Alabama Supreme Court halts all same-sex marriages

[shira]

It's almost painful to observe just how backward a state can be. And for those who like their judges activist, just look at some of the statements made in the opinion. I particularly liked:

state courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from, and even contrary to, federal courts," the justices wrote.

Righties, these are YOUR judges. We don't want you telling us about "activist" liberal judges anymore. No "liberal" judge - and I mean NOT ONE - has in recent history denied the primacy of the federal courts. Just look how incredibly stupid your right-wing judges are:

The court said Alabama wasn't bound by what it called the "new definition" of marriage, though gay marriage has "gained ascendancy in certain quarters of the country, even if one of those quarters is the federal judiciary.

How can these idiots not be aware that it's not a "new definition of marriage" that's at issue? What's at issue is that several federal courts have ruled that marriage as defined/restricted by the states such as Alabama violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it grants significant benefits to one class of people which are denied to others, based solely on an immutable characteristic of the one class versus the other.

I also particularly liked this genius statement by an anti-same-sex-marriage lawyer:

We are concerned about the family and the danger that same-sex marriage will have. It will be a devastating blow to the family, which is already struggling.

Can anyone really say such a thing with a straight face? Can anyone even fool themselves into believing such a thing?

The Washington Post version of the article:

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay-marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution does not preclude them from following state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The all-Republican court sided with the argument offered by a pair of conservative organizations when they appealed a decision last month by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade of Mobile, who ruled that both Alabama’s constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Six justices concurred in the 134-page opinion, which wasn’t signed, but the court’s most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, recused himself.

Immediately after Granade’s ruling, Moore told probate judges across the state they were not obliged to issue same-sex marriage licenses. His stance created widespread confusion, prompting some judges to refuse to issue the licenses and others to shut down their operations for all couples, gay and straight, until they could get a clear answer.

Justice Jim Main agreed with the result but said he has concerns about procedural aspects “of this highly unusual case.”

In a dissent, Justice Greg Shaw said it was “unfortunate” that federal courts refused to delay gay marriage in the state until the U.S. Supreme Court could settle the issue nationally. But, Shaw said, the state Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to consider the issue.

The court released the decision while Gov. Robert Bentley and most state leaders were assembled in Montgomery for the state of the state address. A spokeswoman for Bentley said the administration was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

Joe Godfrey, executive director of the Alabama Citizens Action Program, said he was “very excited” about the decision blocking judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“We are concerned about the family and the danger that same-sex marriage will have. It will be a devastating blow to the family, which is already struggling,” Godfrey said.

Godfrey said the decision will give “some stability” in Alabama until the U.S Supreme Court rules later this year. An attorney couples who filed suit to allow gay marriages said the court showed “callous disregard” in the decision and overstepped its bounds by declaring that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional, something the justices hadn’t been asked to consider.

“It is deeply unfortunate that even as nationwide marriage equality is on the horizon, the Alabama Supreme Court is determined to be on the wrong side of history,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The court’s ruling Tuesday came in response to a request from the Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program to halt same-sex unions after Granade’s ruling.

 

[waggy]

just a delay. eventually it is going to be legal across the nation

 

[thraashman]

Violating a federal ruling like this is not within the power of the Alabama Supreme Court. The President should send in the national guard and remove these justices. Fucking backwards redneck Alabama, have they ever been on the correct side of history?

 

[Jaskalas]

In practical terms, all Unions should be treated equal.

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

As a person from alabama. ʰᶦ
Honestly the feds will just change it back. It'll be over the entire nation eventually. *shrugs*

 

[Brainonska511]

In practical terms, all Unions should be treated equal.

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

States are not allowed to violate people's constitutional rights, like equal protection and due process...

States' rights is nonsense in this case - I'm not in favor of trampling long-standing legal precedent because a state is having a temper-tantrum over gay people. Federal Supremacy has long been decided. States don't just get to ignore federal court rulings because they run counter to their own, bastardized views of the Constitution.

 

[CitizenKain]

In practical terms, all Unions should be treated equal.

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

Apparently states rights are more important then civil rights.

 

[K1052]

As a person from alabama. ʰᶦ
Honestly the feds will just change it back. It'll be over the entire nation eventually. *shrugs*

Yea, the Federal Courts are going to squash this like a bug.

Not before the state is once again humiliated, at length, in front of the entire English speaking world though.

 

[Jaskalas]

States are not allowed to violate people's constitutional rights, like equal protection and due process...

I wonder what limits there are, to establishing such new meanings behind equal protection, when everyone was already equally able to enter into marriage as it was defined.

Eliminating the criteria of marriage is not necessary to ensure equal Unions. It's just a means to an end, a means that people resist.

As for Fed supremacy... that's a subject of its own... one which plenty of folks want to revisit. At any opportunity to provide anguish and heartburn on the subject, the South shall surely be there.

 

[trenchfoot]

Methinks it has something to do with Alabama SC judges being painfully aware that they face elections/re-elections every six years.

Would be absolutely wonderful if our judges in the USSC faced the same requirement.

 

[Brainonska511]

Methinks it has something to do with Alabama SC judges being painfully aware that they face elections/re-elections every six years.

Would be absolutely wonderful if our judges in the USSC faced the same requirement.

That would be a horrible idea. The interpretation of the law shouldn't be left to a popularity contest. Sometimes, crappy people get to have a get-out-of-jail free card because their rights were violated to protect everyone's rights or people get to hold onto their unpopular rights.

 

[sportage]

I haven't followed this much, SS marriage in AL that is.
When ruled unconstitutional, was the ruling "stayed"?
If it was, granting licenses should not have happen if in fact a stay was placed on the original ruling.
Even though it's easy to see the point.
Where marriage equality is now a given, water under the bridge, and more so who really cares whom marries whom except for a few morons with a personal ideology axe to grind?

As far as marriage equality goes, it should go to the US supreme court and an unanimous decision be handed down like two minutes later.
Nothing to see here. Nothing to debate. All water under the bridge.
And besides, what's the big deal? Really?
If our nation is really tired of hearing about SS marriage, then just legalize it nation wide and those opposed will hear nothing further about the issue forever more.
Because unless you are Gay, or your child is Gay, or you are invited to a SS marriage, the issue will never affect you (effect you) ever never ever ever again.

It has always been the argument itself over SS marriage as the heated idebate. not the actual act of.
Unless you have one, or invited to one, you'd have a hard time finding one.
Because marriage in itself is as personal and private as picking a car color.
And ones choice of car color has never been put up to a ballot vote.
Well, not outside of Alabama. 😉

 

[zinfamous]

In practical terms, all Unions should be treated equal.

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing,

No, it isn't

you wouldn't understand.

Of course I wouldn't understand such "a thing." such a thing is demonstrably false.

 

[zinfamous]

Methinks it has something to do with Alabama SC judges being painfully aware that they face elections/re-elections every six years.

Would be absolutely wonderful if our judges in the USSC faced the same requirement.

holy fuck no! are you insane? No judges should ever be elected. It is one of the biggest farces of our government.

Fire all elected judges, now; and start appointing new ones if you ask me.

Do you even understand the role of judges? Well, I know who doesn't: Alabama.

 

[DCal430]

From a completely academic standpoint.

I wonder if one could argue that 14th amendment, which nearly all U.S supreme court cases on state laws are based, was ever legally ratified.

We must remember that the losing states in the civil war were basically forced to agree to ratify that 14th amendment as part of the reconstruction period and their surrender.

Can an amendment ratified under duress really be legal and valid.

 

[JEDIYoda]

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

actu8ally no it is not! But your comment just enforces what we already knew--that you do not understand!!

 

[nyker96]

I wanna know what took them so long, was expecting this from these guys last month ;p

 

[trenchfoot]

That would be a horrible idea. The interpretation of the law shouldn't be left to a popularity contest. Sometimes, crappy people get to have a get-out-of-jail free card because their rights were violated to protect everyone's rights or people get to hold onto their unpopular rights.

So then just for clarification, I assume you think Alabama's elective six year terms for their SSC judges is a bad thing, and that having the USSC justices being appointed for life by a sitting president is a good thing?

 

[Moonbeam]

Just another reminder of the power of the CBD. Even federal court decisions can be ignored by the persistent delusions of their altered realities.

 

[Zorba]

So then just for clarification, I assume you think Alabama's elective six year terms for their SSC judges is a bad thing, and that having the USSC justices being appointed for life by a sitting president is a good thing?

Yes

 

[brycejones]

So then just for clarification, I assume you think Alabama's elective six year terms for their SSC judges is a bad thing, and that having the USSC justices being appointed for life by a sitting president is a good thing?

Direct election of judges is one of the dumbest of dumb-fuck ideas.

It forces judges to take positions as well as campaign both things that weaken an institution that should be about interpreting the law.

 

[HomerJS]

In practical terms, all Unions should be treated equal.

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

I think I heard that argument all the way back when this rational was used because," no Federal govt was going to tell us how to deal with our Negros"

 

[trenchfoot]

Direct election of judges is one of the dumbest of dumb-fuck ideas.

It forces judges to take positions as well as campaign both things that weaken an institution that should be about interpreting the law.

OK, thanks for 'splain'in it. Within that context, I agree. :thumbsup:

The reasoning behind my post had more to do with prioritizing term limits rather than having judges pandering their way into/back into office every six years and the negative consequences that would result from that activity.

As an example, our USSC, being heavily politicized and corrupt as it is, would have the effects of being so distorted and contaminated somewhat mitigated via term limits.

So it looks as if that either way, a lot of folks are getting screwed. 😉

Yes

And yes. 🙂

 

[Spungo]

Apparently states rights are more important then civil rights.

I can't wrap my head around the anti-gay mindset. People are demanding more intrusive government?? So basically they want the following:
-The state dictates who you can sleep with.
-The state dictates who you can enter legal contracts with.
-The state dictates what substances you can put in your body.
-The state dictates what you can say.
-The state dictates what information you are allowed to see or hear.
-The state has absolute power over everything.

Forward Soviet!

However, any Judge that tells the Feds to piss off wins points with me. It's a state's rights thing, you wouldn't understand.

Yes, I agree your state has the right to become a communist paradise. It'll suck and people will flee the state, but you have the right to destroy your state as much as you want.

 

[frowertr]

It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...

Country is going to hell. Ruled by a bunch of gosh damn pansies.