Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

Who are you quoting?

 

[kaz]

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

I don't see her calling for any lower tax burden than any other married couple.

She hasn't denied supporting progressive tax rates and I said she supports them many times. Maybe she can clarify that.

 

[kaz]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

Seriously, that's your argument? You support big government and pay as little as possible. You contribute nothing by choice. That's OK. I oppose our massive government, so I should pay higher taxes. To prove what exactly? You sir, are an idiot.

 

[kaz]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

Or why he doesn't get legally divorced?

Right, **** my ho, it's my way or the highway. I believe we covered this ad nauseum. You aren't ready for heterosexual marriage. You put yourself first. I know you have no long term memory, just re-read the last few pages and you will remember until you forget again.

 

[kaz]

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

She wants to be treated legally exactly the same as you and your wife are.

You oppose that.

That is what your argument boils down to.

Again, *****, I want EVERYONE treated the same. Calling that I want discrimination and you, who who want people treated differently opposing discrimination is the intellectual vacuum that you are.

 

[kaz]

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

She wants to be treated legally exactly the same as you and your wife are.

You oppose that.

That is what your argument boils down to.

Ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!

Strawman. I want us treated equally also. I want everyone treated equally. You don't want that.

 

[kaz]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

No, but giving gays that puts us further from that goal. You get it and you flip to opposing equality, you got yours, baby. Screw the rest.

 

[kaz]

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

So either gays get the tax breaks that married folks do.....or he should be paying higher taxes since he doesn't believe married folks should get the breaks.

Those are the only two consistent positions.

Those are the only two consistent positions to an idiot. You a liberal who advocates high progressive taxes evades them. Then you assign a libertarian the job of paying higher taxes on purpose.

Explain how giving the KKK would ever be a logical outcome for you. That is the logical equivalence of what you assign to me. Give money to the warden that enslaves us, give them more than I have to.

As I said, you are an idiot.

 

[kaz]

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

Why do they deserve that? WHy dont triples deserve the same protection? Or any group that wants the benefits of marriage? Why shouldnt a mother and son be able to get married to take advantage of the marital inheritance loophole? Or two business partners get married so one can't testify against the other in a criminal proceeding?

Slippery slope.

That isn't a slippery slope. You need to re-read the definition. That is if you read it the first time. Saying for example that gay marriage leads to polygamy being marriage is a slippery slope. Saying other people deserve marriage isn't. You are so slow. Don't play this game with me, you're losing. Badly.

 

[kaz]

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

 

[kaz]

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreeny.

Argument #2
"Gays just want to marry to sponge off of others"

By having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple....

I want married heterosexual couples, married homosexual couples and singles to pay the same, flat tax rates.

You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

Which is a completely separate issue from our civil marriages being treated exactly like yours. Start a thread.

It directly addresses you simpletons who keep saying that I, who advocate equality support discrimination while you, who support discrimination support equality.

So did Goering support equality when he supported Himmler? That is what you are arguing.

 

[kaz]

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Kaz...feel free to work your internet fingers to the bone telling people about the evils of Civil marriage. Actually DO something about your ideals and stand with a sign outside the marriage registrars office "Down with gubmit marriage". Do everything in your powerlessness to get rid of civil marriage and the hundreds of benfits that go with it. We'll still want to marry (Some STR8 would set up a citizens registry I'm sure). We were marrying before we could do it legally and we would do it if you ever managed to pry civil marriage from the fingers of you heterosexuals. Let us know how the campaign goes...you'll know how OUR fight goes.

Begging the question. I told you what I am doing.

Great, keep talking. I'm sure there are dozens of people jumping on that "no civil marriage" bandwagon.

The point is the discriminator is you, you advocate gays discriminate like straights, that isn't equality.

And you are the hypocrite, you want out of the high, progressive taxes you support.

 

[Skylar]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

Seriously, that's your argument? You support big government and pay as little as possible. You contribute nothing by choice. That's OK. I oppose our massive government, so I should pay higher taxes. To prove what exactly? You sir, are an idiot.

I'm applying your standards to you.

You've accused Seawitch of all sorts of heinous things based on the idea that she wants tax benefits for being married and supports higher taxes. Well, you support treating single folks the same as married people. If you're married, wouldn't that mandate that you pay the extra taxes that your married status saves you over your single countrymen?

If the standard is idiotic, then perhaps you shouldn't be using it.

 

[Skylar]

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Kaz...feel free to work your internet fingers to the bone telling people about the evils of Civil marriage. Actually DO something about your ideals and stand with a sign outside the marriage registrars office "Down with gubmit marriage". Do everything in your powerlessness to get rid of civil marriage and the hundreds of benfits that go with it. We'll still want to marry (Some STR8 would set up a citizens registry I'm sure). We were marrying before we could do it legally and we would do it if you ever managed to pry civil marriage from the fingers of you heterosexuals. Let us know how the campaign goes...you'll know how OUR fight goes.

Begging the question. I told you what I am doing.

Great, keep talking. I'm sure there are dozens of people jumping on that "no civil marriage" bandwagon.

The point is the discriminator is you, you advocate gays discriminate like straights, that isn't equality.

And you are the hypocrite, you want out of the high, progressive taxes you support.

And how is she advocating discrimination against straights?

Specifically.

Your claims of hypocrisy flow easily. Your evidence to back them up.....is rather unimpressive.

 

[Skylar]

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

If that's the best you can do then you clearly have nothing useful to add to the conversation.

 

[Skylar]

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreeny.

Argument #2
"Gays just want to marry to sponge off of others"

By having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple....

I want married heterosexual couples, married homosexual couples and singles to pay the same, flat tax rates.

You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

Her position is that same sex couples should have the same access to marriage as straights. With all the benefits that come with marriage.

How then is that hypocritical? She's never argued that straights shouldn't have access to marriage.

I don't think hypocrisy means what you think it means.

 

[Contumacious]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."


The US Constitution, not SCOTUS' pronouncements are the supreme law of the land, nevertheless homosexuals have a NINTH AMENDMENT right to marry.


.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."


The US Constitution, not SCOTUS' pronouncements are the supreme law of the land, nevertheless homosexuals have a NINTH AMENDMENT right to marry.


.

The Supreme Court is the body that has jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. And per the founders, was the body intended to interpret the constitution.

....the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

Seems pretty clear.

 

[Contumacious]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."


The US Constitution, not SCOTUS' pronouncements are the supreme law of the land, nevertheless homosexuals have a NINTH AMENDMENT right to marry.


.

The Supreme Court is the body that has jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. And per the founders, was the body intended to interpret the constitution.

....the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

Seems pretty clear.

....the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78


Seems pretty clear.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."


The US Constitution, not SCOTUS' pronouncements are the supreme law of the land, nevertheless homosexuals have a NINTH AMENDMENT right to marry.


.

The Supreme Court is the body that has jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. And per the founders, was the body intended to interpret the constitution.

....the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

Seems pretty clear.

....the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78


Seems pretty clear.

And the federal judiciary is giving preference to constitutional guarantees over the statute.

Which is what its supposed to do.