Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Nov 2005
9,564
4,177
California
The Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court Wednesday morning issued an order to all probate judges to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Judge Roy Moore claims a previous order issued by his court in March remains in effect, and warns those judges that they "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary" to Alabama state law and its constitution.

Justice Moore, "said the conflict between the state court ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June has caused 'confusion and uncertainty' among probate judges," AL.com reports.

The Decateur Daily adds that "Moore's order found that a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down laws banning same-sex marriage in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee did not necessarily affect Alabama's similar laws."

"Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect," Moore stated.​
UPDATING: Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses - The New Civil Rights Movement

He is at it again... <_<
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Nov 2005
9,564
4,177
California
Regarding Moore's cases he is trying to cite...
Neither of these cases, however, support Moore’s suggestion that Obergefell is non-binding. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion does state that Obergefell does not directly apply to Nebraska, but it made this statement as part of a discussion about why that court retains jurisdiction over the case permitting it to rule in favor of marriage equality. Similarly, the district court in Kansas explicitly stated that “Obergefell is clearly controlling Supreme Court precedent.”​
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders End To All Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Think about this. Any state or jurisdiction ruling that they would not issue gay marriage licenses would be blasted all over the news.
Right?
Hell. We had one podunk city clerk (Davis) who refused to issue licenses and that got constant coverage. Right?
So why wasn't there similar outcry if these rulings Moore cited truly did find that Obergefell does not require them to issue / acknowledge gay marriages?
(Hint: They didn't actually say that... :no )

Here's a copy of one of the rulings.
Just START TO READ it and you'll see the language clearly acknowledges what Obergefell was saying.
Skip to the conclusion of the ruling and you'll see that Moore's attempt to cite this as precedent is outright buffoonery.

Let me quote it for you ...
Plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples seeking to marry in Nebraska or to have their marriage in another state recognized in Nebraska. They also seek state benefits incident to marriage. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 1 injunction. It found that Article I, § 29 of the Nebraska Constitution, which denies same-sex couples the right to marry, likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Nebraska brings an interlocutory appeal. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this court affirms
....​
The preliminary injunction is affirmed and the case remanded for entry of final judgment on the merits in favor of the plaintiffs.​

Moore is not citing Obergefell properly.
He's not citing the rulings he wants to use properly. He's taking them out of context to arrive at a conclusion that contradicts their own conclusions.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Only the parties in the Sixth Circuit's ruling are bound by the ruling, and that is not even constitutionally correct. No where in the Article III or Article VI can is the power for the Supreme Court to rule on a state law or state constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jun 2013
28,864
15,457
Ohio
Every time this Moore-on wants attention, he does something stupid that he knows won't stand up in court so he can be the center of attention. Right wingers are such insecure weasels.
 
Nov 2012
11,230
9,511
nirvana
Only the parties in the Sixth Circuit's ruling are bound by the ruling, and that is not even constitutionally correct. No where in the Article III or Article VI can is the power for the Supreme Court to rule on a state law or state constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

You must have been one of the four dissenters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Nov 2005
9,564
4,177
California
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

You must have been one of the four dissenters.
He's pulling something similar to what Moore did.
Throwing out a few comments that may sound interesting and poignant, but he either doesn't understand he's looking at the wrong place or he's purposely trying to lead people off track.

Article III / Article IV are not as relevant as Amendment #14 which was the game changer which required the states to recognize and also protect federal constitution rights. And that's what requires SCOTUS to ensure that state legislation follows suit.

From his commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution doesn't require states to even protect the freedom of religion... :huh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

You must have been one of the four dissenters.
Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to judicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
He's pulling something similar to what Moore did.
Throwing out a few comments that may sound interesting and poignant, but he either doesn't understand he's looking at the wrong place or he's purposely trying to lead people off track.

Article III / Article IV are not as relevant as Amendment #14 which was the game changer which required the states to recognize and also protect federal constitution rights. And that's what requires SCOTUS to ensure that state legislation follows suit.

From his commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution doesn't require states to even protect the freedom of religion... :huh:
If the 14th Amendment was a game changer, why didn't the 39th Congress know that? While contemplating that, explain why the due process and equal protection clause was rewritten four times over the stated concern that it could be interpreted as encroaching on federalism.

You may want to throw in why the first generation Supreme Court also knew nothing of this game changer, and why only 20th century Supreme Courts had this special insight of the meaning that eluded the men who wrote it and the first generation Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person