Posted on 03/07/2016 3:14:17 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court on Monday overturned an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that said the state should not recognize a lesbian mother’s adoption of three children in neighboring Georgia.
The court overturned the decision without scheduling the case for oral arguments and full briefing. It said the Alabama high court’s decision ignored long-standing precedent that state courts must recognize legitimate rulings by courts in other states.
The justices already had granted a stay request from one of the mothers, identified in court papers as V.L. The Alabama high court said Georgia courts violated their own state laws in granting the adoptions of the children V.L. shared with her former partner, and thus she did not deserve custody or even visitation with the children.
[...]
“The Georgia judgement appears on its face to have been issued by a court with jurisdiction, and there is no established Georgia law to the contrary,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned opinion in which there were no recorded dissents.
“It follows that the Alabama Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant that judgment full faith and credit.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
SCOTUS.
Ping
I feel sorry for those poor kids. No father in sight. But the homosexual agenda must not be denied.
Does this apply to the 2nd Amendment case that may arise between citizens of one State while traveling in another State while Exercising said RIGHT??
Nullify. There is no reason why the state shouldn’t just ignore the Supreme Court ruling.
So if another state rules that homos are possessed by demons, we are all just supposed to accept it?
(Makes as much sense as claiming men are women and vice versa.)
I try to use the term "Big Anus" as often as the topic comes up.
These judges had no effort to read the evidence.
They stated that there is long standing , and yet if one court rules like AL does not recognize them then surely all states are the same are they now?
The courts are at odds with natural law. Over the last several years, I have come to learn that "natural law" is what the nation was founded upon, and we have long since left it.
When nature snaps back, it's gonna be a real bad situation.
Then some wonder why many people today have mental issues.
Hell growing up with homosexuals, cross dressers etc and not a father in sight only brings mental illness on these poor kids.
If the courts in the state where you live say you are divorced, you do not have to re-file for a divorce if you move to another state. Same with marriage, adoption, and other "status" decisions. That is what the "full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution requires. That is a long-settled rule, which is why this was an 8-0 summary reversal.
This ruling doesn't mean that Alabama has to allow gay people in Alabama to adopt children; it means that if Georgia allows gay people in Georgia to adopt children, the adoption still stands if they move to Alabama.
Why wasn’t the shoe on the other foot. Why was Georgia allowed to rule contrary to Alabama’s law?
Why don’t the rest of us have to honor Colorado’s drug laws?
These people don’t use law. They make it up as they go.
Because the people were living in Georgia when they adopted the child.
Why don’t the rest of us have to honor Colorado’s drug laws?
If you live in Alabama, travel to Colorado and smoke pot there, then go back to Alabama, Alabama can't prosecute you for smoking pot in Colorado.
I think you missed the point.
The ruling was that Alabama had to follow Georgia’s law.
Why not force Georgia to follow Alabama’s law?
No, you missed the point.
The ruling did not say that Alabama had to follow Georgia law. The ruling said that Alabama had to follow the Georgia court's ruling.
Georgia courts follow Georgia law in ruling on the status (marriage, divorce, adoption) of Georgia residents. If that status has been determined by a final court ruling in Georgia, other states must follow that court ruling if the people involved move to another state.
If you read the article, you will see that Alabama never even tried to claim that Alabama law applied here (because the adoption had taken place in Georgia). The Alabama court said that it was going to ignore the Georgia court's ruling because it thought that the Georgia court had incorrectly applied Georgia law. Alabama has no power to do that, which is why SCOTUS slapped them down 8-0. If Justices Thomas and Alito think you're wrong, you may be missing something.
The above is what I read.
Yes— “court rulings.”
Very sick when our “Just Laws” promote such evil vile behaviors which deny the Natural Right of children to have their biological mother and father. Anything that undermines the Natural Duty inherent in ALL Natural Rights are unjust and evil “laws”. There is no “natural right” to deny a child their biological parent-—it is dehumanization and vile “law” which is always unconstitutional.
It is dehumanization and selling of babies for a perverted, irrational warped Reality-—so they can never embed Common Sense and will always have a unnatural warped understanding of human interactions and fundament sexual identity confusion-—much like the harem boys in Afghanistan. They will permanently have a unnatural, irrational, feeling toward males because of this evil satanic decision.
This promotion of vice and unnatural dehumanizing “sexual” acts is the promotion of Satanism (an unconstitutional promotion of a evil religion of dehumanization.).
All Just Laws have to promote “public virtue” in the USA-—and laws that promote the vile unnatural acts of homosexuals are abominations. Our Laws are based on Natural Laws and God’s Laws-—not irrational vice and sick perversions of nature.
I assume they're ruling on some law and not just shooting from the hip....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.