Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion
Freedom Outpost ^ | 3/7/2016 | Tim Brown

Posted on 03/09/2016 5:07:21 AM PST by HomerBohn

On Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the US Supreme Court's marriage opinion and basically told them to take a hike in favor of following the Alabama Constitution and Alabama law.

On March 4, 2016, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered that all probate judges cease and desist in issuing marriage licenses to sodomies.

The court issued its 170-page ruling in favor of Petition for Mandamus by Liberty Counsel.

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said, "The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today's opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court's marriage opinion 'illegitimate' will be remembered in history like the 'shot heard around the world."

"The Alabama Supreme Court has openly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 marriage opinion, labeling it 'illegitimate' and without legal or precedential authority. This is a clear victory for the rule of law and an historic decision by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Judgement makes permanent the Alabama Supreme Court's order prohibiting probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Alabama Supreme Court has rejected the illegitimate opinion of five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court," added Staver.

Both Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker criticized the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Oberkfell case.

"I agree with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, that the majority opinion in Obergefell has no basis in the law, history, or tradition of this country," wrote Moore. "Obergefell is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority that usurps the legislative prerogative of the states to regulate their own domestic policy. Additionally, Obergefell seriously jeopardizes the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

He then went on to call out the judiciary's tyranny in their opinion.

"Based upon arguments of 'love,' 'commitment,' and 'equal dignity' for same-sex couples, five lawyers, as Chief Justice Roberts so aptly describes the Obergefell majority, have declared a new social policy for the entire country," Chief Justice Moore added. "As the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito eloquently and accurately demonstrate in their dissents, the majority opinion in Obergefell is an act of raw power with no ascertainable foundation in the Constitution itself. The majority presumed to legislate for the entire country under the guise of interpreting the Constitution."

"The Obergefell majority presumes to amend the United States Constitution to create a right stated nowhere therein," he concluded. "That is a lawless act."

Moore also referenced the framers of the Constitution in his remarks.

"I submit that our Founders knew a lot more about freedom than [Justice Kennedy's opinion] indicates," Moore wrote. "They secured the freedoms we enjoy, not in judicial decrees of newly discovered rights, but in the Constitution and amendments thereto. That a majority of the Court may identify an "injustice" that merits constitutional correction does not dispense with the means the Constitution has provided in Article V for its own amendment."

"Although the Court could suggest that the Constitution would benefit from a particular amendment, the Court does not possess the authority to insert the amendment into the Constitution by the vehicle of a Court opinion and then to demand compliance with it."

Indeed, our founding fathers dealt quite harshly with sodomites. They would never have allowed these people to have a voice in the political process, much less advance an agenda to sodomize America by perverting the definition of marriage.

Justice Moore then gave wise counsel to sodomites who claim that they can engage in sodomy and be dignified in marriage.

"Historically, consummation of a marriage always involved an act of sexual intimacy that was dignified in the eyes of the law. An act of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, by contrast, was considered 'an infamous crime against nature' and a 'disgrace to human nature.' Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity."

Indeed, I wish more people understood that liberty is not the ability to do what the law condemns, but to do what is right before our Creator. May God bless the Alabama Supreme Court!

Matt Staver concluded, "Justices and judges are bound to interpret the U.S. Constitution. When they write opinions that have no legal foundation, then their opinions lack legal legitimacy. That is what the five lawyers did on the U.S. Supreme Court in the marriage opinion. They ignored the Constitution, the Court's precedents, and millennia of human history. Their opinion calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. When we the people lose trust in the Justices, the authority of the Supreme Court is undermined. If the people accept this 5-4 opinion, then we have transitioned to a despotic form of government. The people must now decide if we are governed by the rule of law or the whim of unelected judges."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: 10th; alabama; amendment; gay; homosexualagenda; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: HomerBohn

Great. Time for states to take their rights back.


41 posted on 03/09/2016 9:35:35 AM PST by American Guesser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

I understand where you’re coming from on this, but I honestly think that reconfirming justices via popular vote would simply lead to conservatives being ejected. The campaign to eject Scalia, for example, would have been vile and likely effective.

At no time did the founding fathers want our country ruled by a mob, and went to great lengths to create a government which wasn’t.


42 posted on 03/09/2016 9:38:09 AM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: refermech
"Civil war is brewing."

You can say that again.

43 posted on 03/09/2016 9:39:15 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

This part of the article (below) is especially just wonderful! Thank you, Justice Moore:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Justice Moore then gave wise counsel to sodomites who claim that they can engage in sodomy and be dignified in marriage.

“Historically, consummation of a marriage always involved an act of sexual intimacy that was dignified in the eyes of the law. An act of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, by contrast, was considered ‘an infamous crime against nature’ and a ‘disgrace to human nature.’ Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity.”

Indeed, I wish more people understood that liberty is not the ability to do what the law condemns, but to do what is right before our Creator. May God bless the Alabama Supreme Court!


44 posted on 03/09/2016 9:41:55 AM PST by Repent and Believe ("...to neglect to confound evil men...is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

This is so friggin AWESOME!!


45 posted on 03/09/2016 9:44:48 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

I’m SHOCKED this isn’t front page news. WAY TO GO ALABAMA. It’s time someone call out these activists for legislating from the bench.


46 posted on 03/09/2016 9:53:12 AM PST by JerseyDvl (Hillary's a criminal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
I understand it's confusing to some or apparently a lot of people, but you're quite wrong.

The order dismisses "all pending motions and petitions" -- and those pending motions and petitions sought to have the Alabama Supreme Court defy Obergefell and grant relief from having to issue gay marriage certificates.

Everything written after the simple statement of dismissal consists simply of concurrences in the dismissal by several individual justices. Moore's lengthy concurrence makes it confusing, because he goes to great lengths to express his vehement disagreement with Obergefell, and at the end states his belief that the March 2015 order upholding the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act still stands. Then he immediately (and even more confusingly) states that he concurs in the dismissal.

The concurrence by Justice Stuart on the following page (p. 106) lets one know what the upshot is of Moore's confusing concurrence/dissent/whatever you want to call it:

Motions and petitions are dismissed without explanation by this Court for numerous reasons as a matter of routine. When a Justice issues a writing concurring in or dissenting from an order summarily dismissing a pending motion or petition the writing expresses the explanation for the vote of only the Justice who issues the writing and of any Justice who joins the writing. Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.
Bottom line: Moore is speaking for himself, and the petitioners do not get a declaration that the March 2015 order affords them relief from having to grant gay marriage licenses. That order, as Justice Shaw makes clear in his concurrence (p. 146), "no longer has a field of operation or any legal effect."

Carry on.

47 posted on 03/09/2016 9:53:43 AM PST by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

“makes homosexuality and lesbianism appear unwholesome.”

Appearances be damned, it is an abomination period.


48 posted on 03/09/2016 10:02:15 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

It’s about time a state government stood up to the federal homosexual mafia led by Obama himself.

Liberals are always telling us that the constitution is a living, flexible document that can mean anything until they get a verdict that they like, which they suddenly say the rule is in affect forever.

About time they got some much needed push back.


49 posted on 03/09/2016 10:02:44 AM PST by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Good to read. Now, if they’d follow suite vs. O’Care, BLM, 2nd Amendment....


50 posted on 03/09/2016 10:02:51 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Ping for later


51 posted on 03/09/2016 10:03:05 AM PST by twin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

See my #29.


52 posted on 03/09/2016 10:07:49 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Its time we take our freedom back. Thank you Alabama SC !


53 posted on 03/09/2016 10:11:03 AM PST by Carry me back (.Cut the feds by 90%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

Please communicate in non-legal terms for those of us who don’t know legal context. Thanks.


54 posted on 03/09/2016 10:12:39 AM PST by bkopto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Read my post again. Pay special attention to the block quotation from Justice Stuart's concurrence. What you quote from is from Chief Justice Moore's concurrence -- and as Justice Stuart says, it's only his opinion. The petitions asking the court to go against Obergefell are dismissed.

But what do I know? I'm only an attorney.

55 posted on 03/09/2016 10:13:14 AM PST by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bkopto
Sorry. It's hard some times. This article that was linked in the middle of the thread is correct. The posted article that is the subject of this thread is flatly incorrect. As the correct article states (in non-legalese): "The Alabama Supreme Court this morning dismissed petitions by the Alabama Policy Institute, the Alabama Citizens Action Program and Elmore County's probate judge that had sought a landmark ruling declaring the state's prohibition on gay marriage still stands in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court."
56 posted on 03/09/2016 10:16:43 AM PST by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

“But what do I know? I’m only an attorney. “

Which is why we have courts...no two attorneys can agree on anything, much less what the law says.


57 posted on 03/09/2016 10:19:50 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

10th Amendment how it was meant to be interpreted.


58 posted on 03/09/2016 10:23:33 AM PST by wastedyears (uchikudake - toki michite - ikiru tame - tokihanate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

What you claim is on page 106 isn’t on that page. It is on page 107.

Page 106:
“As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence,
the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this Court that uphold the
constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and
the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as
explained above, I concur.”


59 posted on 03/09/2016 10:27:09 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn; All

I commend the Alabama Supreme Court for taking a stand against the tyranny of state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

On the other hand, the chain of events leading to the Alabama Supreme Court’s action possibly would never have happened if parents were making sure that their children were being taught about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty.


60 posted on 03/09/2016 10:33:51 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson