Posted on 03/09/2016 5:07:21 AM PST by HomerBohn
I’m right there with you, buddy.
They have no credibility because they lied.
All this order does is dismiss a request by several private parties to enforce prior orders of the court on some probate judges. The order reinforces the court’s prior orders for judges not to issue homosexual marriage licenses. They stood their ground while dismissing a request that should have been dismissed; private parties cannot make requests on behalf of the government.
GO ALABAMA!
State’s Rights BUMP!
This case will obviously go to SCOTUS, which will summarily reverse the Alabama Supreme Court. If the Alabama Supreme Court then continues to defy SCOTUS, this will get much more interesting.
Civil unions are simply marriages under a different name. I care more about the substance.
Freedom begins with the word “no”.
“Civil unions” were offered up as a compromise,
but the homosexuals insisted it HAD TO BE CALLED MARRIAGE.
Now that exposes that the legalities of a marriage weren’t the impetus for this destruction of the definition of marriage,
but the destruction of marriage as an institution was the goal all along.
No, they don't. They just confer legitimacy where there is none.
And, do you think they will just stop at "civil unions?"
Let the USSC enforce their “law.” I’d like to see that.
Amen. The same fascist recognition required from others will be required for civil unions as for "marriages." Likely, there would be no substantive difference. It's like calling strychnine "wine."
Bttt
This is just a matter of reading and comprehending what the court says, and in this case, is a simple matter of understanding the order.
This is a good article, and robust.
The author might have included AJ Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence opinion, which was criticized at the time for being, like his Obergefell opinion discussed here, captious, arbitrary, and free from legal and precedential foundations. The Supreme Court's opinion on Georgia's sodomy law, handed down in the 1986 Bowers vs. Hardwick case, was still fresh and smudgy, in Supreme Court terms, when Kennedy wrote his precedent-free Lawrence bagatelle.
One of the dissenting criticisms of Kennedy's de novo rewrite of American law has been that he had addressed none of the issues decided in Bowers vs. Hardwick but had instead written as if there had never been a consideration before of the matters at issue.
Kennedy totally disregarded precedent in order to rewrite all U.S. laws on homosexuality from a partial, partisan, legal-positivist perspective, viz., that he knew the right answers and everyone else, going back 210 years, had been wrong ab initio.
This was the role for which Kennedy's closet-case mentor had prepared him years before. Both Obergefell and Lawrence are, therefore, reversal-bait for a better Court appointed by a better President, a real U.S. President.
If the court really had decided to defy SCOTUS, this would be front page news across the country. (Indeed, someone up thread was puzzled why it was not.) It would be an unprecedented move by a state, or at least one without precedent since the Civil War. But the court didn't and it's not front page news. It's not even much in the way of news. I have no idea why Liberty Counsel trumpeted this as a victory. It's not.
Oh, no..... no, no, no. Nay nay, good Sir, covering the issue as if matters were still in controversy would be contrary to GLAAD lesbogay news-management practice.
Questions have all been settled, we win! And bla, bla, bla. And now shut up! No more issues!
The gay mediots (but I repeat myself) are like a football crowd whose team has just scored a go-ahead field goal with 3:45 left in the game. They'd like the game to end right there.
However, if it stands that the AL SCOTUS can nullify the US SCOTUS, then any state SCOTUS can nullify ANY US SCOTUS decision they disagree with.
By dismissing the petitions, Alabama has effectively accepted Obergefell as valid case law in Alabama. Moore was one of the minority justices.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0W62PT
Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.
Note the highlighted portion. The Alabama Supreme Court already upheld the State's gay-marriage ban, in defiance of Obergefell v. Hodges. This decision did not disturb the earlier decision.
Not necessarily. The Alabama SC decision is rightly based on a strict originalist reading of the US Constitution while rejecting the current trend of judicial activism of SCOTUS.
Alabama is merely refusing to join SCOTUS in granting itself powers (legislative) outside of those rightly apportioned to the judiciary.
Courts have no right to change law or create new laws. Period.
Doing so usurps the role of elected state legislatures and the US Congress.
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.