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."
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.