamans are on the right side of history; three cheers for them and for the many others in the state who understand that love, dignity, and equality are for everyone.
Beautifully put, Judge Alan King! And well done, Judge Michael Graffeo! These Alabamans are on the right side of history; three cheers for them and for the many others in the state who understand that love, dignity, and equality are for everyone.
45
There goes Moore again, simultaneously showing his true - bigoted - colors and pandering to his constituency.
21
They are your friends and your neighbors, you have known them for years. Abandon your fears, give up on hate and let people live their lives with the same dignity you want in yours. Step out of the dark and into the light.
49
Can we do a NYT Readers' Pool on who will be #50?
I'll go first with the obvious choice: Mississippi. With a side bet on Tennessee.
Of course SCOTUS might put an end to this in June, so….
I'll go first with the obvious choice: Mississippi. With a side bet on Tennessee.
Of course SCOTUS might put an end to this in June, so….
11
Although state anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriages were declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 (in Loving v. Virginia), the State of Alabama did not repeal its law banning interracial marriages until the year 2000. In that year, a poll revealed that twenty-six percent of Alabama residents still opposed interracial marriages. History indicates, therefore, that it will be many years before Alabama joins the rest of the Union in acknowledging the right of same sex couples to marry.
40
Oh for goodness sake. Anti-miscegenation laws have not been enforced in Alabama since 1967. Most state statutory codes are full of unconstitutional laws that no one bothers to remove because they aren't enforceable anyway. There was actually a lot of controversy surrounding that vote in 2000 because a lot of critics of repealing the law feared that doing so would just give Northerners another reason to talk about how backwards we are. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. And I'd be willing to bet that you could find 26% of New Yorkers opposed to interracial marriage. The South does not have a monopoly on bigots, people.
4
I hope you are right Rupert, and that the majority of your fellow citizens in Alabama actually do live in the 21st Century, but the weight of the evidence is on the other side.
As for there being bigotry elsewhere you will not get an argument from me.
As for there being bigotry elsewhere you will not get an argument from me.
14
Rupert - The South keeps electing people who want to validate bigotry. You need to own up to that.
11
Why is the sex of two adults who love each and want to make a commitment to each other more important than the commitment? If those two adults want the obligations and drawbacks that come with a legally recognized marriage why should the religious convictions of a judge stand in the way? The judge is not the one getting married. The judge is not a priest, a pastor, a rabbi, or an imam. The judge is an attorney who is supposed to interpret the law without reference to his/her religious or personal biases. Same sex marriage hurts no one and helps the couples who want it. It offers legal, familial, and medical safeguards and privileges to them that domestic partnerships do not. That has been the driving force behind same sex marriage.
38
Hen3ry -- As one Lehrer fan to another, you're not from Alabama, are you? People like Judge Moore are a dying breed, feeling it's their duty to speak for God himself. He does not and cannot differentiate between his religious convictions and U.S. law. This is not a matter of reason.
10
Father Coughlin, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Roy Moore.
Quite a legacy for a judge.
Quite a legacy for a judge.
26
"Although much has changed from Wallace’s era ..."
What?? I see no evidence of that.
What?? I see no evidence of that.
19
Alabama - Second or third highest rate of divorce out of 50 states, depending on which survey you look at, but always, always in the top ten.
27
I can see Justuce Moore standing at the courthouse yelling "I say homophobia now, homophobia tomorrow, homophobia forever!"
76
Judge Alan L. King sums up what bigotry is blind to:
"This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.” Judge Moore and his ilk can't understand (astonishing for a Chief State Supreme Court Justice) that we have freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion in this country.
"This is a happy day for all of these couples, and if you can’t be happy for people, then I’m sorry. If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.” Judge Moore and his ilk can't understand (astonishing for a Chief State Supreme Court Justice) that we have freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion in this country.
39
Hmmm. Defying a federal order? His logic is tragically frozen in 1960s rhetoric from an echo of defiance by then Governor George C. Wallace. I was determined not to live in a state where the governor inserted himself between me and my future, so I left for my college education, but others are not so fortunate and have to stay in Alabama. Perhaps Judge Moore needs to forget about the federal system altogether and avoid Interstate 65, boarding an airplane, buying food at the grocery store stamped USDA approved and voting for congressmen or senators.
39
Ironic that so close the anniversary of Selma that Alabama would show its intolerance ye again. They were wrong about civil rights, and they're wrong on same-sex marriage.
38
The actions of Justice Moore and others suggest that they think they will have an effect on what they regard as immoral behavior when in fact regardless of these legal rulings and conflicts among Judges same-sex couple will live and love together, and raise families.
Perhaps if these Judges and the Alabamans still opposed to SS marriage understood that this is, and is only about equal rights and equal protection under the law they would calm down and allow the inevitable to proceed.
Perhaps if these Judges and the Alabamans still opposed to SS marriage understood that this is, and is only about equal rights and equal protection under the law they would calm down and allow the inevitable to proceed.
9
bravo Graffeo
19
Three cheers for Alabama!
Boo to Justice Moore!
'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'
It surely does, and thank goodness.
Three cheers for Alabama!
Boo to Justice Moore!
'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'
It surely does, and thank goodness.
Three cheers for Alabama!
19
This public defiance of Alabama's Supreme Bigot is the perfect response. Congratulations to all of the new couples.
22
Sounds like a few old Inquisitors in Alabama just lost the last battle of the Crusades. Thank God.
24
The arc of the moral universe is long,but it bends towards justice.
Rev. MLK Jr from Rev. Theodore Parker
Rev. MLK Jr from Rev. Theodore Parker
14
America's most idiotic judge, Moore, speaks again. Happily, not even all of the judges in Alabama care what he says.
37
The Neanderthals who represent the Confederacy's long-discredited world-view from the bench hold the Bible in one hand and hold a significant percentage of humanity in contempt with the other. I sincerely hope that when these haters go before their Creator, they are told something like "...one man's or one woman's love for another didn't bother me. Why did it bother you? The issue was love, not procreation."
20
Judges, like Moore, who believe they can operate above the law should be sanctioned. Plain and simple.
27
They should be impeached ASAP
11
Alabama remains a largely rural state, whose total population is about the same as that of metro Atlanta. Many Alabamians' whole social support network is organized around theologically conservative churches that oppose same-sex marriage. Given the sorry state of Alabama's k-12 school system, the average Alabamian is not prepared to grapple with the ambiguities and historical contexts of either the Bible or the Constitution. They believe what their ministers and their local political leaders tell them, and they don't question either unless forced to by someone to whom they owe a corresponding loyalty, such as a beloved family member or friend. And lots of times even that doesn't work.
The economic and political elites in Alabama are invested in this fight as a distraction from all they are not doing to improve their state. And religious leaders are happy to help because they belong to both groups! It's been a great fund raiser for all of them and gives them an excellent excuse not to pursue their jobs of serving all the people or the Gospel. As they say down South, "It sure beats workin'."
The economic and political elites in Alabama are invested in this fight as a distraction from all they are not doing to improve their state. And religious leaders are happy to help because they belong to both groups! It's been a great fund raiser for all of them and gives them an excellent excuse not to pursue their jobs of serving all the people or the Gospel. As they say down South, "It sure beats workin'."
790
Wow, Susan -- excellent exposition and analysis. Thanks.
5
Ambiguities? Historical context? I don't think it requires much enlightenment nterpret the clearest baseline definition of marriage in Genesis 2 and repeated verbatim by Jesus: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
Jesus couples this definition with the statement that God created man in an image that intentionally requires both male and female: "And He answered and said, “Have you not read, athat He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, (Matt. 19:4,5). But someone may argue that Jesus grew up in Nazareth where the school districts consistently scored lowest in Palestine; after all, Jesus was brainwashed by conservatively theological synagogues. He certainly did not have the intelligence and moral sophistication and ethical ambiguity to recognize same sex marriage. Hmmm. Marriage is revealed biblically as not a human construct or a societal construct, but as a divinely ordained covenant that is designed to reflect the image of God in the beautiful oneness of gender diversity brought into "one flesh" unity. I am amazed that the debate of same-sex marriage (which should be argued around definitions) has shifted to the level of same-sex rights. Instead of attacking the "average" Alabamian for their low intelligence to accept the plain meaning of Scripture, why not offer a biblical argument that clearly and consistently interprets every key passage on marriage.
Jesus couples this definition with the statement that God created man in an image that intentionally requires both male and female: "And He answered and said, “Have you not read, athat He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, (Matt. 19:4,5). But someone may argue that Jesus grew up in Nazareth where the school districts consistently scored lowest in Palestine; after all, Jesus was brainwashed by conservatively theological synagogues. He certainly did not have the intelligence and moral sophistication and ethical ambiguity to recognize same sex marriage. Hmmm. Marriage is revealed biblically as not a human construct or a societal construct, but as a divinely ordained covenant that is designed to reflect the image of God in the beautiful oneness of gender diversity brought into "one flesh" unity. I am amazed that the debate of same-sex marriage (which should be argued around definitions) has shifted to the level of same-sex rights. Instead of attacking the "average" Alabamian for their low intelligence to accept the plain meaning of Scripture, why not offer a biblical argument that clearly and consistently interprets every key passage on marriage.
Among's the lot of good ideology being expressed here, this is an important realist perspective. Thank you.
Good People of Alabama, it's time to retire this neanderthal religious zealot, "On Sunday night Chief Justice Moore ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
20
Retire? He just got elected...maybe more people should have gotten off their behinds and voted.
7
The courts seem to have all but settled the marriage equality question. Judge Roy Moore is an outlier -- a stubborn, bitter, angry, outmoded, intolerant outlier.
At the end of the Grimm fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin, his fit of anger at losing the bet destroys him. Et tu, Roy Moore, et tu.
Judge Roy Moore's
At the end of the Grimm fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin, his fit of anger at losing the bet destroys him. Et tu, Roy Moore, et tu.
Judge Roy Moore's
36
Perhaps only the outliers you like are worthy of attention, and the ones you do not like deserve to be called names. The maturity of liberals never ceases to amaze.
I did not call him names. I described him.
Outlier -- that's an accurate description of someone who's opinions are in such a small minority.
Stubborn, bitter, angry, outmoded, and intolerant are not names. They are descriptive adjectives.
Outlier -- that's an accurate description of someone who's opinions are in such a small minority.
Stubborn, bitter, angry, outmoded, and intolerant are not names. They are descriptive adjectives.
3
Constitution 1 - States' Rights 0. The Constitution should always win; shame on the Chief Justice of Alabama thinking his state was above the Constitution.
31
Hate and bigotry lose; love, justice, tolerance, and common sense win the day.
63
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6, Clause 2.
See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (establishing Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law).
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6, Clause 2.
See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (establishing Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law).
548
I think the issue is what aspects of marriage, traditionally the purview of the states, are in fact a matter of federal law.
26
Taxation, civil rights....shall I go on?
6
Since at least 1967, when the Supreme Court (in Loving v. Virginia) declared marriage to be a "basic civil right" while striking down state anti-miscegenation laws, state laws governing marriage have been subject to federal law. We will soon learn whether the Supreme Court will extend the basic civil right of marriage to same sex couples. While awaiting that ruling, the judgments of the lower federal courts, which the Supreme Court has declined to stay, are controlling over contrary state laws.
21
Don't talk about "backwards Alabama". Sure, Justice Moore is a judge there, a position he got due to his ultraconservative politics. I prefer to think of Judge Graffeo who teared up officiating the first same sex wedding. And Judge King, who said "If someone can’t understand the joy and happiness of others, then I don’t know what else I can say.”
999
It's good to know there are sensible people in every state. Hopefully, the rest will eventually catch up.
18
@rg-
You contradict yourself with this statement "Don't talk about "backwards Alabama". Sure, Justice Moore is a judge there, a position he got due to his ultraconservative politics". If Alabama weren't so backwards, Roy Moore would never have been elected in the first place, and I would bet if you polled people in Alabama a large majority of them support Roy Moore. Not to mention that the ban on same sex marriage was passed by 81% of the voters, it wasn't even close.
All states have people of fair mind, but the reality is that Roy Moore is not an outlier, he represents the feeling of probably a very solid majority of people in Alabama. If people in Alabama petition to have him removed from the bench and succeed, then come back to me, but all evidence is that the people in Alabama are just as stupid as Roy Moore.
The judges who celebrated this I might add will probably lose their jobs come the next election, I wouldn't be surprised if those rednecks pass a law that any judge that doesn't swear to preside using God's laws cannot take office.
You contradict yourself with this statement "Don't talk about "backwards Alabama". Sure, Justice Moore is a judge there, a position he got due to his ultraconservative politics". If Alabama weren't so backwards, Roy Moore would never have been elected in the first place, and I would bet if you polled people in Alabama a large majority of them support Roy Moore. Not to mention that the ban on same sex marriage was passed by 81% of the voters, it wasn't even close.
All states have people of fair mind, but the reality is that Roy Moore is not an outlier, he represents the feeling of probably a very solid majority of people in Alabama. If people in Alabama petition to have him removed from the bench and succeed, then come back to me, but all evidence is that the people in Alabama are just as stupid as Roy Moore.
The judges who celebrated this I might add will probably lose their jobs come the next election, I wouldn't be surprised if those rednecks pass a law that any judge that doesn't swear to preside using God's laws cannot take office.
13
I was pleasantly surprised upon reading this article when the exact same thought occurred to me. I truly never thought I would say this, but bravo, Alabama.
3
The collected wisdom of Judge Moore:
"Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it. " DH v. HH, 2002
In 2004, along with Herb Titus, Moore was an original drafter of the Constitution Restoration Act which sought to remove federal courts' jurisdiction over a government official or entity's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," and provided for the impeachment of judges who failed to do so. The bill was introduced in both houses of Congress in 2004 and then reintroduced in 2005, but languished in committee both times. ( http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862)
This is the same Judge Moore who was thrown off of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2003 for failing to obey a Federal Court order to remove his 2 1/2 ton granite religious monument from the State courthouse rotunda.
Respect for the rule of law, this guy, not so much.
"Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it. " DH v. HH, 2002
In 2004, along with Herb Titus, Moore was an original drafter of the Constitution Restoration Act which sought to remove federal courts' jurisdiction over a government official or entity's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," and provided for the impeachment of judges who failed to do so. The bill was introduced in both houses of Congress in 2004 and then reintroduced in 2005, but languished in committee both times. ( http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862)
This is the same Judge Moore who was thrown off of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2003 for failing to obey a Federal Court order to remove his 2 1/2 ton granite religious monument from the State courthouse rotunda.
Respect for the rule of law, this guy, not so much.
734
And yet the people of the state re-elected him. What does that tell you about them? This is one of the most backward looking states in the country.
21
Justice Moore is one of a long line of Southerners who long for a restoration of the status quo ante, including "states' rights." If anyone doesn't think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, just look at this sort of "thinking" and remember that it was used as the rationale to justify separate--and unequal--segregation, deprivation of voting rights, miscegenation laws, etc.
9
"acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,"
How does the good judge know this? What is his (scientific) basis for this? Please tell me it's not the book with the black covers that is almost entirely fiction, myth, and superstition. I suspect that he has a virulently negative opinion of Islamic theocracies; a Christian (but almost assuredly not Catholic - oh, the irony!) theocracy here in Amurrica, now that's his dream.
As for his granite monument: is ten commandments too many for him to remember? Can't he just write them on the palm of his hand, the preferred method for some conservatives?
The cons are constantly speaking out for the sanctity of marriage. Let's take them at their word. An amendment to the constitution woild do the trick: no divorces allowed. Newt, Rush, RWR, what do you think?
How does the good judge know this? What is his (scientific) basis for this? Please tell me it's not the book with the black covers that is almost entirely fiction, myth, and superstition. I suspect that he has a virulently negative opinion of Islamic theocracies; a Christian (but almost assuredly not Catholic - oh, the irony!) theocracy here in Amurrica, now that's his dream.
As for his granite monument: is ten commandments too many for him to remember? Can't he just write them on the palm of his hand, the preferred method for some conservatives?
The cons are constantly speaking out for the sanctity of marriage. Let's take them at their word. An amendment to the constitution woild do the trick: no divorces allowed. Newt, Rush, RWR, what do you think?
5
It is a privilege that in our time we get to witness an advancement in civil rights as profound and irreversible as the ones made fifty years ago.
It is a disgrace that in our time there are people who would reverse this one, and would reverse the ones made before, both in the name of the God they profess to worship.
It is a disgrace that in our time there are people who would reverse this one, and would reverse the ones made before, both in the name of the God they profess to worship.
30
I'm happy that sanity will prevail over bigotry -- but these problems wouldn't exist if the government would just get out of the marriage business. Let every citizen be an equal and separate economic & legal unit all of his or her life, and let everyone enter into whatever private relationships he or she likes, without special perks and privileges granted by law to some lifestyles at the expense of others.
6
That's an appealing argument on the surface, but it has a fundamental flaw. People entering marriage don't have equal bargaining power. So long as marriage continues to be fundamental to the structure of society, it remains essential for the government to have a role to ensure that it is not an unfair or abusive arrangement.
25
It wouldn't be fundamental to the structure of society if citizens who eschew marriage were not discriminated against in more than 1,000 ways.
1
V
That is incorrect. Loving vs Virginia said that the State has no legitimate interest when two adults marry. Further, the SCOTUS has ruled that the state has no business in regulating morality as in sexual behavior.
That is incorrect. Loving vs Virginia said that the State has no legitimate interest when two adults marry. Further, the SCOTUS has ruled that the state has no business in regulating morality as in sexual behavior.
1
A District Court judge appointed by George W. Bush rules in favor of gay marriage. The Supreme Court, with Bush and Reagan appointees like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito, support the ruling in favor of gay marriage. So what's the problem?
14
So Alabama always wants to be recorded on the wrong side of history, eh? Some things never change.
25
Congratulations to all the joyful newlyweds in Alabama on this happy day!
102
Alabama has to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity. All thanks to Judge Moore.
13
And the 80% of Alabamites who voted against gay marriage and Judge Moore into office a second time.
11
To be fair to Alabama, so was California--our state too passed a ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage and it was a court decision that overruled it. So too of most states. I think the county has taken some time to wake up, and perhaps some states longer than others (even your home state had to be sued into accepting gay marriage--but then again, your state was first!!) but hopefully by the end of the summer, the Supreme Court will make it clear and equality of marriage will apply to all.
114
Let's be fair, he has plenty of help.
5
President Obama was correct. There are no blue states or red states.
Equality is colorless.
The state of my childhood will be dragged into the 21st century - one way or another. Science and dignity will rule the day - one way or another.
Everyone - yes, everyone - is entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.
Equality is colorless.
The state of my childhood will be dragged into the 21st century - one way or another. Science and dignity will rule the day - one way or another.
Everyone - yes, everyone - is entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.
60
Perhaps by the 22nd. I just finally gave up and left, still feeling as if our coffeeshops were under siege.
2
Of course there are blue and red states. It's a fact . Your anonymity protects you from public humiliation.
Here's the big story - even while the Supreme Court is considering appeals from four cases in which the Sixth Circuit rejected same-sex marriage, the Court denied yet another application for a stay of same-sex marriages. It takes five votes to grant a stay - which would be a no-brainer if there were five justices on the Court inclined to reverse the Sixth Circuit's decisions.
The sheer number of cases in which the Court did not have five votes for stays stands as a very clear indication where the Court is headed on the merits of same-sex marriage.
Victory is at hand.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The sheer number of cases in which the Court did not have five votes for stays stands as a very clear indication where the Court is headed on the merits of same-sex marriage.
Victory is at hand.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
362
But maybe Roy's opinion will change their mind, he's a Chief Justice, you know.
1
Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, your authority on this matter is now confined to a footnote in a history textbook.
Ignorant cruelty dies. The world improves. Troglodytes resist inevitable inconsequentiality.
Others may not, but I take pleasure in the frustration of the ignorant, cruel troglodytes. Because it mirrors the frustration they used to impose on innocent people who just wanted to express their harmless honest love. And now they can do so.
Hallelujah. There is good in the world.
Ignorant cruelty dies. The world improves. Troglodytes resist inevitable inconsequentiality.
Others may not, but I take pleasure in the frustration of the ignorant, cruel troglodytes. Because it mirrors the frustration they used to impose on innocent people who just wanted to express their harmless honest love. And now they can do so.
Hallelujah. There is good in the world.
45
That drumming we are hearing up north is a lot of bibles being thumped in 'Bama.
25
What neo-George Wallaces like Judge Moore seem to always overlook is the human rights record of the federal government as compared with those of the states. The Tenth Amendment gave way to the Fourteenth for the very reason that the states refused to protect the rights of enslaved humans, refused to open access to voting and good schools to all residents. Now they cling to the "right" of states to discriminate against homosexuals or withhold federally funded health care to working residents.
155
Just who is this Judge Moore that he thinks he can defy a SCOTUS ruiling. No matter if he agrees or disagrees he must enforce the stay and he once again must be removed from the bench
42
MSNBC is reporting that Moore said something to the effect that he is willing to bring in The National Guard to stop Same Marriage Licences from being issued
3
The Supreme Court might want to run out and buy a copy of the Constitution. There's a little thing called The Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
72
While out purchasing that copy of the Constitution for them, you want to read Article VI, para 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
It's not for Mr. Moore to decide whether or not he has to listen to a federal district court (to say nothing of SCOTUS).
It's not for Mr. Moore to decide whether or not he has to listen to a federal district court (to say nothing of SCOTUS).
115
And you might want to take a look at the 14th Amendment.
84
You might want to read up on the 14th Amendment, particular the parts about equal protection and due process. For the record, the 10th Amendment has been considered a superfluous part of the Constitution and is rarely used to strike down laws.
71
Looks like Alabama's position remains the same as it always was- segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
27
Maybe it's time that major corporations such as the auto makers rethink where they set up their manufacturing operations. Can you trust a state that thinks it is above federal law. Do you need to pump up the economies of states that are still fighting the civil law. Wouldn't you love it if a major corporation stood up and said "we were going to build a factory in Alabama, but we can't do business in a place like this." Oh well, I guess tax breaks and cheap labor is more important than morals.
38
It may be enough to keep out companies dependent on intellectual innovation. But not companies run from elsewhere that just need a desperate workforce and lots of free gifts (no taxes! free land! here's a free interstate interchange for you!) from the state and locality and a strong anti-union attitude, useful for keeping wages and benefits down.
What has made some think twice is the experience of hiring people without even the thinking skills and possibly work ethic needed for modern manufacturing.
What has made some think twice is the experience of hiring people without even the thinking skills and possibly work ethic needed for modern manufacturing.
5
Good old Alabama, again leading the way against progress. What a rich history!
38
Why is not the State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore held in contempt of court? I cannot think of a more egregious case of contempt.
53
We should thank him for reminding us that multiple pockets of ignorance and bigotry thrive in this challenged nation.
2
Like the local judge cited in the story, he's not a party to the action. He should, however, be impeached from office and disbarred for life as a repeat offender.
1
Reminds me of Wallace standing in the schoolhouse doorway. As Tom Lehrer sang about the South, "good times, they are not forgotten."
14
To Judge Moore: If you don't approve of gay marriage don't have one. That's it. Let's all move on.
141
Of course there is chaos in Alabama! To them, it is still 1860. Always will be.........
41
People like Justice Moore do go on about how sacred the Constitution is, but only if those interpreting it don't disagree with them. He should be removed from his post since he thinks he's a law unto himself.
77
The protester's cry, "It's an abomination!" says nothing about gay marriage. It does, however, say a great deal about the protester. A person so full of hatred for those who have done nothing wrong that they have succumbed and allowed it to steal away their humanity.
215
It also blatantly ignores the list of everything else that's labeled an "abomination" in the bible. Things like eating pork and many others.
22
No hatred, just sympathy and sadness at moral decay and hope for each individual. Luckily most folks know what is morally right, and what is just wrong.
All the rationalizing in the world will still not make an obvious abnormality moral and accepted. Just won't.
All the rationalizing in the world will still not make an obvious abnormality moral and accepted. Just won't.
Bubba got slapped down hard and he ain't happy. The state judiciary is in chaos.
102
In an earlier, related NY Times article, Alabama Judge Fred Hamic – ably illustrating an abomination of tortured logic and twisted syntax – explained sin with regard to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples:
"I believe I would be partaking in a sin, and I sin every day, don’t get me wrong,” he said. “This is one sin I do not have to participate in, not that you have to participate in any sin.”
"I believe I would be partaking in a sin, and I sin every day, don’t get me wrong,” he said. “This is one sin I do not have to participate in, not that you have to participate in any sin.”
92
Kinda concerns me that he sins every day. He's supposed to be an upright citizen, no?
13
Chuck: he has a bacon and egg sandwich every day, and according to his Bible that's a sin.
9
Isn't their defiance some sort of way of breaking the law? When will Judge Moore and those probate judges who follow him be arrested for their embarrasing actions? Sweet home Alabama.
64
Maybe Harper Lee can write one more novel and show Atticus Finch going up against Chief Judge Roy Moore.
268
With Scout marrying her long time lover and Dill as the Maid-of-Honor. I'd read that.
7
Not surprising that it's Alabama, once again, that defies the federal government.
One can only conclude that the people writing textbooks for use in Alabama schools left out the section on federal versus state versus local government.
And then there's Judge Moore, a caricature of a judge if there ever was one. Perhaps Alabamans are getting what they deserve.
My condolence to those Alabamans who are stuck in the small towns in that state. You can a marriage license in Birmingham and Montgomery today, but not in the various agricultural and rural counties. Don't they have the same rights in small towns?
One can only conclude that the people writing textbooks for use in Alabama schools left out the section on federal versus state versus local government.
And then there's Judge Moore, a caricature of a judge if there ever was one. Perhaps Alabamans are getting what they deserve.
My condolence to those Alabamans who are stuck in the small towns in that state. You can a marriage license in Birmingham and Montgomery today, but not in the various agricultural and rural counties. Don't they have the same rights in small towns?
157
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Alabama succeeded from the nation? ! Then we would not have to provide them w $2 worth of Federal care for every $1 they give to the nation.
Those supporting civil rights of all kinds can stay w the nation and those who are too ignorant and arrogant, siding w the state, can join the boys from "Lord of the Rings" and *continue* to live like salvages.
Those supporting civil rights of all kinds can stay w the nation and those who are too ignorant and arrogant, siding w the state, can join the boys from "Lord of the Rings" and *continue* to live like salvages.
2
Judge Moore has already shown that he is not fit to sit on the bench at any level. His obsession with religion has caused him to be removed from his position before and, apparently, he has not learned his lesson. Open defiance of a superior court's order in deference to personal beliefs is an unacceptable act of disobedience that must, once again, result in his being relieved of his duties. This is a charade that must stop here and now without any possibility of being repeated. This man has consistently made a mockery of the justice system with his defiance of, or is it ignorance of, both the Constitution and judicial decorum. He has neither the common sense nor the temperament to make legal decisions that comport with his responsibilities and oath of office. That he is the Chief Justice of a state court is a disgrace.
366
Religion is simply what he's hiding behind. In reality, its ugly name is prejudice but when you wrap it up in the righteous colors of god and stick a bow of state's rights on top, you make make yourself a hero in the minds of your basest base. No wonder education is considered a luxury and not a necessity in that part of the world.
16
Well described.
1
Is this the same Alabama state supreme court justice who was stripped of his robes some years back because he refused to follow federal law and remove a 10 commandments statue from his courthouse? Seems he still doesn't understand the first amendment. Pity.
135
He would probably say he is doing god's work. I dont think his mind is going to change.
5
Yes this is the same Judge. he was removed from office and then reelected.
3
Chief Justice Moore doesn't seem to grasp much of anything about constitutional law. Not the First Amendment, years ago, and now the Fourteenth. His refusal to recognize the supreme authority of federal law and the federal courts on civil rights issues renders him unfit to hold a judicial office. He should be impeached and disbarred for life as a repeat offender.
2
NYTimes;
"In Alabama, Judge Defies Gay Marriage Requirement
Chief Justice Roy S. Moore ordered local judges to ignore a federal court’s ruling that struck down Alabama’s ban on gay nuptials, reigniting a states’ rights debate similar to the one that arose during federally ordered integration."
Just goes to show that old times there are not forgotten, look away, look away if you happen to be gay.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
"In Alabama, Judge Defies Gay Marriage Requirement
Chief Justice Roy S. Moore ordered local judges to ignore a federal court’s ruling that struck down Alabama’s ban on gay nuptials, reigniting a states’ rights debate similar to the one that arose during federally ordered integration."
Just goes to show that old times there are not forgotten, look away, look away if you happen to be gay.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
43
I'm sure the folks down south all appreciate your condensation. It is a sad day for this country when people with Biblically-based values are openly sneered at.
1
Dino, there is nobody in this country who is or should be above being sneered at. And forgive me if I think being sneered at is less objectionable than being beaten up because you're holding hands with someone of the same sex.
18
They probably DO appreciate northern condensation, especially in the hot summer months.
13
Sounds like some more Alabamans can now honestly sing Sweet Home Alabama to themselves. That's a good day.
27
It seems that in Alabama they never heard or do not grasp the meaning of the US Constitution's supremacy clause or they do not remember that the South lost the Civil War. I'm not surprised, I suppose. I had a case once in Alabama, and during trial had to call the home office and the judge was kind enough to let me use the phone in his chambers, where the wall was decorated with two paintings, one of Robert E. Lee and one of Stonewall Jackson.
172
As a native Alabamian who chose to leave many years ago, I never thought I would live to see this remarkable day!
197
As a native Montrealais,who chose to leave 42 years ago (I prefer warmer weather),I never thought I would live to see Alabama joining the 21st century.
Congratulation Alabama.Marriage equality now,tomorrow and forever.
Congratulation Alabama.Marriage equality now,tomorrow and forever.
11
Some days, the idea of moving to Canada seems like a good one.
3
The "abomination" is this Judge Moore, who apparently clings to a model of states'-rights jurisprudence in the 21st century. Why is he still in office? Cheers to the brave LGBTQ people in Alabama and elsewhere.
391
I agree on the topic, but "states rights" is used all. of. the. time. in all of the states for land, taxes, prison, you name it. You are over-simplifying a very complex topic.
State and Federal courts have clashed in the past with each other, and they will clash again as long as there is such a thing as "states rights" in the USA. States rights is not going away -- states like their power.
State and Federal courts have clashed in the past with each other, and they will clash again as long as there is such a thing as "states rights" in the USA. States rights is not going away -- states like their power.
2
Yes, K, state and federal courts have clashed in the past. And sometimes the states win. But this is a civil rights and equality before the law matter, and in that the federal courts are the final authority.
I hope the SCOTUS's action today is a strong hint on how they will rule in the case now before them - that is, uphold the civil right of same-sex couples to marry.
I hope the SCOTUS's action today is a strong hint on how they will rule in the case now before them - that is, uphold the civil right of same-sex couples to marry.
6
vklip, yes but as an example, one could look at what both the state and federal supreme courts have done with Roe vs Wade. Certain states are constantly whittling away at the federal law and with unfortunate success. "States rights" is not simple or easy or straightforward as you suggest. There will always be a tug back and forth. You may want to believe that USA federal law is absolute but it actually isn't.
1
This is simply amazing. Alabama Judges defying State Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore and issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? If this isn't the Conservative Cause throwing in the towel and hoisting the white flag on Marriage Equality, I don't know what is!
The times, they are a'changin' ... and it's about damn time.
The times, they are a'changin' ... and it's about damn time.
199
I don't think it's fair to characterize this as conservative judges are throwing in the towel. From the article, it seems to me at least some have a deep-seated conviction that allowing/performing same-sex marriages is the right thing to do. They deserve a lot of credit here.
24
Good god what century does the Chief Justice Roy Moore reside in?
167
The 19th. Specifically, the day before the surrender ceremony at Appomattox.
14
Someone needs to remind AL Chief Justice Moore that the Civil War ended 150 years ago and his side lost. Federal authority trumps state authority. End of story, so now get over it.
607
It's been long enough that we should be able to resist the temptation to cite the Civil War when encouraging Southerners to get with the program. Pushing people's buttons isn't the way to get them to listen to you.
1
A tip of the hat to those brave probate judges who are defying an illegal order and marrying same sex couples. They are putting their jobs and their safety on the line for their principles.
581
"A tip of the hat to those brave probate judges who are defying an illegal order and marrying same sex couples. They are putting their jobs and their safety on the line for their principles." Actually, the ones putting their jobs on the line are the Chief Justice and those probate judges defying a Federal Court Order that they marry same sex couples.
13
Philly's name means City of Brotherly Love, eh?
As for illegal rulings, Alabama used to refuse black kids an equal education -- until soldiers came. Local judges can't ignore federal decisions about the Constitution, or we'd still have "legal" segregation and miscegenation laws in the stark and stupid states that swallowed racism as though it were manna.
As for illegal rulings, Alabama used to refuse black kids an equal education -- until soldiers came. Local judges can't ignore federal decisions about the Constitution, or we'd still have "legal" segregation and miscegenation laws in the stark and stupid states that swallowed racism as though it were manna.
4
Yes, hats off to the people who are staunchly deny happiness to thousands of people because it might disrupt their control.
2
The idiocy of our State Supreme Court Chief Justice rears its ugly head again. He thinks we have a theocracy here, and he is the Messiah.
It is quite possible that the majority of voters in Alabama would agree with him. Already, several state probate judges have indicated they will not issue same-sex licenses, and it is hard to find judges who will perform such ceremonies.
But if the "will of the people" were always to prevail, we would have continued slavery, no universal suffrage, and an embargo on mixed-race (whatever that is) marriages.
Last, no opposition to same-sex marriage can mount a shred of peer-reviewed evidence that there is any harm from it. I cannot understand legislation predicated on unfounded ancient notions and superstitions rather than a hard examination of the facts. But that's Alabama.
We take meager comfort in a saying here: At least we're not Mississippi!
It is quite possible that the majority of voters in Alabama would agree with him. Already, several state probate judges have indicated they will not issue same-sex licenses, and it is hard to find judges who will perform such ceremonies.
But if the "will of the people" were always to prevail, we would have continued slavery, no universal suffrage, and an embargo on mixed-race (whatever that is) marriages.
Last, no opposition to same-sex marriage can mount a shred of peer-reviewed evidence that there is any harm from it. I cannot understand legislation predicated on unfounded ancient notions and superstitions rather than a hard examination of the facts. But that's Alabama.
We take meager comfort in a saying here: At least we're not Mississippi!
462
Hey..."At least we're not Mississippi" is OUR line in Louisiana! ;-)
Congratulations, Alabama, on a significant civil rights step.
I really hope Louisiana isn't last.....
Congratulations, Alabama, on a significant civil rights step.
I really hope Louisiana isn't last.....
86
Hey wait a second, that's our line in Idaho!!
20
The prohibition against "mixed race" marriages was even harder to understand because there was no prohibition against "mixed race" sexual relations, providing of course that the male half of the couple was white and the female black.
17
At what point can Justice Moore continue to flagrantly disobey the law and still retain his law license? (Presumably, even Alabama requires state Supreme Court Justices to be a member of the state bar, right?)
130
Alabama doesn't even require that you be a lawyer.
36
And neither does the United States Constitution. There are no age, education, or professional requirements to serve on the US Supreme Court. No citizenship requirement either.
21
He did this once before and was thrown off of the Alabama Supreme Court by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary in 2003 for failing to obey an order of the Federal Court.
Sadly, he was again elected as Chief Justice in 2012.
Sadly, he was again elected as Chief Justice in 2012.
25