Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Didn't see anything about driving or getting married in that statement.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige
- Thread starter Geaux4it
- Start date
Didn't see anything about driving or getting married in that statement.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,522
[Yes, there are and they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Didn't see anything about driving or getting married in that statement.
enjoying life and liberty and pursuing happiness cover it.
>
Today should be interesting; at 1:00 PM there is a hearing in Federal District court to determine if the court will issue an injunction against a Probate Court Judge ordering him to issue Civil Marriages licenses.
To recap the Federal District Court ruled Alabama Same-sex Marriage ban was unconstitutional (Link 1). A couple of days later a clarifying order was issued (Link 2). The State went to the 11 Circuit for a stay and it was rejected. Then they went to the SCOTUS and it was rejected. Some Probate Judges have been issuing licenses in accordance with the Federal Judge’s ruling, some have been issuing licenses only to different-sex couples, and some have refused to issue any licenses. Probate Judge Don Davis has been added as a named defendant (Link 3) and is the subject of the hearing today. Under Alabama Revised Statutes Title 30, Chapter 1, Section 9 (Link 4) Probate Judges are the only ones that can issue licenses and the law says they “may” (not that they “shall). Probate Judge Davis has already gone to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking assistance and they rejected him saying basically he was on his own (Link 5).
So it will interesting to see the outcome of today’s hearing for an injunction against Probate Judge Davis, here are the options I see:
Personally I kind of like Option #3 as it buts the ball squarely in the hands of Probate Judge Davis. He can continue not to issue Civil Marriage Licenses, but in doing so he will be rejecting what 95-97% of the licenses that would be issued (more inconvenience to different-sex couples) so as not to issue license to 3-5% of those requesting licenses. I wonder how long that action would last before the people would go to the legislature asking that the law be changed from “may” issue to “shall” issue removing the option from Probate Judges having optional duties.
*********************************************************
#1 -->> 253551999-1-14-cv-00208-53-alabama-opinion-and-order.pdf
#2 -->> 1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment
#3 -->> Strawser Order 2 10 15
#4 -->> Code Of Alabama
#5 -->> Alabama Supreme Court punts on request for 'clarification' of Roy Moore's marriage order | AL.com
>>>>
Today should be interesting; at 1:00 PM there is a hearing in Federal District court to determine if the court will issue an injunction against a Probate Court Judge ordering him to issue Civil Marriages licenses.
To recap the Federal District Court ruled Alabama Same-sex Marriage ban was unconstitutional (Link 1). A couple of days later a clarifying order was issued (Link 2). The State went to the 11 Circuit for a stay and it was rejected. Then they went to the SCOTUS and it was rejected. Some Probate Judges have been issuing licenses in accordance with the Federal Judge’s ruling, some have been issuing licenses only to different-sex couples, and some have refused to issue any licenses. Probate Judge Don Davis has been added as a named defendant (Link 3) and is the subject of the hearing today. Under Alabama Revised Statutes Title 30, Chapter 1, Section 9 (Link 4) Probate Judges are the only ones that can issue licenses and the law says they “may” (not that they “shall). Probate Judge Davis has already gone to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking assistance and they rejected him saying basically he was on his own (Link 5).
So it will interesting to see the outcome of today’s hearing for an injunction against Probate Judge Davis, here are the options I see:
Option #1:
Do nothing, which of course is always an option. I don’t see it happening where a Federal Judge is going to allow a lower court Judge to defy his or her order. But it could happen.
Option #2:
As the only official in the country that can issue Civil Marriage Licenses, the District Court Judge issues an injunction against Probate Judge Davis requiring him to reopen license issuing operations and that licenses will not be denied based on sex. If Probate Judge Davis continues to refuse (as now a named defendant in the case), then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly being personally required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.
Option #3:
Reiterate that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but recognize that under Alabama Revised Statutes (30-1-9) that Probate Judges issuance of Civil Marriage Licenses is optional. Issue an injunction that says that Probate Judge Davis can continue to not offer Civil Marriage Licenses to anyone (different-sex and same-sex) in accordance with Alabama Code, but that if he does resume operations and issues licenses in a discriminatory manner, then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly personally being required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.
Do nothing, which of course is always an option. I don’t see it happening where a Federal Judge is going to allow a lower court Judge to defy his or her order. But it could happen.
Option #2:
As the only official in the country that can issue Civil Marriage Licenses, the District Court Judge issues an injunction against Probate Judge Davis requiring him to reopen license issuing operations and that licenses will not be denied based on sex. If Probate Judge Davis continues to refuse (as now a named defendant in the case), then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly being personally required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.
Option #3:
Reiterate that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but recognize that under Alabama Revised Statutes (30-1-9) that Probate Judges issuance of Civil Marriage Licenses is optional. Issue an injunction that says that Probate Judge Davis can continue to not offer Civil Marriage Licenses to anyone (different-sex and same-sex) in accordance with Alabama Code, but that if he does resume operations and issues licenses in a discriminatory manner, then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly personally being required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.
Personally I kind of like Option #3 as it buts the ball squarely in the hands of Probate Judge Davis. He can continue not to issue Civil Marriage Licenses, but in doing so he will be rejecting what 95-97% of the licenses that would be issued (more inconvenience to different-sex couples) so as not to issue license to 3-5% of those requesting licenses. I wonder how long that action would last before the people would go to the legislature asking that the law be changed from “may” issue to “shall” issue removing the option from Probate Judges having optional duties.
*********************************************************
#1 -->> 253551999-1-14-cv-00208-53-alabama-opinion-and-order.pdf
#2 -->> 1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment
#3 -->> Strawser Order 2 10 15
#4 -->> Code Of Alabama
#5 -->> Alabama Supreme Court punts on request for 'clarification' of Roy Moore's marriage order | AL.com
>>>>
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
"Let the states decide .... " ???
NO.
The right wants huge government and massive control over citizens.
Get government out of our private lives.
If between consenting adults and harms no one, government should not have any say in who you choose to marry.
NO.
The right wants huge government and massive control over citizens.
Get government out of our private lives.
If between consenting adults and harms no one, government should not have any say in who you choose to marry.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
"Let the states decide .... " ???
NO.
The right wants huge government and massive control over citizens.
Get government out of our private lives.
If between consenting adults and harms no one, government should not have any say in who you choose to marry.
Oh, the restrictions to daily life that republicans want to impose legislatively are dramatic and profound. They would have sweeping effects on the lives of millions. Criminalized abortion, religion in schools, criminalized sodomy, elimination of most protections against discrimination, private businesses and landlords being free to discriminate on any basis they wish, the removal of fundamental standards of clean water and air, massive tort reform that favors corporations to an almost ludicrous degree, sweeping changes to voting laws that make it more difficult for voters who don't favor republicans to vote, etc.
And they resent that the federal government won't allow it. Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
"Let the states decide .... " ???
NO.
The right wants huge government and massive control over citizens.
Get government out of our private lives.
If between consenting adults and harms no one, government should not have any say in who you choose to marry.
Oh, the restrictions to daily life that republicans want to impose legislatively are dramatic and profound. They would have sweeping effects on the lives of millions. Criminalized abortion, religion in schools, criminalized sodomy, elimination of most protections against discrimination, private businesses and landlords being free to discriminate on any basis they wish, the removal of fundamental standards of clean water and air, massive tort reform that favors corporations to an almost ludicrous degree, sweeping changes to voting laws that make it more difficult for voters who don't favor republicans to vote, etc.
And they resent that the federal government won't allow it. Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
They are completely in favor of and fighting hard for sharia law - law based on foreign law and on religion.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
"Let the states decide .... " ???
NO.
The right wants huge government and massive control over citizens.
Get government out of our private lives.
If between consenting adults and harms no one, government should not have any say in who you choose to marry.
Oh, the restrictions to daily life that republicans want to impose legislatively are dramatic and profound. They would have sweeping effects on the lives of millions. Criminalized abortion, religion in schools, criminalized sodomy, elimination of most protections against discrimination, private businesses and landlords being free to discriminate on any basis they wish, the removal of fundamental standards of clean water and air, massive tort reform that favors corporations to an almost ludicrous degree, sweeping changes to voting laws that make it more difficult for voters who don't favor republicans to vote, etc.
And they resent that the federal government won't allow it. Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
They are completely in favor of and fighting hard for sharia law - law based on foreign law and on religion.
No they're not. Their 'religoius freedom' argument is naked hypocrisy. They don't want religious freedom. They want Christian and Jew freedom, with the former prominant over the latter. And pretty much fuck everyone else. Especially the Muslims.
When you take a long hard look at modern conservatism.....especially the social policy, its ludicrously inconsistent and profoundly hypocritical.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,528
Under Alabama Revised Statutes Title 30, Chapter 1, Section 9 (Link 4) Probate Judges are the only ones that can issue licenses and the law says they “may” (not that they “shall).
I believe this is a moot point since Persons can pursue their natural right to freedom of association and (marriage) contract, and simply have it recored for full faith and credit purposes, simply because the right can't muster enough Faith for a more Spartan regime.
I believe this is a moot point since Persons can pursue their natural right to freedom of association and (marriage) contract, and simply have it recored for full faith and credit purposes, simply because the right can't muster enough Faith for a more Spartan regime.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
Truly evil, I agree.
Just as evil as the LGBT cult serial-litigating their "morality" on everyone else in a heartbeat. It really is true, the old saying. "It takes one to know one"...
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
Truly evil, I agree.
Just as evil as the LGBT cult serial-litigating their "morality" on everyone else in a heartbeat. It really is true, the old saying. "It takes one to know one"...
The difference being that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't effect you in any way.
Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
Truly evil, I agree.
Just as evil as the LGBT cult serial-litigating their "morality" on everyone else in a heartbeat. It really is true, the old saying. "It takes one to know one"...
So you are saying you know evil- because you are evil?
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,532
Just the right appealing to ignorance of practicing abstinence and just saying "no"; or not having enough Faith to walk through the shadow of the valley of nude homosexual People, and fearing no "evil".Don't ever let a conservative bullshit you on 'small government' and 'getting government out of your life'. If they had the power, many republicans would legislate their morality on you in a heart beat.
Truly evil, I agree.
Just as evil as the LGBT cult serial-litigating their "morality" on everyone else in a heartbeat. It really is true, the old saying. "It takes one to know one"...
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,534
It is no longer a sovereign State power once it gets appealed to the general government and that body of laws, which include, Article 4, Section 2.Again- Let the states decide where the judges answer to the people- whereas the federal judges don't.
-Geaux
Again- Let the states decide where the judges answer to the people- whereas the federal judges don't.
-Geaux
That ship has long since sailed.
Even before Loving v. Virginia where a federal judge told the State of Virginia its marriage laws were unconstitutional.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
We're in the deadender stage of the anti-gay rights resistors.
- Thread starter
- #1,537
We're in the deadender stage of the anti-gay rights resistors.
WEEEeeee.... And the left parties on........
-Geaux
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
We're in the deadender stage of the anti-gay rights resistors.
WEEEeeee.... And the left parties on........
-Geaux
Skin and a public display of sexuality? Oh my. Well then this has to infuriate you
Thanks Obama!
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.
Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News
As the kids would say......"woot".
- Thread starter
- #1,540
Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.
Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News
As the kids would say......"woot".
And as I would say.... What a shame...
-Geaux
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 128
- Locked
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 307
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 243
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 241
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 321
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 18K
- Replies
- 195
- Views
- 620
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8081
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-