Has anyone noticed the absence of Attorney General Holder and the U.S. Justice Department? I thought that the precedent of action by the AG in Alabama in the face of state obstructionism has been well-established? Maybe someone should remind the AG about his predecessors, including Robert Kennedy.
1
Some keep forgetting that in this country, you are a citizen of the nation before you are of the state or any other local government. The case of Barron v Baltimore, which made the claim that the US Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, was overturned not long after the Civil War in claiming that the US Bill of Rights do apply to states, though only for a certain extent. At the turn of the century and further on, more US Supreme Court cases implied that the US Bill of Rights does extend to local government and can be used when challenging them, not just at the federal level only. To those that claim that the same-sex marriage ban is legit because it was widely supported should read Federalist No. 51 written by James Madison, who believed that when it came to equal rights, they shouldn't be decided via majority tyranny nor should the minority be left out and be given a say. Keep in mind that the US Supreme Court and other higher courts have the right to look at federal laws and declare them unconstitutional and the US Constitution implies it. Those saying that it's fascist to strike down state laws by higher courts should understand such roles and state laws don't trump federal laws. Again, this is no different shortly after other acts such as segregation or even barriers to voting were ruled unconstitutional and some tried to play resistance to them. Some need to tell Moore that times have changed and he must accept that whether he agrees or not.
4
Is it possible for the Feds to stay out of state affairs, and stop usurping states rights ?
Is it possible for people to start paying attention to how our government actually works?
7
This should be a no brainer: the US Constitution is unusually blunt regarding the fact that federal law and rulings trump state law every time. It's not at all ambiguous.
Judge Moore knows this: he knows it very well. However, he has not only broken the law, but encouraged other state officials to do so as well. Not only that but the much feared "lawlessness" held up as one of the main reasons to ban Gay Marriage has now occurred - created by Gay Marriage opponents, not Gays themselves. Finally, ministers have been arrested for following the Law - another strike against this judge.
The state may argue for holding out until the SCOTUS rules, but that is wrong. They do not get to pick and choose the methods and procedures of the federal court system. The federal court ruled, procedures were followed, and they ruled again.
We put people in jail for years for not paying their taxes. What the penalty for a judge who has broken his oath and caused so much additional damage across the entire state? The issue should not be if Gay Marriage is allowed, but how long the soon to be ex judge spends in jail. Anything less at this point makes a mockery of the Law. Alabama, and the citizens of the country, both deserve better.
Judge Moore knows this: he knows it very well. However, he has not only broken the law, but encouraged other state officials to do so as well. Not only that but the much feared "lawlessness" held up as one of the main reasons to ban Gay Marriage has now occurred - created by Gay Marriage opponents, not Gays themselves. Finally, ministers have been arrested for following the Law - another strike against this judge.
The state may argue for holding out until the SCOTUS rules, but that is wrong. They do not get to pick and choose the methods and procedures of the federal court system. The federal court ruled, procedures were followed, and they ruled again.
We put people in jail for years for not paying their taxes. What the penalty for a judge who has broken his oath and caused so much additional damage across the entire state? The issue should not be if Gay Marriage is allowed, but how long the soon to be ex judge spends in jail. Anything less at this point makes a mockery of the Law. Alabama, and the citizens of the country, both deserve better.
7
Civil rights and liberties involve things that are both private and public, both individual and social, because one man’s rights make demands of other men and limit their rights. Same-sex marriage, for example, is based on a claim on all of us for legal equality and financial benefits (but also for acceptance and respectability that represent profound change to America and its culture), so what might seem nobody’s business is everybody’s business, as a cake-baker has learned. It would be more honest to acknowledge the concerns of opponents, even concede that their fears (understood in their terms) may well materialize, and to explain why we think it is worth that price they see, why we think America would be better for it, but that is a political discussion that may not go as hoped, so proponents to win this have to keep it in the legal realm. I don’t like it when just about anything is compared to the black experience and every social development is said to be today’s civil rights movement, but there is the similarity that desegregation was recognized as a change for whites as much as for blacks: it concerned us all, because it affected us all, directly or indirectly. Same-sex marriage is no different: it is a change for heterosexuals as much as for homosexuals; it concerns and affects us all. There are no libertarians in foxholes.
1
Judge Moore's decision to send directives to Probate judges in Alabama to disobey a federal courts order to allow same sex couples to marry is not based on the law, it is based on his foolishness and frankly his racists belief that gays are not equal in the face of his God's law to receive equal justice under the law. It is not suppose to be what he think is right, but what the law says. In as much as he disagrees with the Supremes, he is obligated by law to obey a higher court order even when he disagrees on the order. He is suppose to resign, instead of clinging to his myopic belief of doing the will of God. Remember the ten commandment incident before this. I am not surprised at his behavior.
5
It is all right for the California attorney general to refuse to defend a state constitutional referendum based on the majority vote of the citizens but it is not all right for an Alabama to enforce the laws of the state in a matter that has always been regulated by state law. The article argues that the majority of the states now permit gay marriage and that therefore Alabama should also do so. But when the majority of the states did not permit gay marriage then the majority opinion and practice did not matter. Perhaps marriage has become so meaningless in our society that it can be defined in any way. It seems to me that if we are going to define marriage we should simply say that any two or more people should without exception be permitted to define themselves as married and to ascribe any roles to themselves that they wish. That would solve the problem and make the issuance of marriage licenses totally unnecessary since the only purpose of the license is to restrict people in certain relationships from marrying. Those restrictions may once have had a purpose but given the present redefinition of the nature of marriage itself, it is hard for me to see that such restrictions have no further purpose. The only people who now cannot marry are either married to someone else (why not polygamy?), too closely related (no reason for that limitation in gay marriage), or too young to sign a contract (but other laws would forbid that.) Marriage licenses are an anachronism!
What an odd comment. Gay people aren't asking to marry relatives, pets etc. Why do straight people keep coming up with this kind of nonsense?
8
@Bob
Yes, the US Constitution requires that the state governments enforce something that is in fact a matter of Constitutional law--which equal protection is. The argument that Alabama should enforce the US Constitution is not a novel one. The CA Attorney General declining to defend a California statute in court is a different case and you are doing an apples-and-oranges comparison.
"That would solve the problem and make the issuance of marriage licenses totally unnecessary "
That would not solve the problem since marriage is a legal status involving a plethora of state and federal laws and benefits.
Yes, the US Constitution requires that the state governments enforce something that is in fact a matter of Constitutional law--which equal protection is. The argument that Alabama should enforce the US Constitution is not a novel one. The CA Attorney General declining to defend a California statute in court is a different case and you are doing an apples-and-oranges comparison.
"That would solve the problem and make the issuance of marriage licenses totally unnecessary "
That would not solve the problem since marriage is a legal status involving a plethora of state and federal laws and benefits.
7
Indeed, the anxious Babbitts of upwardly mobile Mobile, keen to show that the ghost of George Corley Wallace (and Lurleen) no longer walks among them, can console themselves that far-left California voted TWICE against homosexual marriage. Not many of the 31 other states who voted against it had to do so twice, but after all, they're much-smaller states.
|"“We’ve got the highest federal court siding with the District Court,” he said. “The ballgame’s over.”|
Hardly, There are two strikes and 3 foul balls. Ballgames do not end after three outs in the 7th or 8th inning anyway unless there is lightning. SCOTUS is about to get revised to be more like in Europe where the United States started but let judges rule for life like kings because of few law schools in the colonies in the eighteenth century.
Hardly, There are two strikes and 3 foul balls. Ballgames do not end after three outs in the 7th or 8th inning anyway unless there is lightning. SCOTUS is about to get revised to be more like in Europe where the United States started but let judges rule for life like kings because of few law schools in the colonies in the eighteenth century.
"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."
The above, from Article 6 of the Constitution, comes ahead of the 10th Amendment, and is usually read as a specific enumeration of Federal power, at least since the civil war.
The 10th amendment applies only to "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States". Article 6, which specifically includes Laws, is a pretty clear 'delegation' of power to federal authorities including courts. It binds 'judges in every state'. Thus, this judicial obstructionism represents contempt of court.
The above, from Article 6 of the Constitution, comes ahead of the 10th Amendment, and is usually read as a specific enumeration of Federal power, at least since the civil war.
The 10th amendment applies only to "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States". Article 6, which specifically includes Laws, is a pretty clear 'delegation' of power to federal authorities including courts. It binds 'judges in every state'. Thus, this judicial obstructionism represents contempt of court.
4
Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) only applies in the gay marriage issue because of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, whcih supercedes the Tenth. There are no federal laws directly involved in the gay marriage case (such as a federal civil rights act which covered homosexuals) and thus no "laws" under Article VI.
1
Roy Moore is not a judge, he still thinks the South won the Civil War and he's clearly not a Christian, for he sows hate and fascism. Hopefully Mr. Moore will be stripped of his duties and disbarred because he clearly is not following the law.
5
The really unbelievable aspect in all of this is that Roy Moore actually found his way back to the Chief Justices chair.
He has demonstrated throughout his career a profound disregard for the US Constitution and federal judiciary with his trumped up 'states rights' arguments.
He has also allowed his personal religious views to overshadow the professional legal responsibilities of his position and is a disgrace to the bench.
Clearly there is something wrong with the process in Alabama.
He has demonstrated throughout his career a profound disregard for the US Constitution and federal judiciary with his trumped up 'states rights' arguments.
He has also allowed his personal religious views to overshadow the professional legal responsibilities of his position and is a disgrace to the bench.
Clearly there is something wrong with the process in Alabama.
7
How long will the South continue to fight the Civil War? How much taxpayer money will be wasted on judges & prosecutors salaries and time, plaintiffs lawyers, pleadings and all that court hearings entail, all for naught? C'mon southerners, get yourselves at least into the 20th century. The rest of the country is just a bit worn out with your tired old morality.
5
Our writer "The Flying Doctor" here is wrong. Popular referendum can't overwhelm fact, and it has no right to require people on both side of this question to endure more years of indignity and ignorance before "a gradual evolution towards gay marriage." Moore is leading an exercise in nostalgia for an epistemology that has outlived its time.
Witness how these conflicts have evolved. This would have been a shooting war 150 years ago. Fifty years ago it would heave been a march of thousands, met by armed marshals and police dogs. Now it's a reasoned discussion, impassioned certainly, but subject to deliberation and to the irreversible supremacy of logic.
We are privileged in our time that we get to fight this war, and to fight in this way.
Witness how these conflicts have evolved. This would have been a shooting war 150 years ago. Fifty years ago it would heave been a march of thousands, met by armed marshals and police dogs. Now it's a reasoned discussion, impassioned certainly, but subject to deliberation and to the irreversible supremacy of logic.
We are privileged in our time that we get to fight this war, and to fight in this way.
4
Not long before he died, an interviewer asked him what he thought about the New South and the decline of Jim Crow. His response elevated him in my eyes from (fill in the negative blank) to A Man of Honor. All he did was say, "I was wrong."
Roy Moore should take that lesson from someone who is probably a hero to him. It's time to stop being on the losing side of history, sir.
Roy Moore should take that lesson from someone who is probably a hero to him. It's time to stop being on the losing side of history, sir.
5
I cannot recall a time when so many members of the judicial bench, quasi or not, were so embroiled in conflict. Recently our government appeased the homosexual community by granting them entry into another otherwise exclusive club, our military. Since the changes were implemented we have not heard a peep except that the Secretary of Defense is resigning.
Yet gays and lesbians fight for your right to denigrate them in writing without legal consequence. The irony couldn't be any thicker, sadder, or further above you.
As for appeasement for entry into an exclusive club - about as offensive and false a description as it gets, by the way - the same thing was said about blacks when they began to enlist to fight in the Civil War, which, apparently, hasn't ended for a small faction in this country.
I can't imagine what it's like to go through life with such horrific notions about other people.
As for appeasement for entry into an exclusive club - about as offensive and false a description as it gets, by the way - the same thing was said about blacks when they began to enlist to fight in the Civil War, which, apparently, hasn't ended for a small faction in this country.
I can't imagine what it's like to go through life with such horrific notions about other people.
8
Roy Moore has apparently never bothered to read the supremacy clause of the Constitution
4
No doubt, Alabama asks for and receives a regular and generous disbursement of Federal dollars for an array of purposes. That Federal money is probably crucial to the state.
Shut that money flow down if Alabama can't agree to follow Federal court rulings.
Shut that money flow down if Alabama can't agree to follow Federal court rulings.
4
Obviously we can't send in the troops to enforce the mandate but we can, like we do with intransigent countries, impose sanctions. Alabama which constantly complains about how much it hates the federal government receives $3.87 for every dollar it sends to Washington. Not a bad return on investment. Don't we all wish we could do so well. Only Mississippi and New Mexico receives more.
3
(1) Chief Judge Roy Moore is indeed stirring the pot, but the reason he has been able to do this with some success is because the plaintiffs' lawyers left the lid off the pot.
The plaintiffs in this case sued only one defendant, the Ala AG. While the AG has the responsibility of defending the constitutional validity of any Alabama law that is attacked, he does not have any authority to direct the Probate Judges in all 67 counties in Alabama to issue anyone a marriage license. The office of Probate Judge in Alabama is a strange animal, and I don't know of any othe state with a similar position. Probate Judges in Alabama do not need to be lawyers. Most of the work of the Probate office involves selling auto tags, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, marriage licenses, collecting document stamps on real estate transactions and maintaining the real estate and other official records of the County. The Probate Judges also have a judicial function in that they handled adoption, guardianship and probating of estates. They are elected county-by-county and, although technically under the judicial branch of the state, do not appear to be under the direction and control of any one state official who could be enjoing and made to instruct the probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
The plaintiffs in this case sued only one defendant, the Ala AG. While the AG has the responsibility of defending the constitutional validity of any Alabama law that is attacked, he does not have any authority to direct the Probate Judges in all 67 counties in Alabama to issue anyone a marriage license. The office of Probate Judge in Alabama is a strange animal, and I don't know of any othe state with a similar position. Probate Judges in Alabama do not need to be lawyers. Most of the work of the Probate office involves selling auto tags, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, marriage licenses, collecting document stamps on real estate transactions and maintaining the real estate and other official records of the County. The Probate Judges also have a judicial function in that they handled adoption, guardianship and probating of estates. They are elected county-by-county and, although technically under the judicial branch of the state, do not appear to be under the direction and control of any one state official who could be enjoing and made to instruct the probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
(2) The federal district court for the S. D. of Alabama, where the case was brought, includes only a few southwest Alabama counties.Unless Judge Granade somehow gets jurisdiction over the probate judges in all 67 counties in Alabama, there are probate judges who will continue to hold out, saying that the ruling doesn't apply to them as their county is not within the geographical jurisdiction of the S.D. of Alabama and that the court has no personal jurisdiction over them as they are not parties to the lawsuit.The lawyers at the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco probably are steeped in knowledge about the constitutional issues surrounding same-sex marriage, but they are totally incompetent when it comes to the practice of litigation. On Monday they were too busy celebrating, showboating, and raising funds off of their "victory" in Alabama to even notice that their clients, Mr. Stawser and Mr. Humphrey, did not get what they had been seeking - a marriage license. This is why I believe lawyers should represent clients, not causes. Yesterday, Randalll Marshall of the ACLU office in Montgomery, AL filed a Notice of Appearance in the case. Hopefully he can get the case and ruling on the right track to cover the entire state.This is why I believe lawyers should represent clients, not causes.
Just because something is inevitable in our depraved society, doesn't mean that people can't non-violently protest what they believe. We are forced by the government to pay for and thereby collaborate with unjust practices. It is the price of our way of government. But doesn't anyone else see an erosion of freedom that is staggering in my lifetime. Health care is socialized, mandatory penalties to young and old people who can't afford health care, "gay marriage" has supplanted traditional marriage and God knows where this will go, wars are conveniently fought in back rooms for political reasons trumping security and justification. This society is heading in a very bad direction and it will catch up to all of us. Let the people who want to non-violently protest take their punishment and be led to the slaughter for their beliefs. We still have that right, but I fear not for long.
You would think Alabama would want to avoid the kind of bad publicity it so richly deserves. Breathtaking intolerance and neanderthal thinking. Remove this fool of a judge from the bench ...again.
3
Chief Justice Roy Moore’s action was calculated. Alabama probate judges who refused to issue licenses to or perform ceremonies for same sex couples were at risk of being sued by those couples. Moore’s order gives the probate judges legal cover: because they risk sanction by the Alabama Supreme Court, they now enjoy qualified immunity from suit by a same-sex couple. The remedy is therefor to address Moore’s order in the federal courts, rather than to seek damages from the probate judge.
5
Dear Alice Martin: Years ago, at the behest of a mutual friend, my husband and I attended a fund-raiser for you. One day I will have to answer to God for that terrible moral mistake. It also saddens me that if something like Secession emerged today (and defying the authority of the Federal Govt. is not?) that once again you and Alabamians like you would drag us into treason, hanging on to a long-long-past age. Judges with your beliefs -- putting personal emotions & political self-serving ahead of the Constitution you have sworn to protect and serve -- need to step down from the bench since you have perjured yourself on a national stage, defying both the Constitution, the government of the United States, and the laws thereof. You DID swear on a Bible, did you not? No doubt, several folks will come to you asking if you can also set aside the 13th amendment -- if they have not already. You are a disgrace to this country and should be both disbarred and removed from the bench. This IS going to ricochet on you, isn't it? You do know that, right??? I think that you do......
14
Once again, Neil Young:
Alabama, you've got that weight on your shoulder
That's Breakin' your back.
Your Cadillac
Has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh, oh Alabama ...
Alabama, you've got the rest of the Union to help you along--
What's goin' wrong?
Alabama, you've got that weight on your shoulder
That's Breakin' your back.
Your Cadillac
Has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh, oh Alabama ...
Alabama, you've got the rest of the Union to help you along--
What's goin' wrong?
6
Judge Enslen, a lawyer for more than 40 years and a Republican, said,
“Those seven justices went out of their way to slap Alabama sending a message that they saw little chance of Judge Granade’s decision being reversed."
“We’ve got the highest federal court siding with the District Court,” he said. “The ballgame’s over.”
Was Judge Enslen the only one listening in law school to lectures on the "law of the land?"
“Those seven justices went out of their way to slap Alabama sending a message that they saw little chance of Judge Granade’s decision being reversed."
“We’ve got the highest federal court siding with the District Court,” he said. “The ballgame’s over.”
Was Judge Enslen the only one listening in law school to lectures on the "law of the land?"
3
There appears to be a significant number of citizens, some holding offices of public trust and obligation, who feel obliged by personal ideology to undermine the clear unambiguous rule of law and the Constitutional seperation of religious beliefs and state action. If we as a Republic sincerely recognize an individual citizen's constitutional right to free reasonable exercise of their religious conscience such belief must concomitantly recognize, with equal respect, the same right of other citizens with different or no religious ideologies or beliefs.
One of the greatest threats to peace and stability throught the world is the exceedingly dangerous and volatile confluence of state power with religious ideology. Yet, as demonstrated in the reluctance and outright refusal of certain Alabama state and probate judges to issue marriage licences to gay couples, the clear and present danger of theocratic government is missed or ignored.
I do not accept or believe these theocrates are operating on the basis of religious conscience or state rights but from a intentional hubris and conceit. If we have the principles of sincere religious beliefs in our hearts, there will be neither need nor necessity to put these principles on display in our government.
One of the greatest threats to peace and stability throught the world is the exceedingly dangerous and volatile confluence of state power with religious ideology. Yet, as demonstrated in the reluctance and outright refusal of certain Alabama state and probate judges to issue marriage licences to gay couples, the clear and present danger of theocratic government is missed or ignored.
I do not accept or believe these theocrates are operating on the basis of religious conscience or state rights but from a intentional hubris and conceit. If we have the principles of sincere religious beliefs in our hearts, there will be neither need nor necessity to put these principles on display in our government.
7
Wait a minute!
States have different divorce laws, driving licence laws, voter registration laws, winner take all primaries, tax laws, death penalty laws, Medicaid coverage, capital punishment, expenses, income, etc., etc., etc.
What is wrong with different marriage laws? What is the federal government not entitled to regulate in a state?
I see nothing wrong with different marriage laws between states. A divorce in one state is recognized by another state which has different divorce law that would not allow the same divorce. Why doesn't the same prerogative apply to a marriage?
People can choose what state to marry, divorce, or live in for a variety of reasons.
I believe the Supreme Court should leave marriage law a state prerogative but require recognizing marriage from another state. That is not only fair but consistent with the Constitution.
States have different divorce laws, driving licence laws, voter registration laws, winner take all primaries, tax laws, death penalty laws, Medicaid coverage, capital punishment, expenses, income, etc., etc., etc.
What is wrong with different marriage laws? What is the federal government not entitled to regulate in a state?
I see nothing wrong with different marriage laws between states. A divorce in one state is recognized by another state which has different divorce law that would not allow the same divorce. Why doesn't the same prerogative apply to a marriage?
People can choose what state to marry, divorce, or live in for a variety of reasons.
I believe the Supreme Court should leave marriage law a state prerogative but require recognizing marriage from another state. That is not only fair but consistent with the Constitution.
2
So it's OK with you if a state has a law prohibiting marriage between blacks and whites, or between Catholics and Jews, etc., right?
9
It's not marriage per se but equal protection that is the issue. And the seven justices of the Supreme Court are the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
8
No, it is not. However, there is a big difference between race, religious preference and sexual orientation.
Your asking that question is like my asking if you condone marriage between a child and parent or grandparent, siblings, etc.
My view is very simple, Marriage, like divorce, is a state's right issue. The federal government has no place in defining the rules.
Both marriage and homosexualily have been around forever. So has the traditional definition of marriage.
Have you ever seen a homosexual animal? I haven't even though I grew up on a farm.
Your asking that question is like my asking if you condone marriage between a child and parent or grandparent, siblings, etc.
My view is very simple, Marriage, like divorce, is a state's right issue. The federal government has no place in defining the rules.
Both marriage and homosexualily have been around forever. So has the traditional definition of marriage.
Have you ever seen a homosexual animal? I haven't even though I grew up on a farm.
1
Ironic that conservatives are all for personal choice and fewer regulations until we choose to do something they don't like.
19
Reality will set in, as well as acceptance - however begrudging it may be by some - but it will likely take time, and involve some truculence and foot-dragging.
I was thrilled when Florida finally joined the growing number of states with marriage equality, and I'm equally thrilled for Alabama couples and their friends and families.
However, given my location in a state that many frequently joke ought to be amputated from the US and jettisoned to the sea, I can't help but feel sympathy with the Alabama residents who cringe at how their state is being portrayed in so many quarters. It's tempting to write off a state entirely as backwards and bigoted, or just plain stupid. But remember that there are people in those states who are fighting nobly and with whom we could make common cause, people who seek justice and equality. Some of us are working to change hearts and minds from within our communities and states.
So congratulations, Alabama! Like Florida, it took awhile. But it sure feels good now that it's here.
I was thrilled when Florida finally joined the growing number of states with marriage equality, and I'm equally thrilled for Alabama couples and their friends and families.
However, given my location in a state that many frequently joke ought to be amputated from the US and jettisoned to the sea, I can't help but feel sympathy with the Alabama residents who cringe at how their state is being portrayed in so many quarters. It's tempting to write off a state entirely as backwards and bigoted, or just plain stupid. But remember that there are people in those states who are fighting nobly and with whom we could make common cause, people who seek justice and equality. Some of us are working to change hearts and minds from within our communities and states.
So congratulations, Alabama! Like Florida, it took awhile. But it sure feels good now that it's here.
9
From the very snowy north, I write as so many Vermonters did many years ago. Your fight for sense and justice will be fruitful if all efforts are made.
I last visited Tampa in the late '70's, for a national historic preservation conference. I had the opportunity to meet and eat with neighborhood hp groups and with the Grande's. In so many instances I found strong and direct concern for community. Looking back, I wonder what happens to so many good minds as they choose to vote, or not.
Living in a paradise invites the laughter of the Gods.
I last visited Tampa in the late '70's, for a national historic preservation conference. I had the opportunity to meet and eat with neighborhood hp groups and with the Grande's. In so many instances I found strong and direct concern for community. Looking back, I wonder what happens to so many good minds as they choose to vote, or not.
Living in a paradise invites the laughter of the Gods.
1
It's really very simple. Those probate judges granting licenses will have no job the second the Legislative Session starts. Those fined will have their fees paid by the state.
All any of them are doing are representing the people who elected them.
What are these unelected federal judges doing but issuing pronouncement on a term not even found in the federal Constitution.
It is tyranny and like all tyranny, it will be resisted.
All any of them are doing are representing the people who elected them.
What are these unelected federal judges doing but issuing pronouncement on a term not even found in the federal Constitution.
It is tyranny and like all tyranny, it will be resisted.
4
Those so-called "unelected federal judges" are the final arbiter on interpreting what the Constitution says.
5
Every heard of the Equal Protection Clause?
6
Just like in South Carolina, fiscal conservatives in Alabama love to spend tax payer money defending unconstitutional laws.
19
It saddens me that Alabama is the most backward state in the Union where Governors and Judges freely create their own law and where discrimination is legal.
11
I witnessed the first gay marriage here in Montgomery on Monday which was performed on the street after the couple obtained a license in the courthouse. There were about 3 dozen cheering supporters and one lone protester. Despite Moore's antics, and the foot dragging of some probate judges, the public at large seems to be coming to terms with this issue pretty quickly.
27
I wonder how many judges in Alabama and elsewhere below the Mason-Dixon Line refused to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples even after the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision outlawing statutes forbidding interracial marriage.
16
None that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? That was a 14th Amendment issue, this is not. No one's civil rights are threatened. "Civil unions" ALREADY give every American the same "marriage" rights as all other civil unions.
This is really about the word "marriage" which is not even mentioned in the Constitution. This is a 10th Amendment issue and Alabama is right and the Supremes are wrong.
This is really about the word "marriage" which is not even mentioned in the Constitution. This is a 10th Amendment issue and Alabama is right and the Supremes are wrong.
2
Excuse me but your civil rights are indeed threatened as soon as you suffer discrimination. If you are gay and your spouse works for the government, for example, you should have the benefits that other couples (heterosexual) may have. If you can´t marry you won´t have those benefits. In my opinion, your civil rights as American Citizen are then violated, because you are treated as second class citizen. Period. And let me say IT aloud and clear: Discrimination is a VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS!
16
Excuse me? No one's civil rights are threatened? You mus tbe joking. How is it not an infringement of civil rights to create a separate system and caste for a certain group of people, based solely on their biology and who they love? Civil unions do NOT give every American the same rights as marriage--otherwise they wouldn't be called different things! And what a patently absurd argument: "the word 'marriage' which is not even mentioned in the Constitution." Neither are most things! Should that be the basis for all legal arguments?
4
Please, do not hate on Alabama, or her citizens. Just because a few ignorant people hold office and wish to grandstand, does not mean all Alabama citizens are that way. It would be stereotyping the many based on the actions of a few.
18
I don't doubt that there are Alabamans who want their state to get its act together and move into the 21st century (or at least the latter part of the 20th).
Nevertheless, you have to face the fact that, according to this article, seven out of ten in your state are opposed to SSM and a lot of them elected that clown Moore. So more than 'a few', I think.
p.
Nevertheless, you have to face the fact that, according to this article, seven out of ten in your state are opposed to SSM and a lot of them elected that clown Moore. So more than 'a few', I think.
p.
14
And don't forget voting th chief in again.....after...he was yanked off the bench....or the laws even if they have been nullified by the Supremes still on the books
2
It's grandstanding across the board. Judge Don Davis is petitioning a body that has no jurisdiction over a Federal court's decision in an attempt to drag things out, not because he needs "guidance" from a state Supreme Court he sides with. Judge Alice K. Martin is not "processing" legally-requested licenses because she has a question about the legalities, but because she wants to drag her feet in support of a judge without jurisdiction in Federal matters. John Enslen changed his mind on a fallacy, but it gives every couple denied their rights a great idea: sue the Probate Judges for damages and legal costs for their intentionally slow actions in violating a Federal court order.
12
But where in the Constitution is the word marriage?? Why is the federal government even involved if no one's civil rights are being violated? That's the issue.
1
tpaine: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The constitution doesn't say that the government must allow marriages, it simply states that any laws must be equally applied. Surely you can understand this simple logic.
The constitution doesn't say that the government must allow marriages, it simply states that any laws must be equally applied. Surely you can understand this simple logic.
10
It's quite simple. Equal protection under the law. 14th Amendment. But you already know that.
7
Never forget who the bigots are, and never forgive.
19
But remain ready to welcome them back into the fold of humanity should they ever have a genuine change of heart. Remember that even George Wallace repented of his sins and asked forgiveness.
5
Without forgiveness we will never advance. People do repent of the prejudices they once held, publicly and privately. And if we cannot be mindful of the past injustice while also offering forgiveness and finding a way forward, how can the pain and turmoil of the past ever be healed?
Sometimes there has to be a middle way - a merciful way. One that acknowledges the damage done while also looking ahead and being mindful of the other aspect of America's sea change of opinion on same-sex marriage: while today we marvel at how rapidly the support has increased, it wasn't too many years ago at all when many, or most, didn't support it. Now, we see new supporters of it every day, and many of those now in favor might not have felt that way recently. But they came around.
It'd be nice if some people didn't need a movement to change their minds; if they believed all along that we are all entitled to equality and justice. But I'm thankful and thrilled that so many have had their hearts and minds changed. If everyone holds on to the pain and anger of the past and never forgives, then we'll keep running in circles. We can be mindful of what's happened without being as unforgiving and intolerant of those whose prejudices caused harm.
Sometimes there has to be a middle way - a merciful way. One that acknowledges the damage done while also looking ahead and being mindful of the other aspect of America's sea change of opinion on same-sex marriage: while today we marvel at how rapidly the support has increased, it wasn't too many years ago at all when many, or most, didn't support it. Now, we see new supporters of it every day, and many of those now in favor might not have felt that way recently. But they came around.
It'd be nice if some people didn't need a movement to change their minds; if they believed all along that we are all entitled to equality and justice. But I'm thankful and thrilled that so many have had their hearts and minds changed. If everyone holds on to the pain and anger of the past and never forgives, then we'll keep running in circles. We can be mindful of what's happened without being as unforgiving and intolerant of those whose prejudices caused harm.
I guess that "regular couples" that planned to wed soon are out of luck.
That will not sit well with those couples who planned their weddings a year or so ago. Closing the Probate Court is an extreme measure.
That will not sit well with those couples who planned their weddings a year or so ago. Closing the Probate Court is an extreme measure.
9
Moore's only delaying the inevitable. And history won't look kindly upon him.
20
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution... 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."
I'm not an attorney, but where is the conflict that Judge Moore imagines to exist here? A federal judge issued an order based on her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution -- which is precisely her job -- and the order was upheld (or at least not overturned) by the Supreme Court.
As a state judge, isn't Moore "bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws [of Alabama] to the contrary"? Does he imagine that his authority is greater than that of the Supreme Court, or of the "supreme law of the land"?
How sad that in 2015 we find yet another Alabama official (grand)standing in front of the people's doors, unconstitutionally depriving a particular class of people from the expression of their rights as citizens.
I'm not an attorney, but where is the conflict that Judge Moore imagines to exist here? A federal judge issued an order based on her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution -- which is precisely her job -- and the order was upheld (or at least not overturned) by the Supreme Court.
As a state judge, isn't Moore "bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws [of Alabama] to the contrary"? Does he imagine that his authority is greater than that of the Supreme Court, or of the "supreme law of the land"?
How sad that in 2015 we find yet another Alabama official (grand)standing in front of the people's doors, unconstitutionally depriving a particular class of people from the expression of their rights as citizens.
28
HEARINGS???? You mean to tell me that there is a "federal Judge" in Alabama who needs "hearings" to make a determination in this matter? I have heard of "slow learners" but have never met one before. Thanks.
7
Color me dubious, but: does this "Federal Judge" live in Alabama?
It's obvious where this is going, and I'm glad. However, I can't help feeling disheartened in retrospect when I recall, not so long ago, a time when it wasn't so easy to add one's voice to the choir of history by simply making a comment on a thread like this. Where were all of the good, straight, liberal people then? Sympathizing with some of us to be sure. But certainly not sticking their necks out. Now that the tide is turned, it is not you, if you've never spoken up before, who should be proud.
4
Better to focus on where we are headed, dontcha think? Bitterness gets you nothing. Obama was against me before he was for me, and although I don't owe him any "thanks yous" I would proudly shake his hand.
3
I completely agree. People of different colors shouldn't mix. What about the children? Children are impressionable and can't understand all of the complexities involved in seeing a black person and a white person together - even, heaven forbid, holding hands or kissing? It's just unnatural and we should continue to put a stop to it however we can.
Oh. Wait. We weren't talking about race? Isn't this a civil rights discussion?
My bad. I must be confused. They sound the same to me.
Oh. Wait. We weren't talking about race? Isn't this a civil rights discussion?
My bad. I must be confused. They sound the same to me.
26
Nothing is more amusing than hearing these so-called judges refuse to issue marriage licenses, because they're "just following orders" (from a state court judge who doesn't like a federal court order). I thought that rationale for refusing to use one's own judgment when given a moral choice had gone out of fashion no later than the Nuremberg Trials.
25
Appomattox was just a cease fire, not a surrender! We forgot.
21
It's not that bad. We have pinheads in office in the North - Speaker Boehner for example.
3
Seems to me, the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Constitution, based on equal protection, and should not be denied to any citizen.
As it relates to fundamental rights, we should not be a divided nation of individual states, but rather a nation of United States, based on the principle of protection of individual liberties.
As it relates to fundamental rights, we should not be a divided nation of individual states, but rather a nation of United States, based on the principle of protection of individual liberties.
26
The Supreme Court's refusal to stay the federal judge's order signaled the end of impartial justice in America. The Supreme Court essentially said that they had made up their minds on the issue before hearing any arguments. By messing up this issue, the Court is ensuring that Americans will be divided over this for years to come. Didn't the court learn any lesson from the way they decided Roe vs. Wade? they only people who will gain will be litigators and those in the grievance industry.
1
First, you're not quite correct here. SCOTUS did indeed hear all the arguments in the Perry case. It just decided to rule on a technicality, but all the same old tiered arguments were presented by the NOM attorneys. Next, SCOTUS has read a slew of briefs arguing for and against marriage equality—and then decided not to grant cert in those cases and upheld the Circuit courts. The only reason the cases are being heard now is because some crazy judge in Cincinnati decided not to decide on the merits on the cases in front of him but instead put his personal prejudices ahead of justice. But yes, we do know which way SCOTUS is going; we've known since Windsor.
21
Oh please, give us all on this thread a break. Nobody, outside of delusional social conservatives, will view this as "the new Roe v Wade." As much as they (and you, apparently) wish to hold on to cherished discrimnatory prejudices and unconstitutional laws, that ship has sailed already and the sooner everyone realizes that, the better. What other arguments are there left to make? State after state have come up with essentially the same drivel as legal argument and had those arguments rejected over and over and over again.
The GOP can keep beating this dead horse, but for the fact is the majority of the public has moved on already.
The GOP can keep beating this dead horse, but for the fact is the majority of the public has moved on already.
26
Honestly, James, it's not a complicated issue. The SCOTUS is simply reaffirming what the Constitution already states clearly in its Equal Protection Clause: that all citizens, regardless of what state they live in, are guaranteed equal rights under the law. Period.
22
SCOTUS' June ruling can not come soon enough! I long for the day people like Chief Justice Moore no longer get to gleefully bask in the national spotlight.
25
Who said this:
"Let me say something before we get off the gay thing. I don'want my views misunderstood. I am the most tolerant person on that of anybody in this shop. .... They're born that way. You know that. That's all."
Richard Nixon in 1971.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-nixon-tapes-reveal-views-on-women-ga...
"Let me say something before we get off the gay thing. I don'want my views misunderstood. I am the most tolerant person on that of anybody in this shop. .... They're born that way. You know that. That's all."
Richard Nixon in 1971.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-nixon-tapes-reveal-views-on-women-ga...
19
Is it irony or fate? Alabama, one of the last strongholds of racial segregation is now one of the last battlegrounds of marriage discrimination.
20
If it wasn't for that nonsense in the bible, (which really should be looked upon as a work of fiction like "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey"), about men not lying with men as they do with women, then being gay would be looked upon as no more aberrant or unusual than left-handedness. Thank you bible.
21
Well, that same passage in Leviticus did give us the prohibition on polyester (by definition a mixed fabric). That was not only right (polyester IS an abomination) but it was also in exceedingly good taste.
21
The bible also says you should stone your neighbors, sell your daughters, and sacrifice your sons. (Yeah I watered it down - kinda like men shouldn't lay with men).
If you must use this book as a guide, please just stick with the 'do unto others' type of instruction and leave it at that.
If you must use this book as a guide, please just stick with the 'do unto others' type of instruction and leave it at that.
12
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend checking out the book of Leviticus, there is some seriously weird stuff in there. No way are 99.9% of the people citing its passages against a man lying with a man following all of the requirements per Leviticus.
If some true believer is actually following all of these precepts themselves, I may disagree, but I can respect that. But if you are trying to impose the Old Testament on others while ignoring the bits that are inconvenient in your own modern life, that makes you a pathetic hypocrite in my book.
If some true believer is actually following all of these precepts themselves, I may disagree, but I can respect that. But if you are trying to impose the Old Testament on others while ignoring the bits that are inconvenient in your own modern life, that makes you a pathetic hypocrite in my book.
8
Why do Americans have to "request" to have the same right as other Americans? Why are we even talking about this? Marriage is a civil right. If some Alabamans don't like this, they should emigrate to Afghanistan instead of ruling their state like it's Alabamastan.
32
What is the LEGAL justification against same-sex marriage?
Another question: How is it legal for gays and lesbians to pay taxes but then be denied full participation in society?
I've posed both of these questions a few times in this forum with no response. If you do respond, please point to specific laws and/or section(s) of the Constitution to support your answer, as I would appreciate verifiable information.
Another question: How is it legal for gays and lesbians to pay taxes but then be denied full participation in society?
I've posed both of these questions a few times in this forum with no response. If you do respond, please point to specific laws and/or section(s) of the Constitution to support your answer, as I would appreciate verifiable information.
24
The legal justification goes something like this: "Ewwwww." Or like this: "the Bible says ...." That may not be what you're looking for, but there's nothing else.
18
It's not legal. To date, there has been no evidence substantiating any claim of damages caused by allowing same-sex marriage. That's why you haven't gotten any response.
15
Where laws exist, their foundations reach back many generations and cultures. You seek a wind devil. Tradition is a strong causal force in history. Liberal thought is a curative. The balance wheel may wobble from time to time but defining and redefining "good v not-good" in terms of law, is in our hands as voters. Look where voter rights are abused and you may find that your lawlessness question is answered in a twist of the wind.
4
Your native Alabaman, red dirt 'n all, gets to have his cake and eat it too. He mounts a rearguard action, knowing in the best rebel fashion it's doomed to failure, but can console himself at the VFW bar in the out years that he gave it his last full measure, back when he rode with the Christian vanguard against the lavender Leviathan. It's like joining the French Resistance as the allies march through Normandy; it's all over except for the shouting. Cosmic irony dictates that his son Virgil may well marry some Rhett Butler lookalike from the Big City ("Brmnham"), driving Pa round the bend in the end, but not so's he's fixin' to write him out of the will. It's a kabuki dance and all have a role to play.
11
Charles, please don't lump all of us in with those here who refuse to accept or even permit social change. Many of us are embarrassed by the Third Lost Cause (after the Civil War, which was declared in Alabama, and Wallace in the schoolhouse door)...there are many here who find Roy Moore and his like as wrong-headed as does much of the rest of the country.
15
David, evidently there are not enough of you to keep him off the bench
4
Looks like it's time to send the federal troops to Alabama. Well, at least they know how to get there.
21
Why can't people understand that the decisions of intermediate level federal courts (district and circuit) are not binding upon state courts. Period. Unless and until the US Supreme Court says otherwise, the statutes of state legislatures and the decisions of state supreme courts interpreting those statutes are the law within that jurisdiction.
It appears almost certain that SCOTUS will overturn both the statutory and case law in Alabama but at this point Alabama county clerks who issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples can be relieved of their posts.
It appears almost certain that SCOTUS will overturn both the statutory and case law in Alabama but at this point Alabama county clerks who issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples can be relieved of their posts.
1
Decisions of intermediate level federal courts are not binding on states? Then why bother? Why isn't every justiciable case heard directly by SCOTUS? Answer: Because when federal rights are at issue, federal courts can render determinations and order relief. Your statement is inaccurate and misleading, at best.
20
"the decisions of intermediate level federal courts (district and circuit) are not binding upon state courts" NOT TRUE
"Alabama county clerks who issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples can be relieved of their posts" WON"T HAPPEN.
"Alabama county clerks who issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples can be relieved of their posts" WON"T HAPPEN.
14
You make a basic logic error - assuming the question to be determined. At the present moment, same-sex marriage is not a federal right. If/when the high court rules that it is, then intermediate federal court rulings will have weight - but not before.
George C Wallace and Bull Connor, 1965. Roy Moore, 2015. 50 years have passed and history repeats itself. The antics of this buffoon Roy Moore are a travesty and an insult to civility and humanity.
24
This is all so silly really. I feel like I'm in high school again.
14
l worked in Mobile in the early 1960s and a knew many gay and lesbian people in that community, so I am astonished that Mobile, the city I loved and admired as one of the most forward thinking in the South decided against gay marriage. Shame on the gray lady of the South.
13
Roy Moore, a judicial officer of a state, has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. He has now "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same." According to the Fourteenth Amendment, he shall not hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.
27
"Hands up! Don't Discriminate!" Besides, it's only right that, in the fullness of time, many of those most giddy today will get to experience what a Felder-class divorce attorney is capable of... "What were we thinking?", indeed
2
The judge is shrewd. He'll drive up the tourism numbers from Mobile to Gulf Shores just with the gawkers from up north. There are 17 casinos in Biloxi, don't forget, for those from the northeast looking for some action.
3
What they'll find is a Freak Show like no other. Accompanied by the GOP Clown Car, full to the gills, complete with a doggy barking furiously from his rooftop cage because it's heading straight for a ditch. The judge will be the one with a red nose and really big shoes. Only a prelude to the 2016 Clown Fest.
16
Wildly off-topic, but compensated for by the sheer passion, Jack.
5
Right, Charles. The casinos in Biloxi were the topic, right?
6
I'd love to hear Chief Justice Moore give a talk on federal vs. state authority and the proper relationship between lower and higher courts. He'd probably be outlandish, wrong, or both; in any case, it would be entertaining.
9
What's going on in parts of Alabama is merely good old fashioned civil disobedience by some of the judiciary. In this case the common remedy for civil disobedience, jail time, seems appropriate. Civil disobedience seldom lasts more than a few days or weeks, and this will be past soon.
12
I believe that civil disobedience is a native sort of thing. Like us citizens gathering below the castle walls. In this case civil disobedience is by Citizen State Chief Justice, and, tradition being what it is, this Citizen will go home and tuck into supper with a proud glint in his eye.
Instead of giving grandstanding Roy Moore the publicity his so desperately wants, those of us who differ with his Bible beating way could help Alabama come out of the middle ages by boycotting everything that is made or grown in Alabama until the state decides to join us in the 21st century.
12
Um, and what exactly would that entail, giving up pine planks?
7
Good luck -you ever seen anything made or grown in Alabama?
7
You can start by parking all of those M-, R- and GL-Class Mercedes Benzes, cruising around Mountain View (and the C-class too, soon enough). Some Hondas and Hyundais, too. Maybe Toyotas? Ground the Airbus jets, and cut the aerospace research coming out of Huntsville, if you want to call that a product. Good idea! Boycott the Alabama Shakes, St. Paul and the Broken Bones, too. Forget the new Harper Lee book. It seems that possible most or many involved in these sorts of projects could have at least relatively progressive politics, even if they can't get the majority vote... The Alabama tomatoes are pretty good, too! Don't forget the baby when you toss out the bathwater!
1
Roy Moore should be removed from office and barred from holding office. Like many, I am sick of the south in general, and the bigots holding office behaving badly.
19
My County's Probate Judge, Bill English, of Lee County, AL, is not issuing same sex marriage licenses. My son and I went to talk to him and ask him why. He cited Judge Moore' order and concerns with liability if he made the wrong choice. I encouraged him to have courage and issue licenses now. Perhaps the possibility of having to pay court costs in law suit against him or loosing his liability insurance for not complying with the Federal Judge will motivate him. Hopefully Thursday he will have a court order to issue the same sex marriage licenses that he is waiting for. I am disappointed in our State and Judge Moore. On a good note, one gay couple from my county were turned down in Lee County and went to Montgomery and got a license Monday and came back to Lee County and were married yesterday.
26
Good for you and your son! That was a civilized and forthright thing to do. I lived in Lee County a long time ago and I was surprised and sorry to see that it was one of the jurisdictions that was disregarding the federal ruling.
11
Liability if he makes the wrong choice? He's made the wrong choice! When's the last time a judge was fined for following the law as interpreted at a higher level?
6
Cheers to you! Alabamans like you are the real heroes. Thank you for your post.
3
The Alabama judges don't have time to waste on these same-sex marriages. It's Mardi Gras season in Mobile, and they and their supporters will be too busy donning wigs and makeup and twirling beads.
9
This is as close as many of us have seen with our full faculties (eg, not as children) as witnesses of the eternal struggle between federalism and the states.
One would have thought the essential issue--equal protection under the law in a secular republic--had long been settled. Apparently not.
I see this less as a fight over gay rights and more a fight over the role of religion in a secular state. That religion would be used as a cover to mask anti-gay bigotry (even the Pope doesn't attack the gay community) is almost as abhorrent as the fact that so many religionists seem to have no understanding of the bill of rights anti-establishment clause.
Bottom line: Alabama is not a church no matter how fervently Justice Moore wants to make it such.
One would have thought the essential issue--equal protection under the law in a secular republic--had long been settled. Apparently not.
I see this less as a fight over gay rights and more a fight over the role of religion in a secular state. That religion would be used as a cover to mask anti-gay bigotry (even the Pope doesn't attack the gay community) is almost as abhorrent as the fact that so many religionists seem to have no understanding of the bill of rights anti-establishment clause.
Bottom line: Alabama is not a church no matter how fervently Justice Moore wants to make it such.
25
Yes. And I believe separation of church and state means that donations to churches should not be deductible from federal income taxes. If churches have actual charitable activities, like a soup kitchen, or a clinic, they should have separate governance and financial operations so donations to those entities could be deductible, but not donations to the operation of the religious part of the church.
8
The federalism battle might be tempered if our Great and "Worthy" Congress found their way to insist that no State may receive more federal assistance than the amounts paid as taxes by actual living human citizens. (Hate to have to spell it out but SCOTUS made me do it).
1
Like George Wallace before him, history will see Judge Roy Moore as the personification of tyranny, a gasping mouse, one of the last of his kind, a demagogue who survives only by leading popular uprisings in defiance of evolving civil rights. He personifies the Alabama stereotypical bully, justifying his hatred with such energy and imposing his authority with disregard for civility. And cloaking it as a defense of his brand of religion under fire.
18
Is the "religious", not to mention publicity-loving, "Justice" Moore aware that the ten commandments forbid adultery? And say nothing of homosexuality?
Where is his crackdown on adulterers? Why is he not insisting in his majesty that persons who have divorced for reasons other than adultery and remarried are themselves adulterers? Is he unaware that adulterers were to be stoned, according to the Old Testament which he idolizes?
What's the matter with this man? Why doesn't he stand up for his faith?
Where is his crackdown on adulterers? Why is he not insisting in his majesty that persons who have divorced for reasons other than adultery and remarried are themselves adulterers? Is he unaware that adulterers were to be stoned, according to the Old Testament which he idolizes?
What's the matter with this man? Why doesn't he stand up for his faith?
26
There are no laws against adultery to be enforced, so that's a silly example.
No laws against adultery, CC? Why, it's carved right into Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument. And that's good enough for Roy, make no mistake.
14
This is the same thing as when Southern states and George Wallace tried to refuse to let black students into white schools after the federal courts held that states could not segregate public schools.
Simple answer: Section 1983 authorizes payment of damages and attorneys fees for this moronic refusal to follow the law. I vote for holding the judges personally liable for the money the plaintiffs must spend to force Alabama to follow the Constitution
Simple answer: Section 1983 authorizes payment of damages and attorneys fees for this moronic refusal to follow the law. I vote for holding the judges personally liable for the money the plaintiffs must spend to force Alabama to follow the Constitution
17
Dear people of Alabama: evolution happened, babies are not brought by storks, and same-sex marriage is real, and will be in your state. Sweet dreams.
20
"Alabama: Fighting history one marriage at a time"
14
If Alabama won't obey Federal Law, then cut off Federal dollars. Alabama is the 3rd most dependent state on Federal dollars.
34
Rather than a one time Federalism issue, isn't the question really why any state receives more federal assistance than the taxes paid by the state's human tax payers? The funding formulas for so many federal programs are as bizarre as voting district lines. But, possibly, not as bizarre as some of the programs. But as the fairy tales say, "that's another story".
Bravo Chier Justice Moore!! Thank you for standing up for the Constitution of the United States of America.
Alas, it is a relief to know there is a place in the United States where the rules of law is not sacrificed for political correctness and popular culture. Bravo Alabama.
Alas, it is a relief to know there is a place in the United States where the rules of law is not sacrificed for political correctness and popular culture. Bravo Alabama.
5
I'm so glad I watched the Princess Bride this weekend! Regarding the Constitution, qcell, I do not think it means what you think it means.
11
Don't you mean standing up to the Supreme Court and against the Constitution of the United States?
16
Darn that Emancipation Proclamation!
9
You fought to secede 150 years ago. You lost. You should get over it. It is too bad that you have not. I was shocked when I was in Biloxi, MS that the Jefferson Davis house is there and is honored. I understand there is a statue of him as well. This is the only country in the world where the losing side of a civil war is romanticized and honored. (I live in Oklahoma and no state is worse. )
19
What a sad farce. Alabama can't seem to find a way to be anything other than an embarrassing rear-guard holdout against all forms of civil rights - most recently in the 60s, and again now. So what's next...Federal marshals force probate judges to grant licenses??
16
Marriage is only for a man and a woman. Marriage cannot be allowed between a black and a white person. Homosexuality is a disease. Blacks are inferior to whites. No Irish need apply. Jews control the banks. Germans are all warlike. All Asians are academically gifted. Girls can't be athletic and feminine. Real men don't cry.
So many of these stereotypes are wrong. Marriage is for two consenting adults who love each other and want to put a legal framework around it to protect themselves and any children they have. It's for those who don't have children but want the legal framework. Marriage, if it's a good one, provides stability for the parties involved, adults and children. I would think that that would be something that every "conservative" or deeply religious person could appreciate.
So many of these stereotypes are wrong. Marriage is for two consenting adults who love each other and want to put a legal framework around it to protect themselves and any children they have. It's for those who don't have children but want the legal framework. Marriage, if it's a good one, provides stability for the parties involved, adults and children. I would think that that would be something that every "conservative" or deeply religious person could appreciate.
26
I agree. The issue is one of civil rights and fairness. 81% of Alabamians voted in a referendum for a constitutional amendment allowing only heterosexual marriages, but many of these same voters would vote to discriminate (or even enslave) black people. They don't get it, and in my opinion they never will. Civil rights, to many Alabamians, is a right to discriminate.
7
No, hen3ry, it is NOT.
Interracial relations and marriages were in the Bible. In many cultures, they are entirely accepted. The idea of "black inferiority" was pretty much just in the Southern US and even then, only during a particular era. "No Irish need apply" -- ditto. It was not a norm, it was a response to high levels of immigration in a short time period.
REAL marriage isn't a stereotype, it is a cultural NORM in all cultures and all nations and all religions for all of human history. It is gay marriage that is the stereotype if you will -- the aberration. The lie is saying that two men or two women can make up a marriage. They can't, no matter how you label or package it. Some realities transcend even (bad) laws.
BTW: there is nothing magical about the number "two". If you think that opposite sex marriage is ridiculous, then why do you revere the number "two"? Why not 3? 5? 12?
Interracial relations and marriages were in the Bible. In many cultures, they are entirely accepted. The idea of "black inferiority" was pretty much just in the Southern US and even then, only during a particular era. "No Irish need apply" -- ditto. It was not a norm, it was a response to high levels of immigration in a short time period.
REAL marriage isn't a stereotype, it is a cultural NORM in all cultures and all nations and all religions for all of human history. It is gay marriage that is the stereotype if you will -- the aberration. The lie is saying that two men or two women can make up a marriage. They can't, no matter how you label or package it. Some realities transcend even (bad) laws.
BTW: there is nothing magical about the number "two". If you think that opposite sex marriage is ridiculous, then why do you revere the number "two"? Why not 3? 5? 12?
Why only two (and not three, or four or groups)?
Why only adults (and not anyone who has reached puberty)?
Why not siblings (if they agree not to have children)?
Why only adults (and not anyone who has reached puberty)?
Why not siblings (if they agree not to have children)?
There's nothing confusing about the court ruling. It's just bigots digging their heels in and saying "no" to the rule of law.
24
Alabama Probate Judges are elected officials of the counties. If some refuse to obey the Federal Courts, they are counting votes for the next election.
13
Sad, but true. I thought judges were elected to uphold the constitution of the USA (they take an oath, don't they?)
6
Time to send in federal representatives and the national guard to open courthouse offices for the purposes of conducting business as usual. The first denial of a marriage license should be met with the detention of the presiding official at the courthouse.
Time for this nonsense to end.
Time for this nonsense to end.
27
Yes. Time to send in the National Guard. Meanwhile, Harper Lee is getting ready to publish a novel, and there is a large measles outbreak ongoing. Bill O'Reilly should be happy to know that the 1950s are back.
18
First of all, it is absurd that a state would permit non-lawyers to be judges. Without legal training there is no way that a person can intelligently exercise the authority of the judicial office. Second, Chief Justice Moore - who is a lawyer - surely knows that he cannot override a decision of a federal district judge on a question of constitutional law and that his attempt at "interposition" is is a legal nullity. Third, these probate judges are risking a lot - contempt sanctions if the plaintiffs have to sue them in federal court and get an injunction, attorney fee and litigation costs awards, possibly even damages for violating federal civil rights statutes. Do the taxpayers of Alabama want to bear that risk?
One would think that the South would have learned its lesson about who is in charge in this country. If they didn't learn it by blood on the fields of a civil war they started, they should have learned it during the political and legal battles of the civil rights movement. Just because there are people in that eternally retrograde region who think their religious beliefs should govern their states does not mean that the U.S. Constitution means they are right.
One would think that the South would have learned its lesson about who is in charge in this country. If they didn't learn it by blood on the fields of a civil war they started, they should have learned it during the political and legal battles of the civil rights movement. Just because there are people in that eternally retrograde region who think their religious beliefs should govern their states does not mean that the U.S. Constitution means they are right.
21
This is like the endless challenges to Obamacare that never change anything. Alabama should stick to football and quit whining about who is marrying who.
24
Has anyone noticed that FOX is completely ignoring this? They seem to want to pretend that SSM struggles do not exist, which is pretty telling about where the GOP "establishment" is on this issue.
They wound up the "Gods, Gun, and Gays" crowd for electoral purposes 10 years ago, and now they want to put the mother back in the ground since this is backfiring on them.
They wound up the "Gods, Gun, and Gays" crowd for electoral purposes 10 years ago, and now they want to put the mother back in the ground since this is backfiring on them.
21
They're down to god and guns now. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
9
Totally cynical move on the GOP powers that be. Homophobia won them a lot of votes over the last 30 years and now suddenly it's turning into a sure fire vote loser. So they just whistle and look the other way and pretend like they never did anything to stomp on LGBT citizens. Thanks for calling these frauds out.
6
Some say that more than 30 states allow gay marriages, but that's really a half-truth. Most of those were forced to recognize same-sex marriages by divided federal courts. In reality, a couple of dozen people or so have made social decisions for hundreds of millions of people. This is democracy?
Don't get me wrong -- do what you want with your own life. That's freedom. But no one has the right to adopt a child, and this gay marriage thing will give gay couples right to be seen as equal potential adoptive parents with heterosexual couples.
How many people, given the choice, would prefer that their child be adopted by nice gay couple instead of a nice heterosexual couple? Not many. That shows that there is an underlying reason -- in my view a good reason -- for not granting equal recognition to so-called gay marriages.
Should two same sex people be able to avail themselves of the financial benefits a married couple has? Well, in truth there are some financial penalties as well, but should the whole bundle apply? That's debatable, but I if it is granted to a gay couple, then why cannot a son marry his 85 year old mother? The risk of inbred children is certainly gone, so why not? There's no logical reason to prohibit it, certainly a son can love his mother.
In fact, there is no more reason to promote gay marriages than there is to promote incestuous marriages between post-menopausal people.
The entire gay marriage ploy is a farce.
Don't get me wrong -- do what you want with your own life. That's freedom. But no one has the right to adopt a child, and this gay marriage thing will give gay couples right to be seen as equal potential adoptive parents with heterosexual couples.
How many people, given the choice, would prefer that their child be adopted by nice gay couple instead of a nice heterosexual couple? Not many. That shows that there is an underlying reason -- in my view a good reason -- for not granting equal recognition to so-called gay marriages.
Should two same sex people be able to avail themselves of the financial benefits a married couple has? Well, in truth there are some financial penalties as well, but should the whole bundle apply? That's debatable, but I if it is granted to a gay couple, then why cannot a son marry his 85 year old mother? The risk of inbred children is certainly gone, so why not? There's no logical reason to prohibit it, certainly a son can love his mother.
In fact, there is no more reason to promote gay marriages than there is to promote incestuous marriages between post-menopausal people.
The entire gay marriage ploy is a farce.
4
you might want to go find a video on the actual trials that took place. They have answered all of your questions and more.
I just have to add that your slippy slope argument is fallacious. The only way that it can be defended is by ending marriage all together. The adjectives aren't consequential, you are arguing that marriage will lead to marriage. Just because you happen to generalize homosexuals into a broad category with other perverse acts, doesn't make your conclusion true.
I just have to add that your slippy slope argument is fallacious. The only way that it can be defended is by ending marriage all together. The adjectives aren't consequential, you are arguing that marriage will lead to marriage. Just because you happen to generalize homosexuals into a broad category with other perverse acts, doesn't make your conclusion true.
9
It was the decission of a "few" that ended Jim Crow too. Our courts and Constitution have mechanisms to prevent the majority from discriminating against the few. Day by day, year by year we slowly apply that justice to more minority groups. Why do you want to drag us backward?
11
Wow, I am completely shocked. Most of the states do not stop gay men and women from adopting, regardless of their marital status. I do not think that most women who give up their children bother to even think If that child will be adopted by a gay or lesbian couple. She wants a better life for her child regardless.
Gay marriage is not a farce, it is two loving individuals looking for recognition in the eyes of the law of that said love.
Your interpretation of this movement is flawed.
Gay marriage is not a farce, it is two loving individuals looking for recognition in the eyes of the law of that said love.
Your interpretation of this movement is flawed.
17
The Federal judge reports to Attorney General Holder. He will not object to or prevent homosexual marriages in Alabama if he wants to keep his job. That's the way the Democrat party rolls. The will of the people is meaningless to them.
2
That is grossly inaccurate. Federal Article III judges hold their tenure during "good behavior", as per the Constitution. The only thing that can remove a federal judge is impeachment by Congress. They do not answer to the Attorney General.
10
Federal Judges don't report to the Attorney General. Judiciary is independent. Learn that in 5th grade
15
This is a joke right? Of are you completely clueless about our constitution? Federal judges do not report to anyone. They are appointed for life, and can only be removed by congressional impeachment proceedings. Their salary cannot be reduced. U.S. Constitution, Article 3.
16
Is it fair, in a Judicial Sense, for the same Federal Judge to
rule on whether her order must be followed or not ?
Shouldn't a different Federal Judge have to rule on the issue
in order that any sense of bias be removed ?
rule on whether her order must be followed or not ?
Shouldn't a different Federal Judge have to rule on the issue
in order that any sense of bias be removed ?
2
Um, an order is an order, and thus must be followed unless another judge with higher 'authority' rules otherwise.
Lower state judges should be removed from office if they refuse to follow federal court order.
We did fight a war over this very issue, and it is despicable that state judges believe they can take rulings into their own hands.
Lower state judges should be removed from office if they refuse to follow federal court order.
We did fight a war over this very issue, and it is despicable that state judges believe they can take rulings into their own hands.
6
In a word, "No"!
5
Not at all. It also shows the absurdity of his non-compliance. The only OTHER judge that can rule in her stead, is the supreme court. They already TOLD them not to stop the marriages. In addition, if he truly was interested in "following" the right law, why did he oppose the filed response? So now he has to explain to the judge who issued the order, why exactly he disobeyed her AND the supreme court. At which point she will hold him in contempt (as he will NOT be able to explain his defiance), he will be removed and replace with an interim officer.
15
As a champion of the importance of the 10 Commandments, Justice Moore should realize that the prohibition against "coveting thy neighbor's wife" leaves open a host of alternatives. Seems like husbands, daughters, sons, grand parents and any others are fair game under the good lord's law.
8
The same day that Judge Moore was demonstrating his ignorance of the Constitution, Congressman John Lewis was speaking. To refresh everyone's memory Congressman Lewis withstood being beaten bloody in Alabama to bring voting rights for citizens. He comment on marriage equality with equal courage by quoting Dr. King "races don't get married people in love get married" The same can be said for marriage equality, gays don't get married people in love get married. Nothing more can be asked Justice Moore.
29
@Jena:
Rename that cursed Selma Bridge "The John Lewis Bridge" for my heroic example of the fighters for justice. Not a warship, that darned bridge of blood and silent suffering. Then Name a gay justice to replace the 2 senile men on SCOTUS.
Rename that cursed Selma Bridge "The John Lewis Bridge" for my heroic example of the fighters for justice. Not a warship, that darned bridge of blood and silent suffering. Then Name a gay justice to replace the 2 senile men on SCOTUS.
18
Yep!
5
So let these "legal scholars" show where in the Constitution the word "marriage" appears even once??
Strikes me as though the 10th Amendment applies.
Strikes me as though the 10th Amendment applies.
6
I trust you were wearing a suitable black robe when you made this important decision on constitutional law. Were you elected or appointed?
4
Nor do words and phrases such as "airplane," "nuclear energy," "computer," or for that matter "assault weapon" occur in the Constitution. How about these words from the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
12
Well, then there's the 14th, which bigots generally do not like. Also, the 9th, which combined with the 14th makes the 10th moot in rights cases.
Turn off Fox.
Turn off Fox.
13
Alabama, you can say amen or oh me, but marriage equality will be the law across this country very shortly. You are wandering all alone in the 1950s.
41
Dianne: You are wrong. There is already marriage equality since marriage for the last few thousand years has been defined as that of the union between a man and woman. Just because a few activist judges overturned the people's will to ban homosexual "marriage" does not mean that deviancy will become the law of the land. SCOTUS will decide and I, like every other moral person in America, hope it makes the right decision and uphold State bans against homosexual "marriage".
5
The "last few thousand years?" Seriously? So Abraham is on the wrong side of the law?
7
You forget the part of the last few thousand years where marriage was defined as the union between man and women.
4
The prohibition against same-sex marriages is witnessing its last grasp and is clearly in its death throes in Alabama. I came of age in the late fifties and early sixties. And being a Vietnam veteran, I thought the protest against the Vietnam War was the significant political movement in my lifetime. But I was wrong. It is the LBGT movement along with the feminist movement that grew out of the sixties. By the way, it was common knowledge among medical personnel at the base hospital in Vietnam where i served, some nurses, doctors and medical corpsmen were gay or lesbian. But we all survived a tour of duty in the most unpopular war in our nation's history and accomplished our mission in the medical care of wounded patients. Full citizenship for gays and lesbians is long overdue. The volunteer armed forces has transitioned its mission to include men and women to be openly gay or lesbian. It's just our society has changed so radically, and there are communities scattered around the country such as in Alabama that refuse to acknowledge this political reality. It's time we all moved on as nation. Gays and lesbians are not going back into the closet since they have fought so hard for their rights and they are now are experiencing these rights as full citizens. This latest battle is just a futile and self-defeating rearguard action by reactionaries. They are refusing to acknowledge how our country has changed. But they also fought against the civil rights movement.
51
Thank you for your service and for speaking up.
11
Sorry but the 7,500,000,000 people in the world do not agree with the gay lifestyle—no less gay marriage.
83 countries have banned gays altogether.
Hold the euphoria.
There is a great Tsunami backlash coming.
83 countries have banned gays altogether.
Hold the euphoria.
There is a great Tsunami backlash coming.
1
George Hoffman: thank you for your thoughtful and compassionate comment!
5
Alabama's state attorney is, once again, repeating the long history of discrimination in the south. Even 50 years after the civil rights movement in this country, there is a lot of work to be done. For shame.
33
But THAT was done under Democrats.
The GOP (the adults) are now in charge.
Federal judges' DEMANDS will not hold against "we, the people" any more than "Roe v Wade" has withstood the "test of time."
Bad law is simply that: "bad law." and, ultimately, it will weaken "the rule of law."
I'm sorry Justice Kennedy has a "personal" history of homosexuality in his family, but HIS personal opinion does not represent "wisdom" nor will it stand "the test of time."
The GOP (the adults) are now in charge.
Federal judges' DEMANDS will not hold against "we, the people" any more than "Roe v Wade" has withstood the "test of time."
Bad law is simply that: "bad law." and, ultimately, it will weaken "the rule of law."
I'm sorry Justice Kennedy has a "personal" history of homosexuality in his family, but HIS personal opinion does not represent "wisdom" nor will it stand "the test of time."
1
tpaine, living in NYC, a world center for economic, social, intellectual, artistic, musical, and commercial CHANGE and development must be a real bummer for you. How do you stand it?
20
The GOP are the adults? What's with their problems with Science, Math, History, Logic, Reasoning, Critical Thinking?
18
There is no confusion. There is no conflict of law. The law is crystal clear. The Federal courts have spoken and they must be obeyed. The probate judges don't work for Judge Moore; he cannot tell them what to do. Plus, his recommendation is clearly contrary to the law.
This "confusion" and "conflict" nonsense should not be taken seriously, as it is entirely false.
This "confusion" and "conflict" nonsense should not be taken seriously, as it is entirely false.
118
Scott L -
Why must the Federal Courts be obeyed ?
Who elected those Judges ?
Who said they were all wise and embodied with all the attributes of Justice ?
There is a reason why we have the 10th Amendment to prevent Federal Tyranny.
We are the United States of America not the Federal Republic of America.
Why must the Federal Courts be obeyed ?
Who elected those Judges ?
Who said they were all wise and embodied with all the attributes of Justice ?
There is a reason why we have the 10th Amendment to prevent Federal Tyranny.
We are the United States of America not the Federal Republic of America.
1
You are confused. Please read the 9th and 14th amendments.
And like 50 years of jurisprudential history.
And like 50 years of jurisprudential history.
10
The procedure was established by the Constitution and fought over during the Civil War.
The South lost. Get over it.
The South lost. Get over it.
11
Time to call out the National Guard or, maybe better, the 101st Airborne to occupy the courthouses and, if necessary, arrest and detain any judge who refuses to follow the federal court orders. Ignore the hubbub this would cause -- the South, an especially Alabama, needs to be reminded who started and who lost the Civil War. This defiance must not be permitted to stand.
27
So right on!
5
The sheer mean-spiritedness of this laughable spectacle aside, if Alabama doesn't want the feds to tell it what to do, then it needs to get its hands out of the federal till.
Meanwhile, mazel tov to those non-straight couples in Alabama who have been able to marry. Me and mine send a virtual toast of congratulations brimming with well wishes for a long and beautiful life together.
Meanwhile, mazel tov to those non-straight couples in Alabama who have been able to marry. Me and mine send a virtual toast of congratulations brimming with well wishes for a long and beautiful life together.
46
Two steps forward, one back, perhaps one sideways, a fandango here and a buck-and-wing there. But marriage equality will happen.
At this juncture, 37 states plus DC have marriage equality. (18 countries have marriage equality; 2, including us, regional equality; many others are working toward marriage and already have civil unions or other protected status for same-sex couples. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/) Although SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case on the subject, the justices' refusal to involve themselves here is a clear tacit signal that they wish the remaining states would take the matter out of their hands by getting with the programme and mooting the issue. Because once they themselves threw out part of DOMA and extended federal rights to same-sex couples, they created an untenable inconsistency of rights and status.
Of course, an arrangement in which some folks are second-class citizens is nothing new to Alabama. And the officials who are holding out know they have no hope of winning - they're just posturing for public consumption.
I hope the judges don't get sued and have to pay damages, though - because, given that Alabama gets more than $3 for every federal tax dollar it pays in, we in the blue states will end up stuck with those legal bills.
At this juncture, 37 states plus DC have marriage equality. (18 countries have marriage equality; 2, including us, regional equality; many others are working toward marriage and already have civil unions or other protected status for same-sex couples. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/) Although SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case on the subject, the justices' refusal to involve themselves here is a clear tacit signal that they wish the remaining states would take the matter out of their hands by getting with the programme and mooting the issue. Because once they themselves threw out part of DOMA and extended federal rights to same-sex couples, they created an untenable inconsistency of rights and status.
Of course, an arrangement in which some folks are second-class citizens is nothing new to Alabama. And the officials who are holding out know they have no hope of winning - they're just posturing for public consumption.
I hope the judges don't get sued and have to pay damages, though - because, given that Alabama gets more than $3 for every federal tax dollar it pays in, we in the blue states will end up stuck with those legal bills.
19
Nobody is a second class citizen, because every man and woman already had the right to marry any person of the opposite sex (who was over a certain age, not related to them or married to someone else).
Of those 37 states and DC, only 3 had voters agree to this abomination. The others had it forced on them legislatures and courts.
Of those 37 states and DC, only 3 had voters agree to this abomination. The others had it forced on them legislatures and courts.
Wow, it looks like you don't value marriage very much at all if you honestly can endorse two people entering a life-long commitment without any attraction for one another. Personally, I can't imagine being doomed to live a life with someone I don't love or someone who doesn't make my heart race each and every time I'm with them. Guess that's a foreign concept to people like you.
9
Concerned, I believe Robert's reply is directed to you.
You might as easily have made the exact same argument regarding interracial marriage - in fact those arguments were made: that it was forced on the states by the courts, against popular opinion; and that no one was being denied any rights, because any black person could marry another black person and any white person could marry a white one.
As it happens, gay men and lesbians have made marriages of convenience while conducting their love and/or sex lives elsewhere. Most notably, WH Auden married Erika Mann, the daughter of Thomas Mann, to get her out of Nazi Germany. The writers Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West were bisexual and married to each other (you may have heard of Sackville-West as the lover of Virginia Woolf, who was married to Leonard Woolf) - and all loved their spouses, and lovers, very much. However, if you want to see how the damage of marrying a 'beard' or 'skirt' works out, look at what being married to Oscar did to poor Constance Wilde.
Same-sex marriage is for the benefit of straights, as well; it strengthens the institution as a whole. Just as marriage is no longer used (at least in the First World) as a property transaction, swapping a female for a given number of cattle and some beads, no one should be 'used' as a disguise merely to achieve conventional respectability. Your spouse is someone to stand beside, not hide behind.
'Proclaim liberty throughout the land'.
You might as easily have made the exact same argument regarding interracial marriage - in fact those arguments were made: that it was forced on the states by the courts, against popular opinion; and that no one was being denied any rights, because any black person could marry another black person and any white person could marry a white one.
As it happens, gay men and lesbians have made marriages of convenience while conducting their love and/or sex lives elsewhere. Most notably, WH Auden married Erika Mann, the daughter of Thomas Mann, to get her out of Nazi Germany. The writers Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West were bisexual and married to each other (you may have heard of Sackville-West as the lover of Virginia Woolf, who was married to Leonard Woolf) - and all loved their spouses, and lovers, very much. However, if you want to see how the damage of marrying a 'beard' or 'skirt' works out, look at what being married to Oscar did to poor Constance Wilde.
Same-sex marriage is for the benefit of straights, as well; it strengthens the institution as a whole. Just as marriage is no longer used (at least in the First World) as a property transaction, swapping a female for a given number of cattle and some beads, no one should be 'used' as a disguise merely to achieve conventional respectability. Your spouse is someone to stand beside, not hide behind.
'Proclaim liberty throughout the land'.
5
Coffee County, my county, is issuing the licenses I am proud to say. And it's a rural county... don't paint us all down here with a broad brush.
177
That's good news Brian! Looks like the NYtimes map correctly has Coffee Co. marked as issuing licenses.
10
Kudos to Coffee county for issuing same-sex licenses. Pour Mobile a cuppa.
14
You're right! Thanks to all who are standing up for the rule of law in Alabama.
11
Mutiny on the courthouse... Not so funny at all. Even the Supreme Court said you must move along and for them to say it is saying something. I get (I really don't) that Alabamians for whatever reason want to snub gay marriage and anything that isn't state sanctified out, but for judges to indulge in this game is dangerous. I'm not saying there isn't a time and a place for a mutiny so to speak, but surely it would not be over love.
13
This sad spectacle is just a reminder of what happens when reactionary Republicans are running the show. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for Democrats to not vote in off-year elections..
65
Remarkable and Confounding that in 2014, nearly 50 years to the day from Bloody Sunday, Alabama is determined to remain mired in pre-Civil Rights America . . . that there are in fact Alabama state court judges defying a federal court. I can only hope the federal judge there tosses the lot of 'em in jail. I am also reminded of the poignant words of the great J.B. Lenoir:
"I never will go back to Alabama, that is not the place for me (2x)
You know they killed my sister and my brother,
And the whole world let them peoples go down there free
I never will love Alabama, Alabama seem to never have loved poor me (2x)
Oh god i wish you would rise up one day,
Lead my peoples to the land of pea'
My brother was taken up for my mother, and a police officer shot him down (2x)
I can't help but to sit down and cry sometime,
Think about how my poor brother lost his life
Alabama, Alabama, why you wanna be so mean (2x)
You got my people behind a barbwire fence,
Now you tryin' to take my freedom away from me"
"I never will go back to Alabama, that is not the place for me (2x)
You know they killed my sister and my brother,
And the whole world let them peoples go down there free
I never will love Alabama, Alabama seem to never have loved poor me (2x)
Oh god i wish you would rise up one day,
Lead my peoples to the land of pea'
My brother was taken up for my mother, and a police officer shot him down (2x)
I can't help but to sit down and cry sometime,
Think about how my poor brother lost his life
Alabama, Alabama, why you wanna be so mean (2x)
You got my people behind a barbwire fence,
Now you tryin' to take my freedom away from me"
41
Fifty years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
10
Fifty years from now people will realize the the fuss was about fundamentalist 'Christians' trying to force their mistaken beliefs on the government.
Christ, of course, condemns any bigots whether racially or sexually biased, and informs his believers (and everyone else) to render to Caesar what is Caesar's. In our democracy, that which is Caesar's includes the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
Christ, of course, condemns any bigots whether racially or sexually biased, and informs his believers (and everyone else) to render to Caesar what is Caesar's. In our democracy, that which is Caesar's includes the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
14
They may in five years.
4
Withhold Federal aid/dollars from Alabama until they abide by the U.S. Constitution.
43
Can I withhold my tax dollars from AIDS research? I rather see the money spent on Cancer Research which is a disease that effects many and not a few who engage in risky, deviant behavior.
Right because only those who engage in risky, deviant behavior get HIV/AIDS...And those who get cancer never do anything harmful to their bodies that result in cancer.
8
No, and you can't withhold your tax dollars from the ACA, from roads and schools, from pensions for politicians, the IRS, or anything else you don't like. The only way you can do that is to move out of the country. Go ahead and do so if you don't want to contribute. All of us here support some things we don't like, but most of us also support some things we do. Good grief.
7
How courageous of Roy Moore to issue that order knowing full well it would eventually be overturned and all the while putting the probate judges at considerable financial and professional risk. Mr. Moore risked nothing himself by putting these judges in such an awkward position, but now he can grandstand in his next campaign and brag about his blatant opposition to human rights. What a winner.
80
It's not just judge moore, it's also the freakish right wing voters that let him get away with it.
21
...and allowed him back in power, this guy is like a bad penny, we already got rid of him once.
15
somebody voted this guy into his position, and they probably love his stand.
3
In my mind it should be up to the state legislatures or a popular referendum by the people to decide this issue. It seems that the winds are towards acceptance, however pushing certain states with cultures which are not ready for acceptance could be premature. It could backfire and make people angry and more resistant to change. Instead, if the people or the representatives are allowed to decide, a gradual evolution towards gay marriage would likely occur. Probably over many years. The courts forcing the issue is simple judicial activism.
5
It's hardly "activism" for a judge to enforce the equal protection clause of the constitution
34
"Judicial activism" = "decision that I don't like". Fundamental rights should not be subject to popular vote.
45
So we may vote on your civil rights and you'll be okay with what we decide?
41
If we are really free to ignore rulings from higher courts, perhaps women's health clinics should disregard the results of McCullen v. Coakley, and set up large buffer zones effective immediately.
37
This is so obviously an electioneering stunt by "Judge" Moore, who will no doubt run for governor or senator at the next available opportunity. Stomping on the rights of lesbians and gays, plus defying federal court orders is clearly, by his estimation, a political win win in Alabama. Wake up Alabama: this guy is a total scam artist.
43
The good people of Alabama have never been awake, and they ain't gonna wake up now. The South will rise again!
4
The KKK just came ot, (well, not in that way), in support of Moore's defiance.
I guess you ARE known by the company you keep.
I guess you ARE known by the company you keep.
7
Lawyers who challenged the state’s ban, and many legal scholars, argue that the law is clear that a federal court order trumps the direction of Chief Justice Moore.
Wow. Thank goodness for the lawyers and "legal scholars." This has only been settled for about 150 years.
The next time I need to know whether the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I'll be sure to call on them.
Wow. Thank goodness for the lawyers and "legal scholars." This has only been settled for about 150 years.
The next time I need to know whether the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I'll be sure to call on them.
34
I suspect that as long as both straight and gay couple are denied marriage licenses the order is not violated... since the discrimination would have ceased to exist. I recall several months ago Oklahoma stopped issuing all marriage licenses when their laws were declared unconstitutional.
8
Who, then, is officially designated to issue marriage licenses if this were to happen, McLed? Its still discrimination under the guise of separate but equal!!
3
Thats only partially true. He will have to explain to the judge what emergency situation developed that forced him to close the office down. He will also have to explain how he, as a currently licensed lawyer, didn't know what directive he was supposed to follow. It would be like a driver saying, "My daddy told me to drive drunk, and I didn't know there was a law against driving drunk."
4
No, not at all. I'm surprised such a false surmise is a NYT pick. The idea was floated by one of our barmier legislators (and that's saying something), but no such thing has been done. It's too nuts even for us. So please set your mind at ease and stop spreading this false story.
5
Discrimination in the guise of federalism is so 1963, Alabama.
40
I think you mean anti-federalism (the original libertarian movement which aimed to scuttle the Constitution and preserve state sovereignty).
4
I was born and raised in the South (Arkansas). I love everything about the south, except for the people who live there. It is some of the most beautiful land and countryside in America. But there are so many uneducated and hateful people here who seem, as often as not, to control the levers of government. They seem to be so threatened by anything different. The South never seem to learn, or advance.
I lived out and about across America for about 25 years, before returning home to Arkansas. It's an unfortunate thing to be homesick for a landscape, and just plain sick of a people.
I lived out and about across America for about 25 years, before returning home to Arkansas. It's an unfortunate thing to be homesick for a landscape, and just plain sick of a people.
108
I felt the same way about Chicago.
1
I too left the South, 32 years ago. I miss the scenery and more especially the cuisine, but I've never even considered going back. I'm so much more comfortable living in a liberal-minded city and state.
14
So this is what happens when you stand athwart history yelling stop.
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
28
Southern man, better keep your head
Don't forget what your good book said
Southern change's gonna come at last
Now rainbow flags are flying fast
Don't forget what your good book said
Southern change's gonna come at last
Now rainbow flags are flying fast
83
My grandparents lived thru seeing men spit on women who asked for the right to vote. My parents lived thru seeing police break into the home of an interracial couple and arrest them for daring to be married (in violation of state law). And now, I have to live thru this. Sad. Idea: if u want to feel special, don't deny somebody else equal rights, just go do something good and kind. Then u really will be special.
118
I am disappointed in Moore. Not surprised, but disappointed. He spoke of the constitution right of a majority to decide,, pass a discriminatory law. But he seems to have forgotten that the constitution is founded on individual rights. Individuals have the right to vote, speak, live, love,,, protections against search without a warrant, etc.
The majority was wrong when it forbade women from voting. The majority were wrong when they forbade people of colour from speaking attending, being. And Judge Moore is wrong to try to dictate what rights he thinks are appropriate.
I think it is time for him to retire. Putin would like him. Go work for him.
The majority was wrong when it forbade women from voting. The majority were wrong when they forbade people of colour from speaking attending, being. And Judge Moore is wrong to try to dictate what rights he thinks are appropriate.
I think it is time for him to retire. Putin would like him. Go work for him.
182
Moore is simply another example of the failure of the republican governmental structure when judges are directly elected. By the very process they're committed not to impartiality but to whatever causes will gain them office.
20
But the constitutional right to marry is impeded whether it is allowed on an unequal basis or not allowed at all. I don't think that an argument making the claim that states don't have to facilitate any civil marriages at all will fly. By that logic, states could justify denial of any constitutional right to a protected class simply by expanding the discrimination or, indeed, applying the unconstitutional conduct to all citizens. A constitutional right is not so easily obstructed.
5
Russia's Putin was—for once in his life—morally right to prohibit gay propaganda espousing their ideas to children or young people.
It is about a group which wishes to change the traditional meaning of marriage that all the world has agreed on for millennia.
It is not prejudicial to deny the basic laws of nature where a male and female unite to produce children to propagate the human species while enjoying sexual union.
Anatomy is destiny despite all those who wish to change the laws of nature.
This has all to do with humanity not to appease those who have an unnatural agenda in allowing the world marriage to be changed to suit one's personal inclinations.
Go to your library and see how many LGBT speakers are invited to speak to young people there.
Conservatives sure do love to bang on about their beloved Constitution but only up to the point where it deviates from their extremely limited world view. One would think that the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama would have at least a passing familiarity with the Supremacy Clause contained within that document. Maybe he needs a good reminder about the oaths he swore as an attorney as well as an acting Justice to uphold the Constitution in its entirety by being disbarred and removed from office.
98
His interpretations are in line with Obama's, just different biases.
1
You keep right on telling yourself that.
14
Even if it were true, would two wrongs make a right?
Would Alabama officials whose job it is to marry who claim it’s confusing fly on an airliner piloted by someone saying it's too confusing.
The only thing confusing is their desire to find it confusing.
Of those who seem to think somehow it would be better for states to marry no one than to marry same-sex couples, have they objected before? If marriage is objectionable, it would have been objectionable and let them make their argument which will, of course, become a land mind of exploding illogic avoiding as it must any defense that God established marriage, or marriage is good for children, or society is built on a cornerstone of marriage.
Of those who would argue marriage of same gender persons undermines the marriages of others, existing or future, between males and females, ditto. It is the stuff that gets repeated mindlessly but unravels as the inexplicable it is.
The only thing confusing is their desire to find it confusing.
Of those who seem to think somehow it would be better for states to marry no one than to marry same-sex couples, have they objected before? If marriage is objectionable, it would have been objectionable and let them make their argument which will, of course, become a land mind of exploding illogic avoiding as it must any defense that God established marriage, or marriage is good for children, or society is built on a cornerstone of marriage.
Of those who would argue marriage of same gender persons undermines the marriages of others, existing or future, between males and females, ditto. It is the stuff that gets repeated mindlessly but unravels as the inexplicable it is.
20
Will these marriages be termed "Gay Marriages"? I assume so. I would think calling them "sodomy marriages" is just too much but if that was what the politically correct folks want then so be it.
2
I know, but how about just calling them what they are: marriage. We don't have to specify "old-people marriages, or Asian marriages, or Podunk County marriages. When people are married, it's what they are.
32
How about "marriages", just like everybody else? See, it's not so painful.
15
I wonder what would happen if ALL Federal funds stopped flowing to Alabama while they continue to misbehave. All to include Federal Salaries, Social Security Checks, Medicare reimbursements, closing all Military Bases, including Ft. Rucker, Anniston Army Depot, and the Redstone Arsenal until further notice. And of course, any Federal Contractor, like Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, United Launch Alliance just to name a few will have ALL their contracts suspended...
And of course, do 100% IRS audits of all citizens of the state. If they are supporting the failure to follow the Constitution, I bet they are also cheating on their taxes...
And of course, do 100% IRS audits of all citizens of the state. If they are supporting the failure to follow the Constitution, I bet they are also cheating on their taxes...
75
Et, you are committed to the Constitution!
hyperbolic for sure, but you raise a good point?
What is being done? How does this play out?
What is being done? How does this play out?
Dear Alabama: Do you want to be part of the Union or don't you? If you don't, that's fine; we can manage without you. Just let us know. If you do want to stick with us, you need to abide by federal laws and the federal system of government. I thought we resolved these issues in the 1860s and again in 1963.
150
Alabama doesn't have a choice. The state is part of the United States, and they WILL obey federal law. The Supreme Court of Alabama has overstepped its authority telling counties not to issue marriage licenses. The hammer should - and will - come down hard.
39
No, it is not fine. The fact that Alabama is still part of the Union was paid for in blood during the Civil War. Chief Justice Moore is spiting on the grave of all the Northern dead.
From the Wikipedia.
The [Civil] war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians.[232] Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker believes the number of soldier deaths was approximately 750,000, 20% higher than traditionally estimated, and possibly as high as 850,000.[233][234] The war accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.[235]
Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and 18% in the South.[236][237] About 56,000 soldiers died in prison camps during the War.[238] An estimated 60,000 men lost limbs in the war.[239]
Union army dead, amounting to 15% of the over two million who served, was broken down as follows:[2]
110,070 killed in action (67,000) or died of wounds (43,000).
199,790 died of disease (75% of which was due to the war, the remainder would have occurred in civilian life anyway)
24,866 died in Confederate prison camps
9,058 killed by accidents or drowning
15,741 other/unknown deaths
359,528 total dead
From the Wikipedia.
The [Civil] war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians.[232] Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker believes the number of soldier deaths was approximately 750,000, 20% higher than traditionally estimated, and possibly as high as 850,000.[233][234] The war accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.[235]
Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and 18% in the South.[236][237] About 56,000 soldiers died in prison camps during the War.[238] An estimated 60,000 men lost limbs in the war.[239]
Union army dead, amounting to 15% of the over two million who served, was broken down as follows:[2]
110,070 killed in action (67,000) or died of wounds (43,000).
199,790 died of disease (75% of which was due to the war, the remainder would have occurred in civilian life anyway)
24,866 died in Confederate prison camps
9,058 killed by accidents or drowning
15,741 other/unknown deaths
359,528 total dead
14
The next time Alabamans recite the Pledge of Allegiance they ought to reflect on the "one nation .. indivisible".
6
All these probate judges will lose eventually, with costs and fees going against them. I believe their nominal bosses, the county commissioners, will quickly get fed up with these unnecessary costs to the county, and the probate judges will comply [or risk their budgets*]. Money talks. On the other hand, Judge Moore doesn't risk these costs; he only benefits from the free publicity for his third run for the governors' mansion.
*the probate courts may be self funded from fees and court costs, but liability may still lay with the county.
*the probate courts may be self funded from fees and court costs, but liability may still lay with the county.
23
I don't think elected judges have attorney's fees sanctions issued against them, usually more of an ethics complaint matter.
No amount of blustering - no matter how much - is going to get in the way of love. Sorry Mr. Moore, but that's how it is.
85
Holding the state of Alabama in contempt of a federal court order and imposing hefty daily fines will solve this problem pronto.
85
And applying those fines to make restitution to those denied service - another good step. Civil servants, kindly remember you're paid by those who seek your services.
32
I suspect holding the probate judges in contempt and sending them off to Federal prison for a few days will change minds even more quickly than fines.
18
If Alabama wants to remain a theocratic, anti-Constitutional, ignorance-driven backwater, my view is that no one from anywhere else needs to go there to visit it, or to establish new businesses or factories there. If they want to avoid this outcome, the individual county officials should start exercising some spine, common sense, and ethics.
208
Right, that's a great idea. Let's punish those who are already impoverished -- not to mention the quiet majority who are regular people just trying to make a living and not hateful bigots -- along with the ignorant, noisy few. Responding to hate with hate always works well.
9
We should remember that they overwhelmingly voted the prohibition on Gay Marriage into law to begin with. This tells me that folks in Alabama believe that we are a Christian Nation in spite of what it actually says in the Constitution.
16
Julie S.:
The "quiet majority" voted Moore back into office. In any event, my post recommended that people avoid Alabama if they continue this type of conduct, not if they change it. A positive outcome is in their hands. Even more pertinently, I recommended (as have others) that local officials should ignore the nonsense coming from the "Chief Justice" and simply do the right and legal thing. Then, no adverse consequences.
I am not recommending "responding to hate with hate." I am recommending responding to hate with resistance. I think that is the moral course.
The "quiet majority" voted Moore back into office. In any event, my post recommended that people avoid Alabama if they continue this type of conduct, not if they change it. A positive outcome is in their hands. Even more pertinently, I recommended (as have others) that local officials should ignore the nonsense coming from the "Chief Justice" and simply do the right and legal thing. Then, no adverse consequences.
I am not recommending "responding to hate with hate." I am recommending responding to hate with resistance. I think that is the moral course.
9
Dear Alabama, I thought George Wallace's mean/evil spirit died with him, but apparently not. Why will you folks continue to be uncooperative with the Federal Courts? Desegregation: NO, Busing: NO, Equal Rights: NO, Voting Rights: NO, Gay Rights: NO. Man, I would be tired about saying NO just to have it forceable turned into YES by the Federal Courts. You know, Alabama is one of fifty of the United States of America, or have you forgotten that? Please, act like adults and just accept progress and be nice about it too.
83
As much as I understand your comment and emphatically agree with your points I do ask for a bit of fairness for Mr. George Wallace. After the assassination attempt on his life he became a changed man. He asked for forgiveness from the African American community and recanted his previous racist stance. He asked for redemption, and in my mind he received it.
15
No, sadly they are still fighting the civil war! Only this time their leader into battle- Judge Moore- is little more than a cartoon character. How he ever became CJ in Alabama is beyond me. They teach this conflict of laws resolution stuff in the first year of law school-- at least in law schools located outside the old confederacy.
12
Dear Probate Justice Martin (who has a law degree):
Alabama Oath of Office:
" I, __________________________________________________, solemnly swear
(or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God. "
Please note "Constitution of the United States" and its position ahead of "Constitution of State of Alabama" Also please note that the Federal Court has declared your state law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the US Supreme Court has denied to impose a stay.
And you consider this "undecided"? What DO they teach in Birmingham School of Law ? Oh, Birmingham School of Law is not accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), and has not sought to obtain accreditation from the American Bar Association. Yes I can see why you are confused.
Alabama Oath of Office:
" I, __________________________________________________, solemnly swear
(or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God. "
Please note "Constitution of the United States" and its position ahead of "Constitution of State of Alabama" Also please note that the Federal Court has declared your state law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the US Supreme Court has denied to impose a stay.
And you consider this "undecided"? What DO they teach in Birmingham School of Law ? Oh, Birmingham School of Law is not accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), and has not sought to obtain accreditation from the American Bar Association. Yes I can see why you are confused.
164
Somebody needs to be sued to the ground, both personally and in an official capacity. It will take only one, and the others will suddenly discover the supremacy clause.
49
That is a nice thought, but one does not sue judges who are elected. One challenges their rulings. And it is happening!
1
I was raised in the South, and Alabama was always considered the most backward Southern state. It makes Mississippi look like a beacon of progress. When I was driving across the Gulf states, I was always fearful until I had cleared Alabama. I'm white, but it gave me a little insight into what blacks must have felt.
86
Roy Moore is a self-aggrandizer with no qualms about violating laws and the rights of others. No doubt he'll be running for higher office when the time is right.
29
Maybe Republican president of the U.S.
11
President of the Confederacy?
4
A state judge interfering with a federal judge's decision is performing an act of rebellion against the Nation. Mr. Moore should be removed from office for his disregard for the primacy of federal power over state power, his disrespect for the Constitution of the United States, and his violation of the rule of law.
252
But he's a conservative judge and by GOP definition can't be rebellious or trying to be disrespectful of the Constitution!
4
Good point, Tristan. But the judiciary and prosecutors are almost never held accountable for bad decisions, excessive sentences and wrongful convictions. This flaw in our form of government was an error of our founding fathers and long overdue for correction. Civil suits are insufficient in addressing these often egregious excesses.
A state judge ruling on a states' rights issue like marriage actually takes precedent over a federal judge who has no jurisdiction. The Constitution does not allow a Federal judge to stick their nose into state issues just because they want to have a say. Unfortunately too many states continue to defer to the unconstitutional meddling in their business by the Federal govt.
I sure hope the taxpayers of Alabama won't mind shelling out dough to defend a law that basically amounts to institutionalized discrimination.
36
Boy howdy, that's the current state of republican fiscal conservatism for you!
11
This act by Roy Moore is not nearly as bad as his past defiance of a federal court order. I read Roy Moore's order. I read his memorandum. I read both of the federal district judge's order. It is still not clear to me whether Roy Moore has violated the federal court order or merely disagreed with a federal district judge's opinion, which is not binding precedent. The voters of Alabama should not have reelected Roy Moore after the rest of the Supreme Court stripped him of his office after his past defiance of a court order. However, Roy Moore's actions in this case may not rise to the level of judicial misconduct.
I congratulate every newly married couple in Alabama, both gay and straight. I hope a federal judge soon issues an order clearly requiring all probate judges to issue marriage licenses to both gay and straight people.
I congratulate every newly married couple in Alabama, both gay and straight. I hope a federal judge soon issues an order clearly requiring all probate judges to issue marriage licenses to both gay and straight people.
45
How is the federal court opinion not binding on the Alabama probate courts? The probate judges who are wholesale refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples are clearly doing so pursuant to Alabama's now-invalid ban on gay marriages. Justice Moore explicitly told probate judges to enforce a law that had been stricken down by Judge Grande.
4
I have not read Moore's order, but I take your analysis at face value. You know much more than I do on this topic. If Moore's defiance of past court orders does not constitute judicial misconduct, what is the delineation? I ask from a desire to understand what the line is regarding judicial misconduct.
1
Doug, you ought to brush up on your constitutional law. There's a little thing in there called "The Supremacy Clause" which basically says that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law prevails. Period, End of lesson. Check it out...I didn't make this up.
Send in federal troops to Alabama--again--if need be. Lawlessness and flouting of a valid federal court order *cannot* be tolerated, particularly when such lawlessness is emanating directly from a state's chief supreme court justice. Allowing his lawlessness to stand is an extremely dangerous precedent.
57
Yes, but ... relax ... in all likelihood this will all be over by Friday.
1
Thanks, Alabama, for reminding us why need the Supreme Court to act on this now. The bigoted and renegade "justices" of Alabama clearly don't understand the law.
19
Chief justice, Roy Moore, is the Archie Bunker of judges.
33
That's an insult to Archie Bunker, who at least had a certain warmth and whose interpretations of Christ's teachings weren't as warped as Moore's are.
43
You are being too kind.
8
That's unfair to Archie Bunker!
7
Why do they care? The bible says "one man and SEVERAL" woman. So lets get it right!
62
And that doesn't include the slaves.
11
Hey, Alabama! I have a new State motto for you: Backwards And Proud Of It! Whaddya think? We were going to use that in Maine, after a public referendum revoked gay rights legislation passed by the State legislature a while back. But then, within a few years, Mainers went to the polls and approved gay marriage - i.e., no "judges [or legislature] shoving their ideas down everybody's throat"; the people themselves reversed their action of a few year earlier, and voted for inclusiveness. One great thing about Mainers is that they can learn, grow, change their minds, and have evolving points of view, based on simple reality and common decency ("do unto others", etc.). Not so sure about your folks, though. 50 years after George Wallace personally blocked a door to stop blacks from entering a school, here you are again, thumbing your nose at the United States government, and your fellow citizens. Don't you ever get tired of it?
179
I can assure you, many of us are tired of it. We are not in the majority though. We'll get there eventually. Sigh.
66
And Maine isn't all that free of sin, o, stone caster.
5
I can feel your pain
Roy Moore is big on grandstanding. First, he drew attention to himself with the conspicuously-sized Ten Commandments statue, now igniting a legal showdown over marriage licenses. He is deliberately equating his personal interpretation of faith with his legal obligations, all to falsely present himself as a besieged Christian.
274
Well, maybe, but I always considered him mentally deranged.
24
Actually he's representing 90% of the voters of Alabama who see this, rightfully, as an unwanted intrusion by the federal government.
No one's 14th Amendment rights are effected and there's not a single mention of "marriage" in the Constitution. That makes it a 10th Amendment issue which makes Alabama right and the federal government wrong.
In the long run, this ruling is going to weaken "the rule of law" and like Roe v Wade before it, will be resisted forever.
No one's 14th Amendment rights are effected and there's not a single mention of "marriage" in the Constitution. That makes it a 10th Amendment issue which makes Alabama right and the federal government wrong.
In the long run, this ruling is going to weaken "the rule of law" and like Roe v Wade before it, will be resisted forever.
Roy Moore knows nothing about being a true Christian. Understanding God's love and grace is beyond the hard stone he calls a heart.
6
The claim by some of Alabama's probate judges that they do not "know the law" or " whose direction" to follow is either disingenuous or reflects their incompetence. Ms. Martin's claim to being "neutral" is absurd. I hope respect for the law is resumed swifly in Alabama.
152
Not only that, but the people who are ignoring the federal ruling should be sanctioned. It's quite ironic that the people who are sworn to uphold the law in this case are the ones willingly breaking it.
23
There is no requirement to be a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer to be a probate judge. They deal with minor uncontroversial matters. When ordered by the chief justice of their state to do something they may give it some thought.
I saw Roy Moore speaking of his opposition to same-sex marriage with an inapt analogy of letting fathers marry their daughters and letting mothers marry their sons. There is no such link, and the flawed reasoning emphasizes that the opposition to gay marriage is simple discrimination.
153
I saw the same thing, and my thinking was "Is this really all they got in terms of qualified legal minds?"
26
I always find it odd that many of the more conservative people bang on about freedom and liberty - What they really mean is only for things they approve of.
266
If you lived in the US you would not find it odd at all. In the US being "conservative" or "republican" usually is associated with greed (first and foremost) then, as you correctly observe, 'freedom for all"...THEY believe in.
22
It's a meme. Freedom only means guns.
22
And the freedom for businesses to do as they please without fear of regulation.
14