Page 18 of 87 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 869

Thread: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

  1. #171
    Educator Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    02-22-15 @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    677

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Or, they really do believe in the Bible.

  2. #172
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    Or, they really do believe in the Bible.
    Lost track of who your "they" refers to - I will assume the judges?


    hmmmm... does it say in the christian bible that god will smite down any probate judge who issues a marriage certificate to a same sex couple? seems pretty specific (smile)

    If they don't want to do their job, they can of course step down. Resign. Let another judge who is willing to do the entire job do it.

    I am impressed by the judges who aren't issuing ANY marriage licenses right now - gay or straight. At least they are spreading the pain to all and being fair about it, even if I disagree with them. Should help get them voted out

  3. #173
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    Or, they really do believe in the Bible.
    That's fine, but the US isn't governed by the Bible, nor any other fictitious writings of old.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #174
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Have fun in line at the unemployment office, your dishonor.
    yep seems like that might happen for a few judges . . . .

    Most Alabama Counties Defy Feds by Blocking Gay Marriage - ABC News
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #175
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    On what grounds?
    Refusal to comply with the supreme court. Again.

    The law is clear, the issue is decided. Same-sex marriage licenses must be issued in Alabama. The Supreme Court of the United States says so. The only avenue at this point is amending the US constitution, or a later Supreme Court ruling in a reversal. (both are pipe dreams at this stage) It's over.

    Anyone in Alabama refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses right now is in violation of the law. This bull**** about holding off "for clarification?" Just that. Bull****. There is no source of possible confusion, the Supreme Court has been incredibly clear and incredibly patient with these people. Next step is charges of contempt and ever-increasing fines until compliance. Possible disbarment of judges who continue to throw a tantrum, replacing them with someone who will follow the law.

    Stop dragging your feet so hard against someone else's rights, Alabama. It's just reconfirming every stereotype about your ignorant, hillybilly ****hole of a state.
    Last edited by Deuce; 02-10-15 at 12:51 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #176
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    What ever happened to state's rights?

    Since when did marriage become a federal priority?


    When some states started denying some people equal rights.




    "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself."
    ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

  7. #177
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Since when did the federal government need to get involved in whether prisoners have the "right" to marry?

    We are so far removed from what the founders of this nation had in mind in terms of how our government is structured, it's ridiculous.
    I don't want the federal government involved with social issues.


    What you want and what we're going to get in the USA are 2 vastly different things.

    Wait and see.

  8. #178
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    since cases like Loving in the 1960s

    And the cases where prisoners got the right to marry as part of their constitutional rights

    States can control things like how the prisoner ceremony happens, but even Charles Manson has the right to marry

    Once marriage is defined as an inalienable right, states can't frack it up anymore by discriminating against couples based on race or gender. Or prison status
    Loving does not apply here, as to apply it one most show that there is both "invidious" discrimination at play (which there isn't) and that the discrimination is an attempt to make a particular class superior (again, which is not the case here): http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...post1064246320.

    And the issue about prisoners being allowed to marry in no way recognized a federal constitutional right to marry, but that the state had no federal grounds to deny either rights or privileges to prisoners that were not specifically denied in the constitution or denial of which constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Rights or privileges not explicitly granted in the constitution are left to the states and the people. Marriage is one of these.

    But, even if marriage was eventually declared a federal constitutional right by some convoluted erroneous reasoning, it's still "marriage", meaning "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". By it's very nature, "marriage" rightly discriminates between a single person by him or her self, three or more people, a man and a little girl, a dog and a cat, .. and a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

    No exceptions can rightly be made with respect to the word "marriage".

    If you want to have private enterprise and government recognition of certain specific domestic partnerships (marriage itself is a civil union domestic partnership legal statute in every state), then each distinct civil union domestic partnership must be defined in detail and identified with an identifying word .. so "homarriage" or the like would be a new civil union domestic partnership "between two same sex people as husband and husband or wife and wife" or whatever.

    But that's rightly up to each state to decide, as there is no federal constitutional even remotely applicable passage in this matter to force states to create specific statutes.

    Justice Thomas is absolutely correct, in that not only is it apparent that the SCOTUS is tipping their hand that the majority will attempt to construe a federal right to the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage" / "same-sex marriage", but that that would obviously be the wrong decision, as though clearly the majority of Americans favor recognition, the majority of Americans also don't support that recognition under the inapplicable term "marriage", and because the SCOTUS simply has no final conclusion as to whether gay is from birth or a conscious choice, they cannot intelligently conclude it's an inalienable right.

    The SCOTUS simply has no rationally intelligent grounds to conclude that "any two people" can "marry", both with respect to definitive propriety, respecting words and their true meaning, constitutionally, and with respect to the majority of Americans who have yet to show that gays marrying is a time-honored cultural reasonable and customary tradition.

    Ultimately, the likely thing the SCOTUS is going to do is to require same-sex union recognition in every state but to let each state decide what to call that particular union. Some states will call it rightly "homarriage", and others will erroneously refer to it as "marriage".

    But the right thing for the SCOTUS to do is to allow recognition in every state but require that it be given a name other than marriage, as it's reasonable and customary for adult humans to bond one-to-one (not polygamously), but there is no reasonable and customary cultural tradition to call such bondings "marriage".

    Again, marriage is a contract, and contract law is the province of the state, not the federal.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #179
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Have you read any American history?

    We're the UNITED STATES, emphasis on STATES. The way things are now, we ought to change the name of our country to the American Federal Republic.

    What the hell does a state do anymore? I'll tell you,
    what we have become is NOT what the original founders had in mind.




    The original founders of the USA fought for freedom for themselves and other white men, not for black slaves and women.

    The USA has come a long ways in a little over 200 years but it still has a little ways to go.

  10. #180
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Refusal to comply with the supreme court. Again.

    The law is clear, the issue is decided. Same-sex marriage licenses must be issued in Alabama. The Supreme Court of the United States says so. The only avenue at this point is amending the US constitution, or a later Supreme Court ruling in a reversal. (both are pipe dreams at this stage) It's over.

    Anyone in Alabama refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses right now is in violation of the law. This bull**** about holding off "for clarification?" Just that. Bull****. There is no source of possible confusion, the Supreme Court has been incredibly clear and incredibly patient with these people. Next step is charges of contempt and ever-increasing fines until compliance. Possible disbarment of judges who continue to throw a tantrum, replacing them with someone who will follow the law.

    Stop dragging your feet so hard against someone else's rights, Alabama. It's just reconfirming every stereotype about your ignorant, hillybilly ****hole of a state.

    Technically speaking that may not be quite true.


    Now any Probate Judge issuing different-sex Civil Marriage Licenses is clearly in violation of the Federal Judges order - don't disagree there.


    However, under Alabama Revised Statutes Title 30, Chapter 1, Section 30-1-9 (Marriage not to be solemnized without license) "Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties." I Probate Judge that is issuing NO license under the law that the issuance of any licenses (the "may" makes it optional) wouldn't technically be in violation of the order, they are exercising an existing option under Alabama law.


    Code Of Alabama

    >>>>

Page 18 of 87 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •