Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages from starting in Alabama

FOXNEWS.COM ^ | 2/9/2015 | AP

[alancarp]

Link only, due to AP source.

[PapaNew]

The Constitution and state sovereignty were not repealed by the Civil War. The Civil War itself was actually an unconstitutional act by Lincoln.

Ex Post Facto, the reconstruction amendments "validated" at least the eventual declared purpose of the Civil War, but the Slaughterhouse Cases set precedent that 14A limited federal interference ONLY to prohibiting state laws that required segregating ex-slaves.

[Nextrush]

If Jeb had been unwilling to save Terri Schiavo’s life almost ten years ago, W should have done just that.

[DoodleDawg]

The law is clear as can be. Regardless of whether or not the federal judge is right on the underlying ruling, there's no way a State Supreme Court judge can overturn a federal judge.

But state probate judges are supposed to be responsible to the state Supreme Court. So any fallout should be on Moore's shoulders. But on the other hand they are also supposed to uphold the law so I can see their dilemma.

If Alabama tries to nullify the ruling, they will lose -- if necessary with federal marshals or a federalized National Guard.

I'll agree that they'll probably lose on any nullification, though the idea of federal marshals or troops is soooo 1960's. I highly doubt it'll come to that.

[alancarp]

I would not at all be surprised if:
(a) the vote ends up 6-3 this Summer;
(b) the Left gloats over that result, suggesting that it ‘isolates’ the 3 originalists on the court.

[PapaNew]

I don't like it. The the 20th-Century Fabian-Socialist Marxists have used "Incorporation Doctrine" without constitutional-based explanation, to overturn Slaughterhouse and expand federal power.

The response at this point is state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts and decisions (possibly followed by the long shot of a successful Article V Convention of States that somehow forces the unconstitutional portion of the federal government (my estimate=about 80%) to shut down - not likely to happen).

The problem is the totalitarian federal government which has completely loosed from the Constitution. The solution to restore freedom and limited government is restoration of the Constitution. The states are the battleground for the preservation of the Constitution IMO.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This isn’t the same. Stop making ludicrous specious comparisons.

[DogWrangler]

What’s wrong with that?

Seriously, either we believe in state rights and sovereignty or we don’t. Does our support for state rights evaporate when the states do things we don’t like? If it does, then that’s not support for state sovereignty - it’s support for particular policies.

I’ve been saying this for a while now. If you support the right of a state to set its own policies regarding marriage, then you necessarily oppose Loving v. Virginia - whether you think the Virginia law itself was good or bad.

This is like support for free speech. Do we support free speech only when it’s speech we agree with? Of course not. Do we support state sovereignty only when it results in our preferred outcome? I certainly hope not, because that’s expediency, not principle.

[ohioman]

This is worth fighting for and I stand 100% behind Alabama. Of course, my greatest fear is that someone will cave. I do know that Judge Roy Moore will fight.

[Amendment10]

I wonder what effect Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore is having on this.

FR: Alabama chief justice: Don't issue gay marriage licenses

[MarkRegal05]

One thing that really peeves me is that our elected officials are largely silent on this issue. Aside from a smattering of noise from Moore and a few others, we’ve gotten crickets from our Congressional “leaders.”

It’s almost as though one’s balls are removed upon being sworn into office, and it pisses me off to no end. Why adopt this as a national party platform policy if you’re not going to actually fight to uphold it?

[Red Steel]

Top Alabama judge orders state to ignore federal gay marriage rulings

February 08, 2015 at 9:11 PM, updated February 09, 2015 at 12:26 AM

"Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore late Sunday ordered all probate judges and employees in Alabama to follow existing state law and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or recognize same-sex marriages.

Couples across the state are preparing to wed Monday morning, when a stay on same-sex marriages is set to be lifted.

On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade ruled the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages entered in other states was unconstitutional. She issued a stay, putting her ruling on hold until Feb. 9.

Since then, Moore has asserted several times probate judges who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples would be doing so in defiance of state law.

In his order issued Sunday night, Moore wrote that if any probate judge defies the order, Governor Robert Bentley would have the responsibility of ensuring that state law is "faithfully executed."

He has also said that the judges are not bound by the orders issued in that case, Searcy v. Strange. Instead, he said, probate judges fall under the direct supervision and authority of the chief justice.

He contends that the district court that issued a ruling striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban has not issued an order directed to probate judges, who are not bound by the opinions of that court. ..."

-snip-

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/alabama_chief_justice_roy_moor_4.html

[444Flyer]

Homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy. Sodomy is being politically weaponized here. Eventually, they want the entire culture to succumb and surrender to their tactics. This isn't about marriage, it's about the destruction and dismissing of the traditional God-ordained union between one man and one woman. It's about corrupting and brainwashing your children and their generation. It's about immoral perversion, debasement and indecency being elevated and our Judeo-Christian foundation being destroyed.

[PapaNew]

As far as I’m concerned, those are the right questions and the standard is the Constitution as to whether a state should obey or nullify a federal act. The states must begin the process of good-faith efforts to test questionable federal acts by applying original text, understanding and intent of the Constitution to those acts and reject those that fail the test.

[Dalek]

It was, and is, wrong to discriminate against blacks, or any other group, based on the color of their skin because that is an immutable characteristic.

(insert Michael Jackson joke here)

[Dalek]

The judicially-activist (i.e. in clear defiance of the language and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment) Slaughterhouse cases laid the groundwork, in that they were inevitably overturned, thus creating an opening for constitutional interpretation that erred as far in the other direction.

[Regal]

“There are many possible lifestyle choices — are we now going to posit that from now on, whatever sexual proclivities and actions certain individuals want to participate in are beyond the power of a state to prohibit?”
__________

The Love Ruling overturning a state law that forbad inter-racial marriage held that the state must have a compelling interest if it wants to regulate marriage. As morality has been ruled not to be a compelling interest, the argument against homosexual marriage has always been, “What is the state’s compelling interest in keeping two consenting adults from marrying each other?” As no one has been able to specify an aggrieved party-who get’s hurt?, than the compelling interest is hard to define.

[PapaNew]

Unfortunately, the 14A was famously badly and hastily written. However, despite what law schools might teach, Slaughterhouse (1873) was certainly not judicial activism but had sound constitutional reasoning as to the best findings of the intent of the ratifiers of the 14A passed five years earlier. Of course, as with almost all SCOTUS activity in the 20th Century, the overturning decades later of Slaughterhouse precedent had no constitutional-based explanation.

[PapaNew]

State nullification of unconstitutional federal laws is where where we are now in defense of the Constitution and freedom.

A lot of people seem to have given up on their freedom without a shot being fired!?

It is so easy to lose freedom and so difficult to regain it. Our freedom is God-given, but can and will be stopped by larcenous man if given the chance. We have to fight for what is rightfully ours.

[DoodleDawg]

State nullification of unconstitutional federal laws is where where we are now in defense of the Constitution and freedom.

And that hasn't worked very well in the past.