• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gay Marriage Showdown

Mike

Well-known member
The Alabama Supreme Court Tuesday (3/3/15)ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, creating a potential constitutional crisis in the state.

U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade struck down the state's 1998 and 2006 same-sex marriage bans in two separate decisions late last month, saying they violated same-sex couples' 14th Amendment equal protection and due process rights. However, the Alabama Supreme Court, writing that "state courts may interpret United States Constitution from, and even contrary to, federal courts," ruled that the bans were not intended to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

"Traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender: All men and all women are equally entitled to enter the institution of marriage," the justices wrote. "Only by redefining the term "marriage" to mean something it is not (and in the process assuming an answer as part of the question), can this statement be challenged. Put in the negative, traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because all men and all women are equally restricted to marriage between the opposite sexes. "

The opinion echoed many arguments previously made by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has fought same-sex marriage in the state. The opinion gave other probate judges five days to explain to the court why they should not have to discontinue the practice.

Seven justices joined the opinion. One concurred in part; one dissented.

LGBT groups quickly criticized the ruling.

"The Alabama state Supreme Court does not have the authority to interfere with a federal court order," said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow in a statement. "This order is outrageous and baffling, and no amount of legalese can hide the bare animus that forms the foundation of this extralegal ruling."

The legal status of the hundreds of same-sex marriage couples who have already married in Alabama was not immediately clear.

The justices of the Alabama Supreme Court all attended the annual State of the State speech Tuesday evening. They declined to answer reporters' questions about their ruling. State officials who attended the speech were caught off guard by the decision, handed down late on Tuesday.

The opinion also ruled about being in love, as a reason same-sex individuals should be allowed to marry.

"Under this theory, a person has a right to marry the person he or she loves regardless of that person's gender. This notion has broad public appeal and is, perhaps, the mantra most repeated in public discussions of this matter," the opinion states.

But then it goes on to say that love is not a legal factor – that no state requires people to be in love to be married and that "moreover, if love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected."
 

Steve

Well-known member
I think it is about time for the states to take back some of the power the fed has taken over the years..
 

Mike

Well-known member
81% of the voters in the State voted that marriage be between men & women. Then one Federal tries to throw that out. I hope it comes down to a fight. It's time.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Damn right. Like I've said before, it's largely about gay men being on equal footing to adopt. IMO, risky situation to put children in.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Worse than risky. Large percentage a homosexual relationships of both sexes are abusive. Then add in that somewhere in 80's percent range of male homosexual relationships not only have "infidelity" but condone it. So putting kids in a situation where it's very likely not just perverse dad and perverse dad but all their perverse flings is brilliant. And that's the more stable ones.

We need to do a better job protecting our country's children.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
81% of the voters in the State voted that marriage be between men & women. Then one Federal tries to throw that out. I hope it comes down to a fight. It's time.

I noticed few liberals are screaming for a democracy in this case..

democracy ends up being mob rule.. a republic such as ours protects the GOD given rights of the individual..

which is why this case will in the long run go towards the liberals re-defined perception of what a marriage is.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Steve said:
Mike said:
81% of the voters in the State voted that marriage be between men & women. Then one Federal tries to throw that out. I hope it comes down to a fight. It's time.

I noticed few liberals are screaming for a democracy in this case..

democracy ends up being mob rule.. a republic such as ours protects the GOD given rights of the individual..

which is why this case will in the long run go towards the liberals re-defined perception of what a marriage is.

Not only did the voters vote on it here for the State Constitutional Amendment requirements, the Legislature passed it into law by a huge margin. No way this could be construed as mob rule.

How's that for busting a state's sovereignty all to hell?
 

cowman52

Well-known member
Its way past time for states to stand up to the federal judges. You want to legalize gay marriage, get yore a$$ down here and issue all the licenses you want.more the better. Don't like the way the clerks office does business, take it over. You will last about 30 seconds in this job. The Feds gonna put the national guard in charge, find 1000 rent a clerks to stamp the application, what good is that, still not worth the paper it's written on.

Solution is simple.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
Steve said:
Mike said:
81% of the voters in the State voted that marriage be between men & women. Then one Federal tries to throw that out. I hope it comes down to a fight. It's time.

I noticed few liberals are screaming for a democracy in this case..

democracy ends up being mob rule.. a republic such as ours protects the GOD given rights of the individual..

which is why this case will in the long run go towards the liberals re-defined perception of what a marriage is.

Not only did the voters vote on it here for the State Constitutional Amendment requirements, the Legislature passed it into law by a huge margin. No way this could be construed as mob rule.

How's that for busting a state's sovereignty all to hell?

I was just showing how many liberals are hypocrites..
 

Latest posts

Top