Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
Didn't see anything about driving or getting married in that statement.
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
enjoying life and liberty and pursuing happiness cover it.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
>
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
>>>>
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,999
- 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
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
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.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,999
- 2,040
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
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
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 **** 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
- 1,942
- 265
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
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
The difference being that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't effect you in any way.
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".
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.
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
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
Skin and a public display of sexuality? Oh my. Well then this has to infuriate you
Thanks Obama!
- Thread starter
- #1,540
Similar threads
New Topics
-
‘Transformative’: Trump Reduces Federal Workforce To Its Smallest Level Since 1966- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Pete Hegseth Will Learn That White Supremacist Armies Always Lose- Started by skews13
- Replies: 74
-
