Koya
Footballguy
Come on man, you can't be this dense.
1. A contract can not be valid if a minor is one of the parties.
2. A contract can not be valid if one of the parties was coerced.
Come on, man. Gotta have something better than that
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Gay marriage (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
1. A contract can not be valid if a minor is one of the parties.
2. A contract can not be valid if one of the parties was coerced.
Come on, man. Gotta have something better than that
popsecret
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
At some point you have to promote normalcy and morality. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
the moops
Footballguy
Exactly. Imagine how many times you would be punched in the face during the course of your day.
Koya
Footballguy
Your morality would be far different than anothers might be. So who wins? You ok if we eventually become an islamic country? I don't mean ISIS, I mean say, UAE... you ok being forced to live by their rules? Because, ya know, at some point you want normalcy and morality.
My rule? Freedom. We should all be as free as possible, to do what we want, so long as it does not do harm to another. I have enough confidence in myself that if others live by theirs, I'll be ok.
I am sorry that you feel some misguided sense that "your" morality should be forced upon others by limiting their choices, even if their choice does not do you harm. If only you, and others who share you view, would be a bit more confident in yourselves and your morality to allow others to live by theirs. Ya know, respect. That's all. And if you don't afford others respect, why should anyone be expected to give you, well, any at all. It's not deserved to be blunt.
Personally, your morality seems bereft of humanity and respect... for example, your demonstrated bigoted views and desire to force others to live by what you believe is right, even when your denial of their rights does real harm. That said, you are free to live your immoral life pushing for inequality, inequity and even doing harm to others (because otherwise it might what, "offend" you?), at least in my world.
To bad you hardly have the same respect for others who not only want to just live their life, but their life does not entail trying to limit others' and in doing so, do them harm.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya, I agree with your assertion that freedom reigns supreme. But you need to acknowledge that there were certain customs, normalcy, and morality in which this country that was built upon to give us that freedom.
Edit:
Just because someone has the freedom to marry their mother, have sex with an animal, or some other crazy thing that opposes American normalcy does not mean it should be allowed.
This country has no discipline. We let anything and everything go to the point where we are losing our own culture.
Behind closed doors, in privacy, do whatever you want. I will never strip anyone of their personal freedoms. But don't try to tell me something is normal when it is debatable that it is not. Especially when my acceptance of your lifestyle behind closed doors can potentially confuse a generation of my country's youth when you keep pushing for more.
Edit:
Just because someone has the freedom to marry their mother, have sex with an animal, or some other crazy thing that opposes American normalcy does not mean it should be allowed.
This country has no discipline. We let anything and everything go to the point where we are losing our own culture.
Behind closed doors, in privacy, do whatever you want. I will never strip anyone of their personal freedoms. But don't try to tell me something is normal when it is debatable that it is not. Especially when my acceptance of your lifestyle behind closed doors can potentially confuse a generation of my country's youth when you keep pushing for more.
Last edited by a moderator:
popsecret
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
1. You obviously don't agree with me that freedom reigns supreme. You clearly wish to limit others' freedom for things that do you no harm. Again, "offense" is not harm. Probably more a statement on the offended, but that's another story.
2. When you say that we are "losing our culture" what the hell do you mean? Because our "culture" used to embrace slavery, the stripping of women's rights, the killing of innocent indians for land. Do you suggest we don't learn and grow as a nation? As a culture?
As importantly, you do know that as a nation of immigrants, the beautiful experiment that we are is always evolving? And usually the bigots fight to preserve some false sense of status quo based upon an idealized past that never really existed in the first place.
3. You are a pretty damn selfish person, aren't you? Your unfounded and bigoted fear of "your" country's youth being confused? For one, IT'S OUR COUNTRY AS MUCH AS YOURS. Also, I fear my country's youth being worse than "confused" whatever that means, I fear them having idiots like you trying to limit their freedom and in such, pushing our nation further away from our the ideals this nation was founded on.
"Ours" - That's a pretty loaded term. I guess you are Native American? Or maybe the Mayflower? Because otherwise someone probably said the same pathetic thing about your ancestors when they came over.
Finally, as to the disgusting comparison to bestiality - these are the reasons its so clear that you are bigoted, or a great fisherman (or both). You really don't understand what two consenting adults means? Maybe those who can't think at a 15 year old level shouldn't be allowed to vote, because that's hardly a difficult concept to understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
popsecret
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Legal isn't the same thing as "fine." I wouldn't consider adultery "fine," even though it is legal.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Getting married isn't the same thing as having sex. Some folks here can confirm.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So you agree that government should/must regulate who can enter into a contract even a "private" marriage contract.
What is the point of this "superior idea" of getting government out of marriage again?
Oh, I forget because government shouldn't be treating "married people" different from "non married" people.
Oh, wait. The efficiencies of using legal "civil union" status can remain to promote societal interest. So, I forgot the point is that in a free society the government shouldn't regulate who enter such personal contracts.
And back and forth we would go as this totally pointless idea "get government out of marriage" is merely a good sounding talking point with no practical value. Yet those that give the talking point a second of thought are the dense ones, the obtuse ones. Sorry, but this is just cover for bigots to have a "reasonable sounding" objection to gay marriage that suckers in those that are swayed by platitudes.
ETA: And at the end of the day the bigots are not appeased. So this achieves exactly zero goals. Does not promote freedom. Does not lessen government involvement. Does not lessen discrimination. Does not really satisfy anyone - including its advocates. Just makes the entire process more burdensome and expensive.
Pointless!
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Maybe you can expand on this idea of someone having the freedom to do something but it not being allowed.
popsecret
Footballguy
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Hmmm, why do you feel this way? Always curious when somebody I usually agree with takes the opposite position.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think the acceptable phrasing is "two adult African American men."popsecret said:
joffer
Footballguy
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/fifth-circuit-hears-texas-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit
Less than two years after the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark decision in United States v. Windsorwhich gutted the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that defined marriage as the union between one man and one womanlegislatures and judiciaries in state after state have overturned bans on same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians can now marry in 36 states and Washington, D.C. Texas remains one of the last holdouts. But that could change, if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finds the states marriage ban unconstitutional, an outcome that looked surprisingly likely after the court heard oral arguments in the case this morning.
Before todays hearing, the prevailing wisdom was that the Fifth Circuitone of the nations most conservative courtswould uphold the ban. But that notion quickly came undone after the panels swing vote, Reagan appointee Patrick Higginbotham, appeared openly skeptical of such laws. Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who argued that the ban was in the best interests of the stateand his counterparts in Louisiana and Mississippi, whose same-sex marriage cases were also heard todaycame under fierce questioning from Higginbotham and Obama appointee James Graves.
In examining whether or not the ban was constitutional, the three judges Higginbotham, Graves, and Reagan appointee Jerry Smith, a staunch social conservativehad to evaluate whether or not there was a rational basis for the state to deny gay couples the right to marry. For most laws, the rational basis is obvious enough; a law that prohibits people from driving over 35 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood, for example, serves the public good by keeping its citizens safe. But in order to explain the rational basis for Texas same-sex marriage ban, the solicitor general had to get creative.
Mitchell made his case by doubling down on the responsible procreation argument, which reasons that states have a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual citizens to marry so their kids will be raised in a stable environment, rather than out of wedlock. According to this logic, the state need not allow gays and lesbians to marry, since their sexual activity cannot produce children. Same-sex marriage does nothing to advance the states interests, said Mitchell.
This line of reasoning has failed in other federal circuit courts because it doesnt hold up to scrutiny. (Texas does not bar infertile couples and the elderly from marrying, for instance, nor has it ever argued that their unions fail to serve the public good.) But Higginbotham, who looked perturbed as Mitchell spoke, raised a different concernone of cause and effect. The silver-haired judge leaned forward from the dais. Are you saying that if you allow same-sex marriagethat will increase the number of children born out of wedlock? he interrupted.
Thats not our contention at all, said Mitchell. He then laid out a rather utilitarian vision. What were saying is that marriage is a subsidy, he said, referring to the hundreds of legal and financial benefits that wedded couples enjoy. The state is entitled to reserve that subsidy for relationships that are more likely to advance the states interest in reducing unplanned, out-of-wedlock births, and withholding that subsidy from marriages that will do nothing to advance the states interests
Marriage is a subsidy? interjected Graves. And there is no right to marry? Its just a subsidy?
The states not denying the right to live together, its not denying the right to change their names, or hold a wedding ceremony Mitchell said, after some discussion.
Youre just denying the right to marry, Graves said.
As Mitchell made his argument, the four Texans who had brought the suit, De Leon v. Perry, sat poker-faced in the gallery. Cleopatra de Leon and Nicole Dimetman, two Austin women who have a toddler and are expecting a baby in March, clasped hands beside Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes, two Dallas men who have been in a committed relationship for seventeen years. Holmes, a retired Air Force major, was in full military dress. Dimetman, who is seven months pregnant, showed no reaction as Mitchell continually failed to acknowledge that gays and lesbians also produce and adopt children.
In an unexpected twist, the solicitor general cast them as hopeless romantics. The plaintiffs, Mitchell continued, view the institution of marriage as existing only to celebrate the mutual love and commitment of two people. The states marriage laws reflect a different view. The celebration of love is important, but its secondary to the interests in generating positive benefits for society [by] encouraging new offspring and reducing out-of-wedlock births that put a strain on the state.
When he advocated a wait-and-see approach so that the democratic process could decide whether same-sex marriage would be beneficial for Texas, Graves pointedly asked how long that would take. Whats the magic number? said Graves. Twenty [years]? Five? The solicitor general hedged on that question, saying it was still unclear how the social experiment of same-sex marriage would play out, and contending that it was too early for Texas to join the fray.
At what point does [your argument] fade into animus? Higgenbotham pressed. To what extent is this fear or concern born of a hostility to homosexuality? I think that dances very close.
These laws are not born of animus because theyre rooted in scientific fact, Mitchell said, after a spirited back and forth. Theyre rooted in the biological reality that same-sex unions cannot produce offspring.
But fear of the unknown, a lack of understanding of people who are different, and insensitivity to the preferences of people who are different, those are not things that you would equate with animus? asked Graves, who is African-American.
We respectfully suggest thats an unfair caricature of the supporters of traditional marriage laws, said Mitchell. And its been all too common for animus to become used as a label for impugning the motives or defaming the character of those who may disagree with a certain view thats fashionable.
When the solicitor generals time was up, the plaintiffs attorney, Neel Lane, rose and walked to the podium. A Partner in the San Antonio office of Akin, Gump, Lane had already won the cases biggest victory last year in San Antonio, when a lower court judge found that Texas ban was unconstitutional. It was that decision that the state appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The laws of Texas have created a caste system, Lane said this morning, addressing the judges. My clients are denied those rights, privileges, and ultimately wealth enjoyed with other citizens with whom they work, live, and worship side-by-side. Under mostly friendly questioning from the panel, he made repeated references to the landmark 1967 civil rights decision, Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Then he turned his fire to the solicitor general. What you heard from this lectern is an incredibly narrow, blinkered view of marriage that would be unrecognizable really to anyone whos experienced it, witnessed it, or aspires to it, Lane said. Really, its quite amazing, because one of the consistent accusations has been that we are attempting to redefine marriage. And I have never heard as radical a redefinition of marriage as I heard at this lectern from the State of Texas.
Finally, he posed the most thought-provoking question of the hour. If marriage is good for children, then why isnt marriage good for same-sex couples with children? he asked. The reality is this law depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry is not intended to modify or guide the behavior of opposite-sex couples at all. Everyone knows that this law is really about the moral disapproval of homosexuals. But since the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected that as a rationale that can support the law, counsel for the state has to attempt to come up here and attempt to redefine it with a somewhat, I would suggest, half-baked justification that narrows what marriage is and convince you that this is what the people of Texas believe marriage is. Before he finished, he added, The laws real effect is not just to harm gays and lesbians, but also the children they are raising.
After the hearing, a large crowd of same-sex marriage supporterssome of whom had waited as long as four hours in frigid temperatures for a seat insidestood shivering outside the majestic, white marble courthouse. Some held placards that read, Love Will Win. They will now have to wait as long as a few weeks, or a few months, for the court to rule. If the Supreme Court announces that it will be reviewing the issue of same-sex marriage this term, as it is widely expected to do, the Fifth Circuits deliberations could be tabled in the meantime.
Before the group gathered outside dispersed, one of the Texas plaintiffs, Mark Phariss, grabbed his partners hand and addressed the crowd. Before Vic and I came here today, we knew we were on the right side of history and the right side of love and compassion, he said. Today, after hearing all the arguments, we know were on the right side of the law.
Less than two years after the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark decision in United States v. Windsorwhich gutted the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that defined marriage as the union between one man and one womanlegislatures and judiciaries in state after state have overturned bans on same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians can now marry in 36 states and Washington, D.C. Texas remains one of the last holdouts. But that could change, if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finds the states marriage ban unconstitutional, an outcome that looked surprisingly likely after the court heard oral arguments in the case this morning.
Before todays hearing, the prevailing wisdom was that the Fifth Circuitone of the nations most conservative courtswould uphold the ban. But that notion quickly came undone after the panels swing vote, Reagan appointee Patrick Higginbotham, appeared openly skeptical of such laws. Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who argued that the ban was in the best interests of the stateand his counterparts in Louisiana and Mississippi, whose same-sex marriage cases were also heard todaycame under fierce questioning from Higginbotham and Obama appointee James Graves.
In examining whether or not the ban was constitutional, the three judges Higginbotham, Graves, and Reagan appointee Jerry Smith, a staunch social conservativehad to evaluate whether or not there was a rational basis for the state to deny gay couples the right to marry. For most laws, the rational basis is obvious enough; a law that prohibits people from driving over 35 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood, for example, serves the public good by keeping its citizens safe. But in order to explain the rational basis for Texas same-sex marriage ban, the solicitor general had to get creative.
Mitchell made his case by doubling down on the responsible procreation argument, which reasons that states have a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual citizens to marry so their kids will be raised in a stable environment, rather than out of wedlock. According to this logic, the state need not allow gays and lesbians to marry, since their sexual activity cannot produce children. Same-sex marriage does nothing to advance the states interests, said Mitchell.
This line of reasoning has failed in other federal circuit courts because it doesnt hold up to scrutiny. (Texas does not bar infertile couples and the elderly from marrying, for instance, nor has it ever argued that their unions fail to serve the public good.) But Higginbotham, who looked perturbed as Mitchell spoke, raised a different concernone of cause and effect. The silver-haired judge leaned forward from the dais. Are you saying that if you allow same-sex marriagethat will increase the number of children born out of wedlock? he interrupted.
Thats not our contention at all, said Mitchell. He then laid out a rather utilitarian vision. What were saying is that marriage is a subsidy, he said, referring to the hundreds of legal and financial benefits that wedded couples enjoy. The state is entitled to reserve that subsidy for relationships that are more likely to advance the states interest in reducing unplanned, out-of-wedlock births, and withholding that subsidy from marriages that will do nothing to advance the states interests
Marriage is a subsidy? interjected Graves. And there is no right to marry? Its just a subsidy?
The states not denying the right to live together, its not denying the right to change their names, or hold a wedding ceremony Mitchell said, after some discussion.
Youre just denying the right to marry, Graves said.
As Mitchell made his argument, the four Texans who had brought the suit, De Leon v. Perry, sat poker-faced in the gallery. Cleopatra de Leon and Nicole Dimetman, two Austin women who have a toddler and are expecting a baby in March, clasped hands beside Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes, two Dallas men who have been in a committed relationship for seventeen years. Holmes, a retired Air Force major, was in full military dress. Dimetman, who is seven months pregnant, showed no reaction as Mitchell continually failed to acknowledge that gays and lesbians also produce and adopt children.
In an unexpected twist, the solicitor general cast them as hopeless romantics. The plaintiffs, Mitchell continued, view the institution of marriage as existing only to celebrate the mutual love and commitment of two people. The states marriage laws reflect a different view. The celebration of love is important, but its secondary to the interests in generating positive benefits for society [by] encouraging new offspring and reducing out-of-wedlock births that put a strain on the state.
When he advocated a wait-and-see approach so that the democratic process could decide whether same-sex marriage would be beneficial for Texas, Graves pointedly asked how long that would take. Whats the magic number? said Graves. Twenty [years]? Five? The solicitor general hedged on that question, saying it was still unclear how the social experiment of same-sex marriage would play out, and contending that it was too early for Texas to join the fray.
At what point does [your argument] fade into animus? Higgenbotham pressed. To what extent is this fear or concern born of a hostility to homosexuality? I think that dances very close.
These laws are not born of animus because theyre rooted in scientific fact, Mitchell said, after a spirited back and forth. Theyre rooted in the biological reality that same-sex unions cannot produce offspring.
But fear of the unknown, a lack of understanding of people who are different, and insensitivity to the preferences of people who are different, those are not things that you would equate with animus? asked Graves, who is African-American.
We respectfully suggest thats an unfair caricature of the supporters of traditional marriage laws, said Mitchell. And its been all too common for animus to become used as a label for impugning the motives or defaming the character of those who may disagree with a certain view thats fashionable.
When the solicitor generals time was up, the plaintiffs attorney, Neel Lane, rose and walked to the podium. A Partner in the San Antonio office of Akin, Gump, Lane had already won the cases biggest victory last year in San Antonio, when a lower court judge found that Texas ban was unconstitutional. It was that decision that the state appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The laws of Texas have created a caste system, Lane said this morning, addressing the judges. My clients are denied those rights, privileges, and ultimately wealth enjoyed with other citizens with whom they work, live, and worship side-by-side. Under mostly friendly questioning from the panel, he made repeated references to the landmark 1967 civil rights decision, Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Then he turned his fire to the solicitor general. What you heard from this lectern is an incredibly narrow, blinkered view of marriage that would be unrecognizable really to anyone whos experienced it, witnessed it, or aspires to it, Lane said. Really, its quite amazing, because one of the consistent accusations has been that we are attempting to redefine marriage. And I have never heard as radical a redefinition of marriage as I heard at this lectern from the State of Texas.
Finally, he posed the most thought-provoking question of the hour. If marriage is good for children, then why isnt marriage good for same-sex couples with children? he asked. The reality is this law depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry is not intended to modify or guide the behavior of opposite-sex couples at all. Everyone knows that this law is really about the moral disapproval of homosexuals. But since the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected that as a rationale that can support the law, counsel for the state has to attempt to come up here and attempt to redefine it with a somewhat, I would suggest, half-baked justification that narrows what marriage is and convince you that this is what the people of Texas believe marriage is. Before he finished, he added, The laws real effect is not just to harm gays and lesbians, but also the children they are raising.
After the hearing, a large crowd of same-sex marriage supporterssome of whom had waited as long as four hours in frigid temperatures for a seat insidestood shivering outside the majestic, white marble courthouse. Some held placards that read, Love Will Win. They will now have to wait as long as a few weeks, or a few months, for the court to rule. If the Supreme Court announces that it will be reviewing the issue of same-sex marriage this term, as it is widely expected to do, the Fifth Circuits deliberations could be tabled in the meantime.
Before the group gathered outside dispersed, one of the Texas plaintiffs, Mark Phariss, grabbed his partners hand and addressed the crowd. Before Vic and I came here today, we knew we were on the right side of history and the right side of love and compassion, he said. Today, after hearing all the arguments, we know were on the right side of the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
Eh, I don't really have a reason. I just wanted to joke about hating freedom. Consider me converted.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
popsecret
Footballguy
so because the blow up doll is disabled and unable to sign it you are going to discriminate? REally?
joffer
Footballguy
the new ones are quite versatile
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yes, the blowup doll's income should be counted under the marital tax exemptions.popsecret said:
Koya
Footballguy
Can you not read?
They are both consenting adults. Abhorrent as it may seem to me, as it does not do me harm, that's their life and their choice.
Freedom is not freedom to do only what others agree with, ya know. And it takes balls to actually practice a belief in freedom. Talking freedom is easy; living it can at times be uncomfortable, but again, it's freedom. That's a trade off I'll gladly accept.
popsecret
Footballguy
why do you hate blow up dolls? Don't label them inanimate objects.
Also, if I believe my soul mate is a blow up doll who are you to limit my freedom, saying we can't get married
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
beavers
Footballguy
Here we go!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/
SCOTUS agrees to rule on gay marriage...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/
SCOTUS agrees to rule on gay marriage...
Koya
Footballguy
Any concern / fear that SOMEhow this could set everything back tremendously? A risk worth taking when the tide is invariably moving toward equality I suppose.Here we go!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/
SCOTUS agrees to rule on gay marriage...
beavers
Footballguy
No fear at all. I was fearful for the first ruling ... but, IMO, it's a risk to take. I could be wrong, but I haven't been involved with the details recently.Any concern / fear that SOMEhow this could set everything back tremendously? A risk worth taking when the tide is invariably moving toward equality I suppose.Here we go!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/
SCOTUS agrees to rule on gay marriage...
matuski
Footballguy
The problem here is most of us would believe you actually do have a blow up doll, and that it evokes such emotions from you.
Koya
Footballguy
I tend to agree. Sadly I think it will be a close vote with some folks on the Court that just don't seem to really care about all people - certainly not those who don't conform to their particular antiquated ideals of "morality"No fear at all. I was fearful for the first ruling ... but, IMO, it's a risk to take. I could be wrong, but I haven't been involved with the details recently.Any concern / fear that SOMEhow this could set everything back tremendously? A risk worth taking when the tide is invariably moving toward equality I suppose.Here we go!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/
SCOTUS agrees to rule on gay marriage...
bigbottom
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Interesting take on constitutional law from the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice:
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore claims in a letter to the governor that a federal court ruling striking down the state’s gay-marriage ban doesn’t bind Alabama judges.
Moore’s letter (PDF) to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said he stood with the governor “to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” How Appealinglinks to coverage, including stories in Reuters, Al.com and the Montgomery Advertiser.
Moore wrote that the institution of marriage is being destroyed by federal courts using “specious pretexts” such as the equal protection, due process and full faith and credit clauses. “As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage,” he said.
“I note that ‘United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this court,’ ” Moore wrote, citing an Alabama decision on the duty to warn of hazardous conditions.
University of Alabama law professor Ronald Krotoszynski saw no merit in Moore’s assertion. “There is no credible legal argument that an order from a federal judge with jurisdiction over a matter isn’t binding on a state government,” he told Reuters.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade struck down the gay-marriage ban on Friday, but issued a 14-day stay of the ruling.
It’s not the first time Moore defied court rulings. He was ousted from the state’s top court in 2003 for his refusal to obey a federal judge’s order that he remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. He was re-elected to the court in 2012.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore claims in a letter to the governor that a federal court ruling striking down the state’s gay-marriage ban doesn’t bind Alabama judges.
Moore’s letter (PDF) to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said he stood with the governor “to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” How Appealinglinks to coverage, including stories in Reuters, Al.com and the Montgomery Advertiser.
Moore wrote that the institution of marriage is being destroyed by federal courts using “specious pretexts” such as the equal protection, due process and full faith and credit clauses. “As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage,” he said.
“I note that ‘United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this court,’ ” Moore wrote, citing an Alabama decision on the duty to warn of hazardous conditions.
University of Alabama law professor Ronald Krotoszynski saw no merit in Moore’s assertion. “There is no credible legal argument that an order from a federal judge with jurisdiction over a matter isn’t binding on a state government,” he told Reuters.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade struck down the gay-marriage ban on Friday, but issued a 14-day stay of the ruling.
It’s not the first time Moore defied court rulings. He was ousted from the state’s top court in 2003 for his refusal to obey a federal judge’s order that he remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. He was re-elected to the court in 2012.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark Davis
Footballguy
If you lived here you wouldn't think anything about Roy Moore is too interesting. He's a political grandstander on the largest scale. This is all a set up to try and run for Governor yet again.
whoknew
Footballguy
Very progressive lot of judges in Alabama. Really have a firm grasp on the constitution.
Link
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday when a federal court ruling striking down the state’s ban on gay marriage takes effect.
In the order issued on Sunday night, Moore declares that federal court opinions serve only as “persuasive authority” and don’t bind Alabama state courts. The New York Times and Al.com have stories; How Appealing links to additional coverage.
Moore said he has authority over probate judges as administrative head of the judicial branch, while the federal judge who overturned the gay-marriage ban had not issued an order directed at the probate judges.
David Kennedy, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the federal court case, called Moore’s order “a George Wallace move,” referring to the former governor who stood in a university door in a failed bid to stop integration.
Some probate judges in the state already declared they would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples, or said they would stop performing marriages altogether. One probate judge who spoke with the New York Times indicated he was taking a middle ground. Judge Fred Hamic of Geneva County said he would issue marriage licenses, but would not perform weddings.
“I believe I would be partaking in a sin, and I sin every day, don’t get me wrong,” Hamic told the Times. “This is one sin I do not have to participate in, not that you have to participate in any sin.”
Ben Cooper, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, said gay couples still planned to seek marriage licenses Monday morning. “If we walk in and licenses are refused, if they do not comply with the federal order, then these probate judges could be personally liable,” Cooper told the New York Times.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has said it filed an ethics complaint against Moore based on his prior comments about federal courts not binding state courts. Moore based his pronouncementpartly on an Alabama decision on the duty to warn of hazardous conditions that rejected federal standards.
Moore was removed from the state’s top court in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge’s order that he remove a Ten Commandment monument he had installed in the courthouse. He was re-elected in 2012.
Link
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday when a federal court ruling striking down the state’s ban on gay marriage takes effect.
In the order issued on Sunday night, Moore declares that federal court opinions serve only as “persuasive authority” and don’t bind Alabama state courts. The New York Times and Al.com have stories; How Appealing links to additional coverage.
Moore said he has authority over probate judges as administrative head of the judicial branch, while the federal judge who overturned the gay-marriage ban had not issued an order directed at the probate judges.
David Kennedy, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the federal court case, called Moore’s order “a George Wallace move,” referring to the former governor who stood in a university door in a failed bid to stop integration.
Some probate judges in the state already declared they would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples, or said they would stop performing marriages altogether. One probate judge who spoke with the New York Times indicated he was taking a middle ground. Judge Fred Hamic of Geneva County said he would issue marriage licenses, but would not perform weddings.
“I believe I would be partaking in a sin, and I sin every day, don’t get me wrong,” Hamic told the Times. “This is one sin I do not have to participate in, not that you have to participate in any sin.”
Ben Cooper, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, said gay couples still planned to seek marriage licenses Monday morning. “If we walk in and licenses are refused, if they do not comply with the federal order, then these probate judges could be personally liable,” Cooper told the New York Times.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has said it filed an ethics complaint against Moore based on his prior comments about federal courts not binding state courts. Moore based his pronouncementpartly on an Alabama decision on the duty to warn of hazardous conditions that rejected federal standards.
Moore was removed from the state’s top court in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge’s order that he remove a Ten Commandment monument he had installed in the courthouse. He was re-elected in 2012.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
popsecret
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Of course not - if you believe in discrimination and not respecting the tenets of freedom, sure.
