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

[Seawytch]

The states may decide where the capitol city is located, decide the boundaries of counties, and decide the speed limits on various roads and highways.

They may not, however, decide whether or not an American citizen will have his civil rights or not, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Americans living in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

Full faith and credit

Is that supposed to mean something? Full Faith and Credit is also being violated regarding gays and lesbians. If a 40 year old man marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama, his marriage is recognized as legal and valid in all 50 states because of FF&C, but because of the unconstitutional DOMA (which will likely meet it's complete end in June) gay marriages are not treated the same.

 

[Seawytch]

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to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.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

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

No, actually, my point is quite valid. (Take a look at the Heller case and get back to me, m'kay?)

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm telling you. Next we'll have unions with chickens recognized in the USA. There in no end to the insanity

Stand by to stand by

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

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

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

Your argument is specious.
Had there been a constitutional amendment specific to marriage, you'd have a valid point.

Thanks to no less than the 14 times marriage was declared a Fundamental Right by the SCOTUS, most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley, I still have a valid point. You're welcome.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

No, actually, my point is quite valid. (Take a look at the Heller case and get back to me, m'kay?)

His point is quite valid. And it trumps your next contention. My carry permit is not valid in all 50 states byt my drivers license is, as is my marriage license.
States have the power to set their own standards.

 

[konradv]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

Your argument is specious.
Had there been a constitutional amendment specific to marriage, you'd have a valid point.

Thanks to no less than the 14 times marriage was declared a Fundamental Right by the SCOTUS, most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley, I still have a valid point. You're welcome.

Argument 2

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

Gays are not denied protection in any form. No one is persecuting them for getting married.

 

[Seawytch]

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them.

I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them.

He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

He didn't say you didn't like the 2nd Amendment, he asked why have a Constitution if the states can just say "**** you, I do what I want".

The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right and therefore, anti gay marriage bans based solely on animus are being found unconstitutional...just like handgun bans were.

"The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right"
Not correct.
SCOTUS will not rule on the question until April when the Court will hear 4 cases regarding the issue.
Now, you are free to maintain your position. However, let's be clear. The above is your opinion.
Court will rule on same-sex marriage UPDATED SCOTUSblog

Not correct. The SCOTUS has already declared marriage a fundamental right. It's called precedence.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

 

[konradv]

Small government and states' rights are the nature of the Founders who drafted the Constitution.

Overruled buy the 14th Amendment in cases involving Equal Protection..

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them.

I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them.

He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

He didn't say you didn't like the 2nd Amendment, he asked why have a Constitution if the states can just say "**** you, I do what I want".

The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right and therefore, anti gay marriage bans based solely on animus are being found unconstitutional...just like handgun bans were.

"The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right"
Not correct.
SCOTUS will not rule on the question until April when the Court will hear 4 cases regarding the issue.
Now, you are free to maintain your position. However, let's be clear. The above is your opinion.
Court will rule on same-sex marriage UPDATED SCOTUSblog

Not correct. The SCOTUS has already declared marriage a fundamental right. It's called precedence.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

No one lacks the right to get married.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

No its not... But carry on

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

Small government and states' rights are the nature of the Founders who drafted the Constitution.

Overruled buy the 14th Amendment in cases involving Equal Protection..

Irrelevant and probably incorrect.

 

[konradv]

Argument 2

Sorry, no Equal Protection for shorthand.

 

[Seawytch]

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

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

No, actually, my point is quite valid. (Take a look at the Heller case and get back to me, m'kay?)

His point is quite valid. And it trumps your next contention. My carry permit is not valid in all 50 states byt my drivers license is, as is my marriage license.
States have the power to set their own standards.

Ah, but my CC permit is not treated differently than yours while my marriage license is. That's discrimination and the SCOTUS is about to find it unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

No, actually, my point is quite valid. (Take a look at the Heller case and get back to me, m'kay?)

His point is quite valid. And it trumps your next contention. My carry permit is not valid in all 50 states byt my drivers license is, as is my marriage license.
States have the power to set their own standards.

Ah, but my CC permit is not treated differently than yours while my marriage license is. That's discrimination and the SCOTUS is about to find it unconstitutional.

Nope. Your permit is not valid in TN. Your "marriage license" isnt either. No discrimination as they are all treated equally.

 

[konradv]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

No its not... But carry on

Since when is Equal Protection not firmly established? It's been part of the Constitution for over a hundred years. You're going to have to do better than a terse dismissal.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

No its not... But carry on

Sine when is Equal Protection not firmly established? It's been over a hundred years since it's been a part of the Constitution. You're going to have to do better than a terse dismissal.

Thats a gross over simplification of the issue.

 

[Geaux4it]

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

No, actually, my point is quite valid. (Take a look at the Heller case and get back to me, m'kay?)

His point is quite valid. And it trumps your next contention. My carry permit is not valid in all 50 states byt my drivers license is, as is my marriage license.
States have the power to set their own standards.

Ah, but my CC permit is not treated differently than yours while my marriage license is. That's discrimination and the SCOTUS is about to find it unconstitutional.

Yes it is.. Your CC permit is not recognized by all states, so it is treated differently. For instance, CA only recognizes a few states CCW.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

Equal protection is firmly established, therefore, it IS a Civil Rights issue.

No its not... But carry on

Since when is Equal Protection not firmly established? It's been part of the Constitution for over a hundred years. You're going to have to do better than a terse dismissal.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions

-Geaux