• 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!

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

This issue gets sticky in that the Supremacy Clause only applies to the 17 enumerated powers. The federal government is pretending it has the authority to regulate marriage, which they do not. So the Alabama may refuse to obey the federal ruling arguing that the states hold the power to make all rulings outside the specified realm of the federal government. Like it or not that is how our system was set up. Much of the power the federal government wields is not theirs and they only h ave it because We the People failed to tell them no.

That's not what is happening though, what is actually happening is the the Federal Government is stopping the states from violating the 14th. That's the real issue, marriage is basically a subtopic. But you are correct about one thing, like it or not that is how are system was set up and it's working.
 
The difference between that case and this one is that the legal interpretation in the Supreme Court ruling is binding on every court in the country, and a Federal district court ruling doesn't even bind courts in the same district.

Incorrect. What you have conveniently failed to acknowledged is that the Federal court ruled Alabama's ban on SSM unconstitutional. You also choose not to acknowledge that the Supreme court did not accept Alabama's request to stay that ruling.

You wish to argue that Judge Roy's ruling instead of acknowledging Federal judges ruling to one[ or all] probate judges in Alabama has no effect on the initial federal court ruling or the Supreme court's denial of stay are still valid and standing orders.

It is ridiculous to continue to argue Judge Roy's reasoning when Probate Judges are abandoning Judge Roy's invalid ruling and complying with the federal court judges and the Supreme court judges.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Let's not put the cart before the horse. A right first has to exist before it may be infringed. If we are not born with such a right, where is it given to us by the government?

Who said anything about unborn people? I'm talking about in this country, what is considered violating someone's right to free speech?
 
That is how the law works, sorry if you don't like it. The judge herself has explained this in her clarifying order. I've been over this twice already in this thread.

No it isn't how the law works at all. The state of Alabama, the ban itself in the state of Alabama was being constitutionally challenged, not that single judge.
 
Aaaaaaannd...the Kooky Moore-on triples down.

"Chief Justice Roy Moore said on "Fox News Sunday," that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, he wouldn't be "bound" by the ruling."

Alabama Chief Justice: SCOTUS Can't Change God's Law On Marriage

He also said when a word’s not in the Constitution [marriage] the Supreme Court can't rule on it - because they can't define words that aren't there.

Yikes.

lol_zpscaea4374.gif
 
Aaaaaaannd...the Kooky Moore-on triples down.

"Chief Justice Roy Moore said on "Fox News Sunday," that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, he wouldn't be "bound" by the ruling."

Alabama Chief Justice: SCOTUS Can't Change God's Law On Marriage

He also said when a word’s not in the Constitution [marriage] the Supreme Court can't rule on it - because they can't define words that aren't there.

Yikes.

Let's hope he recuses himself right out of a job....
 
ridiculous...


Judge Roy is not adjoined in any litigation before the Supreme court or any federal court on this matter. His authority is cases before the Alabama Supreme Court.

The state of Alabama went to the Supreme Court for the stay and it was denied.

the State of Alabama is the applicant...not Judge Roy. He has no legal standing in this matter. None.
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.
 
Incorrect. What you have conveniently failed to acknowledged is that the Federal court ruled Alabama's ban on SSM unconstitutional. You also choose not to acknowledge that the Supreme court did not accept Alabama's request to stay that ruling.

You wish to argue that Judge Roy's ruling instead of acknowledging Federal judges ruling to one[ or all] probate judges in Alabama has no effect on the initial federal court ruling or the Supreme court's denial of stay are still valid and standing orders.

It is ridiculous to continue to argue Judge Roy's reasoning when Probate Judges are abandoning Judge Roy's invalid ruling and complying with the federal court judges and the Supreme court judges.
I could care less what Judge Roy says or doesn't say.
 
No it isn't how the law works at all. The state of Alabama, the ban itself in the state of Alabama was being constitutionally challenged, not that single judge.
You sue people, not laws.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Who said anything about unborn people? I'm talking about in this country, what is considered violating someone's right to free speech?
Not allowing someone to exercise their right to free speech is what is meant by "violating" - I don't know bow to put it in simpler terms than that. Now, where do you think people give other people the right to free speech?
 
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.

Maybe because that's the OP, title and subject of this thread.


deeeerp/
 
You sue people, not laws.

The law was challenged in court. That is how constitutional challenges to laws work and it is understood that if a specific states law is struck down, it applies for everyone who deals with that law, not just the person named in the suit.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Not allowing someone to exercise their right to free speech is what is meant by "violating" - I don't know bow to put it in simpler terms than that. Now, where do you think people give other people the right to free speech?

Again, what constitutes not allowing someone to speak freely? Imprisonment? Fines, maybe? For saying something someone else doesn't like?

So wouldn't that mean that people in other countries who are imprisoned or fined for saying things against the government or that violates some law for what can or cannot be said violates those people's freedom of speech as we see it? Wouldn't that then mean that they do not have a right to freedom of speech because their country punishes them for saying certain things?
 
The law was challenged in court. That is how constitutional challenges to laws work and it is understood that if a specific states law is struck down, it applies for everyone who deals with that law, not just the person named in the suit.
There's your opinion on how things should work, and then there's how things really work in the real world. The judges clarifying order, and the events that took place last week, all illustrate how your opinion is wrong. You can continue to ignore the fact that Judge Davis was not required to do anything until he was personally enjoined by the court, but you're only doing yourself a disservice in clinging to beliefs that have been shown to be false.
 
The law was challenged in court. That is how constitutional challenges to laws work and it is understood that if a specific states law is struck down, it applies for everyone who deals with that law, not just the person named in the suit.
From Judge Granade, in rejecting a request to hold Davis in contempt of court for failure to abide by her opinion:

(Doc. 65, p. 3 quoting Brenner v. Scott, 2015 WL 44260 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan 1, 2015)). Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case[1] and the Order of January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis's obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court's Order. The Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time.
 
Again, what constitutes not allowing someone to speak freely? Imprisonment? Fines, maybe? For saying something someone else doesn't like?

So wouldn't that mean that people in other countries who are imprisoned or fined for saying things against the government or that violates some law for what can or cannot be said violates those people's freedom of speech as we see it? Wouldn't that then mean that they do not have a right to freedom of speech because their country punishes them for saying certain things?
It may mean that the don't have freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that they don't have a *right* to freedom of speech. The government is not only not protecting that right, it is infringing upon it.

Now, where is it in this country where people give other people the right to free speech? Actual text, please.
 
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.

He is the basis of your whole incorrect argument. With out his ruling...The Federal court ruling on Alabama's SSM ban being unconstitutional and the Supreme Court's ruling not to stay the lower court ruling... gives you no argument. None.

Keep on discussing your ridiculous interpretations of free-speech and constitutional law.
 
Man -- they're gonna go knuts when SCOTUS rules in June.

Same sex marriage will be legal nationwide -- very, very soon. Prepare connies. It's coming.
 
From Judge Granade, in rejecting a request to hold Davis in contempt of court for failure to abide by her opinion:

(Doc. 65, p. 3 quoting Brenner v. Scott, 2015 WL 44260 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan 1, 2015)). Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case[1] and the Order of January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis's obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court's Order. The Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time.

You are conflating a ruling to a probate judge and The federal courts ruling on Alabama's ban on SSM that was ruled unconstitutional.

Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand married in 2008 in California, but have lived in Mobile, Ala. for over a decade, the Associated Press reports. They are also seeking for Searcy to have legal parental rights for their 8-year-old son, Khaya, who was born biologically to McKeand in 2005 but is being raised by both women.

Searcy has previously sought to adopt Khaya, but was denied because the state doesn’t recognize their marriage.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange are named as defendants in the suit.

Even though the Governor and AG are named on the suit, the suit was denial of the state...per state law to recognizes the defendants SSM. The actions of the Gov. or the AG in this matter is not the question. They are just the named state representatives.
 
Man -- they're gonna go knuts when SCOTUS rules in June.

Same sex marriage will be legal nationwide -- very, very soon. Prepare connies. It's coming.

Don't be silly.

Most of them are going to pretend it was their idea all along.

See Conservatives and how they now take credit for the Civil Rights Act for a prime example.
 
Don't be silly.

Most of them are going to pretend it was their idea all along.

See Conservatives and how they now take credit for the Civil Rights Act for a prime example.

ROFL. Ain't it the truth?

And in reality - encouraging marriage and families is a very conservative thing to do. They are on the wrong side of themselves as well as history on this one.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Guess who is coming to the rescue of Judge Moore and the anti-gay bigots?




Yup.

"KKK issues “call to arms” over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling
The hate group melts down after a federal court rules an amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional
...
"We as White Christians intend to see that no outside agitators bully or intimidate the White Christian majority in the State of Alabama...We salute those like the chief justice for standing against the Immoral, Ungodly and activist Federal Judges.”

KKK issues “call to arms” over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling - Salon.com

Way to go Roy! you are in the group you belong in now LMAO
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

If "it was enacted" passes rational basis, then rational basis isn't a test in the first place.

Right, but it only need be legitimate interest, not actually be a government interest.




States are defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is clearly a distinction of gender.

Yes, but other than those that would argue otherwise, making a distinction about marriage between any other variety would be unheard of, further, outside of sex orientation, the distinction by itself does not discriminate. Both men and woman are limited by the gender equally. Like I said, it is a distinction without a distinction by not calling it sexual orientation, which, by itself is a distinction separate from gender.


Just say "activist judges." It says what you want to say in fewer words. It's the exact same handwave everyone else is trying to make, and it is bogus. They aren't doing it "because they don't like them." They are doing it because their best judgment says the laws are a violation of the 14th amendment.

Yes, and I believe using gender as the pretext to any 14th amendment challenge is being incorrectly applied. If you use sexual orientation, then, at least you have a true distinction. The Pro-SSM crowd doesn't want that though, for obvious reasons. Same reason Walker didn't want it, and gifted the petitioners, "gender" instead.


The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It doesn't matter how many people vote for a law. If it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution.

Right, and discrimination based on sexual orientation does not violate the constitution, unless, one can successfully argue that homosexuals are a suspect class requiring protection.




The issue is whether or not your moral disapproval is basis alone for denying someone else a choice.

The answer is no.

I don't have a moral anything, unless by moral approval you mean that I have arrived at my opinion based solely on what I see, and have observed in nature for every living creature that lives, and has EVER lived. Some argue the minutia of animals being gay (Like as if they know), some argue the evolutionary advantages for a population to have a percentage of homosexuals, although I find their arguments unpersuasive, I suppose one might see it that way. I however, see no upside to homosexuality. I see it, if innate, to be a mutation that has persisted, but ultimately will be extinguished by the natural order of things. On the other hand, I mostly interpret the evidence that exists today as reflective of a mostly, if not entirely, a socio-pathological condition that, for whatever reason causes an individual to favor a homosexual lifestyle over that of a heterosexual one. I know you disagree, but again, I am unconvinced by any arguments I've seen in favor of a biological cause to homosexuality. Some say, well so what? You are entitled to that view, and I am not suggesting we go hunt down the homosexuals, but as a society, we shouldn't be encouraging it. It serves no upside to us a species in any meaningful way, so why encourage the behavior?


Same-sex marriage bans do not pass the rational basis test. "It was enacted" isn't good enough.

That's not what I said. It passes the RBT because gender is not the issue. Walker and the judges after him have all followed this narrative. Gender is not the issue, sexual orientation is the issue, and in that regard, it does pass RBT, IMO.


I suppose we'll find out soon enough.


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

In addition to Kooky Judge Moore having the KKK lobby on behalf of him and his supporters, this little tidbit was learned recently.

One of Moore's strident supporters, and a man Moore supports and "gushed" over, is a Neo-Confederate slime-bucket named Michael Peroutka.

Roy Moore's Showdown With The Courts Over Gay Marriage Tied To The Work Of Neo-Confederate Leader


Moore shares that belief with a powerful ally: Michael Peroutka, a neo-Confederate activist who is also one of the most influential behind-the-scenes figures in the Religious Right’s reimagining of American law.

Peroutka, who once held a leadership position in the neo-Confederate League of the South and remained a member of the group until it hampered his run for a local office in Maryland last year, promotes this theocratic view of the law through his group the Institute on the Constitution.

Speaking at an event at the Institute in 2011, Moore gushed that Peroutka would help lead America to a “glorious triumph” over the federal government’s “tyranny.”

But Peroutka is more than a friend and ideological ally to Moore: he has funded Moore’s activism for more than a decade, and in 2012 bankrolled Moore’s successful campaign for the top seat on the Alabama Supreme Court.

- See more at: Roy Moore's Showdown With The Courts Over Gay Marriage Tied To The Work Of Neo-Confederate Leader | Right Wing Watch

Just a few days, the Hate Group the Moore supporter headed - League of the South - honored John Wilkes Booth -- for assassinating President Lincoln:

“The League of the South thanks Mr. Booth for his service to the South and to humanity.”

That's some kinda company you've got there, Judge Moore-on.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

another deflection,

what is needed is back up for your proven wrong claims, we are asking for ONE fact that supports your proven wrong claims, can this be done or not?
if so please do it in your next post . . or admit that it cant be done and you misspoke . . .anything else is just another failure of your false claims
thank you

See post #651. Repeat that every time you use the word "fact" in any of your posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom