Posted on 03/04/2015 6:54:44 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Montgomery, AL – In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court of Alabama in a 7-1 decision has affirmed natural marriage and ordered Alabama’s probate judges to immediately stop issuing illegal marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The ruling represents a significant shift of momentum in the same-sex marriage agenda, and is a direct challenge to the orders of U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade, who in January purported to overturn Alabama’s marriage laws. The ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court offers the most forceful and clearly articulated rebuttal to date of the imaginative arguments for same-sex “marriage” employed by federal courts.
“The ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court is historic, and is one of the most researched and well reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.
The ruling grants in full Liberty Counsel’s emergency mandamus petition. In the petition and in a subsequent brief, Liberty Counsel demanded on behalf of its Alabama clients – Alabama Policy Institute (“API”) and Alabama Citizens Action Program (“ALCAP”) – that Alabama’s probate judges obey Alabama’s Constitution and laws. As a result of this ruling, Alabama’s probate judges must immediately cease issuing illegal same-sex marriage licenses.
Four probate judges answered Liberty Counsel’s petition, arguing that Alabama citizens have no right or interest in preserving natural marriage. The respondents also claimed that API and ALCAP have no standing, and that the Court has no jurisdiction over this case. But the Supreme Court soundly rejected those arguments, concluding that standing and jurisdiction were proper and citing a truckload of precedent. The Court said: “It could not be clearer that the public — the people of Alabama — have an interest in the respondents’ faithful compliance with Alabama’s marriage laws.” Reinforcing the point, the Court added, “It is beyond question that the duty to issue marriage licenses only in accordance with Alabama law is a duty owed to the public for its benefit. The failure to perform that duty damages the framework of law and institutions the people have chosen for themselves.”
The unlawful issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by Alabama probate judges was the result of federal Judge Callie Granade’s January rulings, when she purported to determine that Alabama’s marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution. Though she had no power to extend her ruling to the entire state, some activist probate judges across Alabama who were not subject to her ruling took it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in clear violation of Alabama law.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling, however, not only restores the rule of law in Alabama, but also forcefully challenges and methodically dismantles the opinion of Judge Granade and other judges who have erroneously held that the U.S. Constitution requires states to redefine marriage:
[W]e find that the provisions of Alabama law contemplating the issuance of marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples do not violate the United States Constitution . . . .
***
[W]hat [Judge Granade] has done is to declare an entirely new concept of “marriage” a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution. It is, plainly and simply, circular reasoning—it assumes the conclusion of the matter, i.e., that marriage as newly defined is a fundamental right, in the premise of the question without acknowledging that a change of terms has occurred.
On its way to affirming natural marriage, the Alabama Supreme Court made several key observations about the historical and societal underpinnings of the marriage institution:
“[M]arriage, as a union between one man and one woman, is the fundamental unit of society.” “[M]arriage has always been between members of the opposite sex. The obvious reason for this immutable characteristic is nature. Men and women complement each other biologically and socially.” “[O]ne legitimate interest behind the laws (among others) is recognizing and encouraging the ties between children and their biological parents.” “Government is concerned with public effects, not private wishes. The new definition of marriage centers on the private concerns of adults, while the traditional definition focuses on the benefits to society from the special relationship that exists between a man and a woman, i.e., the effects for care of children, the control of passions, the division of wealth in society, and so on.” “[I]f love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected . . . .” “[W]hat ultimately is at issue is the entire edifice of family law . . . an edifice that has existed in some form since before the United States was even a country. . . . It is no small thing to wipe away this edifice with a wave of the judicial wand.”
“The legitimacy of the judiciary is undermined when a judge legislates from the bench or usurps the power reserved to the states regarding natural marriage,” said Staver. “This decision of the Alabama Supreme Court is very well reasoned, which is quite rare from today’s courts,” he added. “The decision not only affirms natural marriage but also restores the rule of law,” Staver concluded.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore took no part in the Court’s decision.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
We’d be happy to secede but we need all right minded folks to come with us.
Thank you for posting this. Gods word needs to be clearly stated on this issue.
Also this.
Lev 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination....
25‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.”
Why aren’t the other states doing this!!!
Jeb Bush is not Christian. See recent thread on his support for homosexual marriages.
Because the Republican leaders in those states either have no understanding of the laws of nature and nature’s God, and our Constitution, or they simply don’t care about those things, because they are corrupt cowards.
“Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, federal statutes and federal court decisions shall be overridden.”
I can see this in the case of a federal statute. However, in regards to a “court decision” that has the effect of establishing a new right not seen before or eliminating one that was well established, then the “decision” of the court should be subject to ratification by 3/4th of the states before it can be implemented. It should not take states voting to override...it should be subject to ratification. If enough states do not ratify...it is dead. IMO
If the SCOTUS does, as many of us fear, rule that homosexual marriage is a “right” and must be recognized in all states. Then that decision should be subject to state ratification, because it has the de facto effect of changing the COTUS(amendments require state ratification). Marriage has been the jurisdiction of states since the founding of the union, and definitely since the ratification of the COTUS. How can the SCOTUS reasonably rule otherwise without it requiring ratification. For the court to simply say...well the time is right...etc. is just plain wrong. IF the time is truly right, then let the homosexuals get the laws changed through the legislative (or referendum votes) in each state.
“These Fed judges should have term limits, because they are way out of control.”
Actually, I think federal judges should require “sustaining votes” of the people where they have jurisdiction. The first “sustaining vote” should occur during the first general election, and then every four years thereafter. IF a federal judge does not receive greater than 50% of a sustaining vote, he/she should be unseated permanently in that jurisdiction.
I know that, in theory, judges are supposed to be above politics so they can be impartial upholders of the law. However, it has long become apparent that this just isn’t the case. Therefore, they should be subject to removal by the people they have judicial jurisdiction over.
Anybody that supports abortion or gay marriage does not have the Spirit of Christ within them, as far as I am concerned
Good point and good that you get the general idea that a compact amendment focusing on balancing powers and restoring state suffrage in some form is the key to checking all the social tyranny that the left has perpetrated in the last 100 years.
The next step is to take this example proposed Amendment 28 to your state senator and state representative AFTER you have persuaded them to view the Mark Levin video before ALEC as part of the COS Project which was linked above.
Marriages have to be consumated with the act of sexual intercourse. This is only possible with a man and woman.
"Oh sorry. There is nothing we can do. We only control the congress which controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Sorry. We don't know how that could be useful in this case. Plus, we don't want to do anything the media would attack us for. Wish there was something we could do but there really isn't. Let's just make sad faces and do what Obama tells us to do."
Yeah. No kidding.
Secession is the only answer.
Our enemies want our dissolution.
As for me, I will fight to my last breath to save the Union; entire, and intact.
“The legitimacy of the judiciary is undermined when a judge legislates from the bench or usurps the power reserved to the states regarding natural marriage,”
This really is a key issue here, how can you respect a bunch of tyrants in black robes who simply wave their wands to wipe away centeriese of law and institutional order in favor of some extremely new and unprecedented idea?
If the Federal Constitution ever prohibited the definition of marriage you would think someone would have noticed between 150 and 200 years ago. This is where perhaps one of the key rules of common law comes into place, Past practice and tradition being the observed rule to keep ‘judges’ from legislation.
But of course the only aspect of Common law such tyrants insist on upholding is to effect the enforcement of their own edicts by other judges. We have a word for that in the English language, its called hypocritical legislative corruption not justice.
It is the greatest failing of our government and perhaps the society around it that we tolerate this highly destructive and anti-republican form of corruption to the extent that we actually honor & respect such clearly lawless edicts. Doing so empowers such dictators and encourages still more lawlessness undermining the very possibility of a free and civil Government of the people limited by written Constitutional law.
Thus contrary to what lawyers say people who uphold such edicts are not upholding the law as written 150 years ago but changing that law as rewritten 10 minutes ago by an unelescted Federal employee in a black robe. That is not democracy, nor is it Republican Constitutionalism in any form. That is tyranny and it will lead only to more tyranny by the same means not law & order.
The judicial supremacist lie is destroying the republic. I’ve been preaching that for years now, but for somebody not to see it at this point it’s pretty much got to be willful blindness.
I was reading an article today about how Roy Moore says two Supreme Justices (you can guess the two) have preformed gay marriages themselves and should resign themselves from giving an opinion this summer. Roy is right, he himself did not vote this last edict released from Alabama and they shouldn’t either. Brilliant move IMHO.
In a recent letter to the Editor of a local newspaper ...
“They love each other; who are you to deny them happiness?”
“They love each other; who are you to deny them happiness?” So goes the mantra of the humanist mind … Human feelings are subjectively relevant, but hardly sound rationale for making decisions.
In the matter of “same-sex marriage” ontological truth is the sole judge of facts, and these principles must guide our response. “You must come to terms with the new reality!” Wrong. Here are the immutable terms of Divine reality – Sacramental Marriage is the indissoluble union of one man and one woman. It was not man who instituted marriage, but God. Carried to its end the recognition of same-sex marriage would create a society without bloodlines, without authentic familial bonds, without genealogy. The essential nature of the marraige, whose object is the sustainment of the human race, makes human feelings a minor subscript.
What is matrimony? The word, derived from the Latin and French, translates to “Office of the Mother” or “State of being a Mother.” (This is not to be construed as intending disdain for childless marriages. That such cases arise, whether by accident or intent, does not change the nature of marriage.) By definition marriage has a natural end – a divinely intended purpose – that is subverted by what the misinformed assert to be an “alternate but equal” form. This redefinition eventually places validity on any kind of union; and the acceptance of such opens the door to calling any pairing a marriage – including adult with child, child with child, human with animal, human with non-sentient life (plants), or even with non-life (inanimate objects). Moreover, it denies the anatomical, physiological and psychological realities that prove the mutually beneficial and complementary purpose of the sexes (Note I write sexes, not “gender” – a grammatical term, used to ascribe the personal pronouns of a sex: he, she, him, her). Two men or two women may sincerely love each other, but affection does not constitute marriage, and nor could man ever make subjective accidents its substitute. What same-sex marriage proposes is the institutionalization of a non-life affirming union that is intrinsically disordered; because such coupling is inherently sterile, and contrary to the intended purpose for which the design of the two sexes verifies, and for which authentic matrimony provides the best environment.
Many today are quick to boast the catchall of “human rights,” so to justify numerous falsehoods ... To which I reply: What of God’s Rights? The insistence that “we come to terms with this practice” requires us to accept that which is contrary to human life as being equal to that which propagates and nurtures life. What advocates of same-sex marriage demand is that we provide legitimacy to an aberration, that we make no distinction between reality and fantasy, truth and deception – that we bear false witness against our neighbor. To comply with their demands requires that we deny both the biological facts and the ontological principles to which nature itself testifies. Rational minds can no more submit to such insanity than they could deny existence of the stars. Respect for basic truth should give sufficient reason to not follow this latest design of the humanist movement.
Recent revelations, made by those who push for the redefinition of humanity’s most fundamental root, confirm that the true purpose of codifying same-sex marriage is not to advance some novel notion of “equality,” as has been continually asserted by its advocates; but rather the purpose is that, in conquering this one obstacle – the divinely-instituted sacramental compact that reserves marriage to the union of one man and one woman – the real prize sought, legitimizing homosexual behavior, may be won. In other words, the “gay marriage” banner is a disingenuous facade, based on a false pretense of prejudice, a false premise of fairness, and whose true goal is the undermining of ordered society for the sake of legitimizing destructive behavior.
The idea that we must “accept” a false paradigm, that we must defer good judgment and give our assent to that which is inevitably destructive to the body and the eternal soul, is repulsive. It is repulsive because it demands we do that which is opposed to love. Indifference – not hate – is the true opposite of love. (The parable of The Good Samaritan illustrates this point.) To be indifferent to the truth for the sake of human affection or respect is hypocrisy and grave sin. It is uncharitable, and thus unjust. If we truly “love our neighbor,” then we cannot be indifferent to what is contrary to his best interests – both in this life and eternity. We perhaps cannot help the accidents of life: who we are attracted to, and who we may come to love; but human circumstance does not justify legitimizing what is contrary to nature and God’s Law. Some may protest: “What shall you say when your child tells you he or she intends to marry another of the same sex.” I reply: What will you say, friend, in defense of this supposed union, when you stand before God? “They love each other; who are you to deny them happiness?” That truth is what sits at the crux of the matter.
Outstanding.
Thanks.
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.