Seriously, Alabama? SERIOUSLY?
Alabama Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage
MONTGOMERY - The Alabama Supreme Court issued an injunction Tuesday not only allowing probate judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses but giving other probate judges five days to explain to the court why they should not have to discontinue the practice.
The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law. Seven judges concurred with the opinion, one concurred in part and one dissented.
The court says Alabama has defined marriage as between only one man and one woman for about 200 years. And it says a federal court used "sleight of hand" in a case that resulted in most of Alabama allowing gay marriages last month.
The Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the court to halt same-sex unions after a federal judge in Mobile said Alabama laws banning them were unconstitutional."The named respondents are ordered to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Within five business days following the issuance of this order, each such probate judge may file an answer responding to the relator's petition for the writ of mandamus and showing cause, if any, why said probate judge should not be bound hereby," the order states.
"Subject to further order of this Court upon receipt and consideration of any such answer, each such probate judge is temporarily enjoined from issuing any marriage license contrary to Alabama law as explained in this opinion," said the opinion."
The opinion said that when the Supreme Court said marriage was a constitutional right, it was referring to only traditional marriage.
"… the Supreme Court plainly was referring to traditional marriage when it proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right," the opinion said. "This is evident from the fact that in each of those cases the discussion of the right involved children.
"… what the federal district court has done is to declare an entirely new concept of "marriage" a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution."
The opinion said the misinterpretation of the law to include same-sex marriages was purposeful.
"The ostensible reason for the federal district court's judicial sleight of hand is apparent enough: conferring fundamental-right status upon a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding is, to say the least, curious."
The opinion also ruled about being in love, as a reason same-sex individuals should be allowed to marry.
"Under this theory, a person has a right to marry the person he or she loves regardless of that person's gender. This notion has broad public appeal and is, perhaps, the mantra most repeated in public discussions of this matter," the opinion states.
But then it goes on to say that love is not a legal factor - that no state requires people to be in love to be married and that "moreover, if love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected."
Before Tuesday's ruling, gays and lesbians were able to marry in a majority of Alabama counties, but at least one-fourth of probate judges refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or shut down marriage license operations altogether out of uncertainty over what to do.
At least 12 Alabama counties were not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. At least another six were not giving licenses to anyone, gay or straight, to avoid the appearance of discrimination.
Source
Rolling my eyes SO hard at this ridiculous ruling and the frantic desperation of its convoluted reasoning. Nice try, AL.
It's funny how the same folks who complain about the government wasting money are more than happy to fritter away tax dollars on an exercise in futility like this!
P.S. The comments at this source are actually not too bad; so far, the sane people seem to be greatly outnumbering the bigots and asshats. (So far, meaning that things can always change!!)
MONTGOMERY - The Alabama Supreme Court issued an injunction Tuesday not only allowing probate judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses but giving other probate judges five days to explain to the court why they should not have to discontinue the practice.
The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law. Seven judges concurred with the opinion, one concurred in part and one dissented.
The court says Alabama has defined marriage as between only one man and one woman for about 200 years. And it says a federal court used "sleight of hand" in a case that resulted in most of Alabama allowing gay marriages last month.
The Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the court to halt same-sex unions after a federal judge in Mobile said Alabama laws banning them were unconstitutional."The named respondents are ordered to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Within five business days following the issuance of this order, each such probate judge may file an answer responding to the relator's petition for the writ of mandamus and showing cause, if any, why said probate judge should not be bound hereby," the order states.
"Subject to further order of this Court upon receipt and consideration of any such answer, each such probate judge is temporarily enjoined from issuing any marriage license contrary to Alabama law as explained in this opinion," said the opinion."
The opinion said that when the Supreme Court said marriage was a constitutional right, it was referring to only traditional marriage.
"… the Supreme Court plainly was referring to traditional marriage when it proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right," the opinion said. "This is evident from the fact that in each of those cases the discussion of the right involved children.
"… what the federal district court has done is to declare an entirely new concept of "marriage" a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution."
The opinion said the misinterpretation of the law to include same-sex marriages was purposeful.
"The ostensible reason for the federal district court's judicial sleight of hand is apparent enough: conferring fundamental-right status upon a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding is, to say the least, curious."
The opinion also ruled about being in love, as a reason same-sex individuals should be allowed to marry.
"Under this theory, a person has a right to marry the person he or she loves regardless of that person's gender. This notion has broad public appeal and is, perhaps, the mantra most repeated in public discussions of this matter," the opinion states.
But then it goes on to say that love is not a legal factor - that no state requires people to be in love to be married and that "moreover, if love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected."
Before Tuesday's ruling, gays and lesbians were able to marry in a majority of Alabama counties, but at least one-fourth of probate judges refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or shut down marriage license operations altogether out of uncertainty over what to do.
At least 12 Alabama counties were not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. At least another six were not giving licenses to anyone, gay or straight, to avoid the appearance of discrimination.
Source
Rolling my eyes SO hard at this ridiculous ruling and the frantic desperation of its convoluted reasoning. Nice try, AL.
It's funny how the same folks who complain about the government wasting money are more than happy to fritter away tax dollars on an exercise in futility like this!
P.S. The comments at this source are actually not too bad; so far, the sane people seem to be greatly outnumbering the bigots and asshats. (So far, meaning that things can always change!!)