A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

[NYcarbineer]

"Not everyone immediately accepted the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling about interracial marriage, either

Now it seems that the link between Loving and Obergefell doesn’t end there. As a Kentucky county clerk continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples—despite Obergefell and despite a refusal by the Supreme Court to get involved with her case—it’s worth remembering that it was years after Loving before interracial marriage was actually a given across the United States.

In theory, the Loving ruling meant all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were invalidated. At the time, more than a dozen states had such laws on the books. But three years later, when Sgt. Louis Voyer (who was white) and Phyllis Bett (who was black) tried to get married in Alabama, they were refused a license by Probate Judge C. Clyde Brittain, on the basis that Alabama law would have made such a license criminal. In fact, Alabama law still made Voyer and Bett’s coupledom criminal in itself, and the Alabama constitution actively barred state lawmakers from legalizing marriage between “any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro.”

In the resulting 1970 case United States v. Brittain, the district court ruling was extremely straightforward: there was no question that the Alabama laws in question were unconstitutional and that Voyer and Bett had the right to marry."

I wonder if people like Huckabee are still standing with the old state laws on miscegenation and defending their right to ignore the Supreme Court?

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

 

[LordBrownTrout]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

 

[g5000]

"Not everyone immediately accepted the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling about interracial marriage, either

Now it seems that the link between Loving and Obergefell doesn’t end there. As a Kentucky county clerk continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples—despite Obergefell and despite a refusal by the Supreme Court to get involved with her case—it’s worth remembering that it was years after Loving before interracial marriage was actually a given across the United States.

In theory, the Loving ruling meant all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were invalidated. At the time, more than a dozen states had such laws on the books. But three years later, when Sgt. Louis Voyer (who was white) and Phyllis Bett (who was black) tried to get married in Alabama, they were refused a license by Probate Judge C. Clyde Brittain, on the basis that Alabama law would have made such a license criminal. In fact, Alabama law still made Voyer and Bett’s coupledom criminal in itself, and the Alabama constitution actively barred state lawmakers from legalizing marriage between “any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro.”

In the resulting 1970 case United States v. Brittain, the district court ruling was extremely straightforward: there was no question that the Alabama laws in question were unconstitutional and that Voyer and Bett had the right to marry."

I wonder if people like Huckabee are still standing with the old state laws on miscegenation and defending their right to ignore the Supreme Court?

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

Like I always say: Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

If I have to break down this simple deduction on comparative/contrast thought in regards to SC rulings now and then....we're really screwed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

Yeah when you make something illegal that shouldn't be illegal, it becomes a problem. And now gay marriage is legal, so problem solved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

If I have to break down this simple deduction on comparative/contrast thought in regards to SC rulings now and then....we're really screwed.

Most literate people intending to make a point will elucidate the point.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If Barack Obama can ignore the law--and has done so on several occasions--why can't Kim Davis? Why isn't Obama in jail for ignoring laws that are far more important?

 

[paperview]

"Not everyone immediately accepted the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling about interracial marriage, either

Now it seems that the link between Loving and Obergefell doesn’t end there. As a Kentucky county clerk continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples—despite Obergefell and despite a refusal by the Supreme Court to get involved with her case—it’s worth remembering that it was years after Loving before interracial marriage was actually a given across the United States.

In theory, the Loving ruling meant all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were invalidated. At the time, more than a dozen states had such laws on the books. But three years later, when Sgt. Louis Voyer (who was white) and Phyllis Bett (who was black) tried to get married in Alabama, they were refused a license by Probate Judge C. Clyde Brittain, on the basis that Alabama law would have made such a license criminal. In fact, Alabama law still made Voyer and Bett’s coupledom criminal in itself, and the Alabama constitution actively barred state lawmakers from legalizing marriage between “any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro.”

In the resulting 1970 case United States v. Brittain, the district court ruling was extremely straightforward: there was no question that the Alabama laws in question were unconstitutional and that Voyer and Bett had the right to marry."

I wonder if people like Huckabee are still standing with the old state laws on miscegenation and defending their right to ignore the Supreme Court?

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

Excellent post.

 

[bodecea]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

Exactly how one can get around a supreme court ruling. Get that amendment process going. (BTW, did you know the Income Tax amendment was passed as a prelude to Prohibition...because before the Income Tax, MOST federal taxes were collected thru alcohol taxes?)

 

[bodecea]

If Barack Obama can ignore the law--and has done so on several occasions--why can't Kim Davis? Why isn't Obama in jail for ignoring laws that are far more important?

People like you keep saying things like that....do something....get your Congressmen to impeach him, or get them to file a lawsuit if that is INDEED the case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Not everyone immediately accepted the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling about interracial marriage, either

Now it seems that the link between Loving and Obergefell doesn’t end there. As a Kentucky county clerk continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples—despite Obergefell and despite a refusal by the Supreme Court to get involved with her case—it’s worth remembering that it was years after Loving before interracial marriage was actually a given across the United States.

In theory, the Loving ruling meant all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were invalidated. At the time, more than a dozen states had such laws on the books. But three years later, when Sgt. Louis Voyer (who was white) and Phyllis Bett (who was black) tried to get married in Alabama, they were refused a license by Probate Judge C. Clyde Brittain, on the basis that Alabama law would have made such a license criminal. In fact, Alabama law still made Voyer and Bett’s coupledom criminal in itself, and the Alabama constitution actively barred state lawmakers from legalizing marriage between “any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro.”

In the resulting 1970 case United States v. Brittain, the district court ruling was extremely straightforward: there was no question that the Alabama laws in question were unconstitutional and that Voyer and Bett had the right to marry."

I wonder if people like Huckabee are still standing with the old state laws on miscegenation and defending their right to ignore the Supreme Court?

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

You might want to add the case of Thomas Roger and Carol Ann Person who were denied Civil Marraige because the Magistrate's religious beliefs were against interracial marriage.

The Persons, with the assistance of an attorney through Legal Aid of North Carolina, went to court to contest the refusal of the magistrates to marry them. Person said that she and her fiance offered a simple message for why they should get married — “Love didn’t have any color.”

Higher courts not only compelled a magistrate to perform the marriage ceremony, but awarded the Persons $2,600 in legal fees and court costs.​

Controversy about religious objection to marriage once focused on race
N.C. Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License in the 1970s Speaks Out Against S.B. 2


>>>>

 

[David_42]

G5000 sums it up, same bullshit, different decade. Not even worth acknowledging the bigoted rwers anymore.

 

[SwimExpert]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

I believe he's referring to the fact that sometimes the Supreme Court departs from stare decisis and issues a ruling that essentially invalidates a previous ruling. In this case, he fails to comprehend the concept of stare decisis and the effect of a Supreme Court decision which seems to contradict with an earlier ruling.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not imply that the Supreme Court is infallible, nor does it carve in stone any opinion delivered from the Supreme Court, nor does it prevent a future court from finding a precedent from a previous case to be either inapplicable or in error. Stare decisis is a concept that states that in order to met out justice accurately and fairly courts should stand behind that which was previously decided (i.e. not disturb that which has already been settled), and that especially courts of lower jurisdiction should not generally ignore previous precedents of higher courts without a compelling case being offered. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions disregarded past precedents when the sitting court found them to be poorly decided and failing to fully recognize the rights of the people.

That being said, Trout is being especially idiotic by invoking prohibition as his example. Prohibition was brought about via constitutional amendment, for which there could be no meaningful court challenge. The end of prohibition 13 years later was similarly brought about by constitutional amendment. Despite the repeal of the 18th amendment, prohibition remains a constitutionally permissible action, upon action by the government. In many areas of the country alcohol remains illegal to this day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Barack Obama can ignore the law--and has done so on several occasions--why can't Kim Davis? Why isn't Obama in jail for ignoring laws that are far more important?

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[paperview]

Interesting map:

"What's interesting is that, in the decade prior to Loving, laws in a number of states were repealed by state legislatures or thrown out by the courts. It's hard not to see parallels in the current momentum against gay marriage bans. A decade ago, Massachusetts' Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. As of Monday, it appears that more than half of the states have legalized gay marriage."

Click on the link to see another (interactive) map to see how long individual states had laws on the books banning it.
Length of time states barred interracial marriage

What overturning interracial marriage bans might tell us about what happens next with gay marriage

The article goes on to state -- it wasn't until the year 2000 Alabama overturned it's ban.

"The court's decision in Loving overturned a ban on interracial marriage in Virginia that was three centuries old, predating even the United States. No states currently have even unenforceable bans on the books -- but 20 years ago, that wasn't the case. In November 1998, South Carolina finally threw out its ban following a public referendum. But Alabama was the last state to do so -- overturning its (unenforceable) ban in 2000."

(What the article doesn't mention though is -- the Alabama Constitution *still* to this day, reaffirmed by voters again just a few years ago (!) - have separate schools for "white and colored" in their Constitution.)

 

[paperview]

G5000 sums it up, same bullshit, different decade. Not even worth acknowledging the bigoted rwers anymore.

I do like seeing how it is bringing them out of the woodworks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

I believe he's referring to the fact that sometimes the Supreme Court departs from stare decisis and issues a ruling that essentially invalidates a previous ruling. In this case, he fails to comprehend the concept of stare decisis and the effect of a Supreme Court decision which seems to contradict with an earlier ruling.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not imply that the Supreme Court is infallible, nor does it carve in stone any opinion delivered from the Supreme Court, nor does it prevent a future court from finding a precedent from a previous case to be either inapplicable or in error. Stare decisis is a concept that states that in order to met out justice accurately and fairly courts should stand behind that which was previously decided (i.e. not disturb that which has already been settled), and that especially courts of lower jurisdiction should not generally ignore previous precedents of higher courts without a compelling case being offered. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions disregarded past precedents when the sitting court found them to be poorly decided and failing to fully recognize the rights of the people.

That being said, Trout is being especially idiotic by invoking prohibition as his example. Prohibition was brought about via constitutional amendment, for which there could be no meaningful court challenge. The end of prohibition 13 years later was similarly brought about by constitutional amendment. Despite the repeal of the 18th amendment, prohibition remains a constitutionally permissible action, upon action by the government. In many areas of the country alcohol remains illegal to this day.

so what was the precedent in the DOMA case where Kennedy magically made gays into a protected class....? talk about reaching for the idiotic....

 

[SwimExpert]

so what was the precedent in the DOMA case where Kennedy magically made gays into a protected class....? talk about reaching for the idiotic....

Your post failed to meet the following criteria:

1) Logic - Post makes no damned sense.
2) Relevance - Does not pertain to topic, de facto. Implies a factually false assertion as true which, if true, would lend to an entirely different subject.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

so what was the precedent in the DOMA case where Kennedy magically made gays into a protected class....? talk about reaching for the idiotic....

Your post failed to meet the following criteria:

1) Logic - Post makes no damned sense.
2) Relevance - Does not pertain to topic, de facto. Implies a factually false assertion as true which, if true, would lend to an entirely different subject.

1. you called Trout's post idiotic.....i called Kennedy's logic idiotic.....

2. relevant because race is a characteristic of a protected class.....therefore interracial marriages were deemed lawful.....Kennedy somehow concocted that homosexuality is a characteristic of a protected class.....idiotic....