• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama Justice Roy Moore's legal reasoning on marriage is sound

Two bad the two lawyers who wrote letters to the LA Times from the whole city of LA and surrounding areas of LA are wrong.
 
In what respect?

Not in a legal respect. In a "he doesn't like it" respect.

NY Times had a piece out today saying basically the same thing. SCOTUS dicked this one up.
 
The Alabama opinion failed to demonstrate any causal link (aka rational relation) between banning same sex marriages and the cited government interests. That is to say, the ban doesn't actually further those interests in any way. They are not rationally related. The reasoning is not sound in any way. It is completely without legal basis or factual support and is ultimately just an arbitrary decision based on this one unelected official's personal prejudices.
 
The Alabama opinion failed to demonstrate any causal link (aka rational relation) between banning same sex marriages and the cited government interests. That is to say, the ban doesn't actually further those interests in any way. They are not rationally related. The reasoning is not sound in any way. It is completely without legal basis or factual support and is ultimately just an arbitrary decision based on this one unelected official's personal prejudices.

....

1. Judge Moore is elected

2. The reasoning under discussion is not about actual gay marriage, but the federal district courts' ruling, which is not binding on the state.
 
The probate judge that was the subject of the Thursday hearing has begun issuing licenses in response to the order. The end of this fight is clear so don't fret! =)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/us/alabama-same-sex-marriage-ruling.html
In all likelihood, yes. But Granade presides only over the southern portion of the state, so technically-speaking, most of the probate judges in the state are not required to abide by the decision, and cannot be forced to do so per this district court ruling.
 
Last edited:
The NY times that liberal rag is your source.:rofl why not link MOVEOn.org? they are just as creditable.

Are you denying that the probate judge began issuing the order? You're the one who cited a left coast rag.
 
Judge Moore's 'reasons' are no different from Gov Wallace's when I was a much younger man.

The Judge gives his 'reason's' quite clearly- he feels gay marriage is an offense to his take on religion, will cripple society and end life as we know it...

or some such chit. He gives a damn about the law- his rather weak and already disproved premise is a cover for his religious zeal.

'Sound' as some may think his legal reasoning to be the fact is far sounder reasoning will prevail.

Wadda Country, sometimes I am very proud my blood was spilled in Her defense... :peace
 

LOL.....John Scott is an absolute idiot. I actually know the guy quite well....used to work with him before he retired a couple of years ago. He is a blowhard that thinks he knows way more than he actually does. He used to work in our appellate department and 9 times of of 10 when he gave you case advice to cite in court, he was wrong. It got to the point that there were a lot of in-house jokes about arguing the exact opposite of what he told you to. Its actually kind of funny that NP picked up on this clown.
 
Back
Top Bottom