Alabama supreme court stops gay marriage 3/3/15

[dragon]

Didn't Alabama learn anything from the interracial marriage smackdown

The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.

The Alabama justices were defiant. “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

The resistance in Alabama, where states’ rights has always been sacred writ and state supreme court justices are elected rather than appointed, has been compared by many to that state’s resistance to school desegregation orders in the 1963, when Gov. George Wallace (D) stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to prevent the court-ordered enrollment of black students.

“The ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court offers the most forceful and clearly articulated rebuttal to date of the imaginative arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ employed by federal courts,” said a statement from the Liberty Counsel, which challenged the lower court ruling.

What happens next is unclear. Presumably someone will go back to the federal courts to overturn the ruling. But short of a ruling on gay marriage by the nation’s highest court, which isn’t expected for months, the standoff seems likely to continue. The Alabama court suggested that it would be bound by the U.S. Supreme Court but nothing lower than that.

Indeed, the state’s highest court declared itself equally empowered as the lower federal courts to decide whether Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution — stating unequivocally that it does not in what amounted to a broadside against the trend of courts invalidating same-sex marriage bans.

It accused other courts of employing “sleight of hand” to confer “fundamental-rights status on a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding.”

“Throughout the entirety of its history, Alabama has chosen the traditional definition of marriage,” the court said in a per curiam opinion, issued in the name of the court rather than a specific justice. “… That fact does not change simply because the new definition of marriage has gained ascendancy in certain quarters of the country, even if one of those quarters is the federal judiciary.”

link

[Flagg]

Ok then. Time to send in the 101st Airborne Division.

[Borgholio]

Didn't they send in the National Guard last time?

[Flagg]

No, Ike sent in the 101st Airborne Division.

[Zaune]

I wouldn't advise that. Too many militia fucknuts with AR-15s would take that as a cue to give the US a real terrorism threat, and I really don't think it's worth spilling blood over the right for gay couples to file joint tax returns.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wouldn't advise that. Too many militia fucknuts with AR-15s would take that as a cue to give the US a real terrorism threat, and I really don't think it's worth spilling blood over the right for gay couples to file joint tax returns.

1. Fuck You.

2. Said militia fucknuts have always been with us, and they did not cause that big a stir when Alabama resisted school integration, they wont do it now.

3. Even if they did, many of them are thoroughly infiltrated by the FBI (kinda like the KKK that way, actually), and none of their terrorist plots would get off the ground before people with bigger nastier guns and older model tanks paid them a visit.

[Borgholio]

It's about upholding constitutional rights, not just a tax issue. If there is anything that makes spilling blood even remotely justifiable, ensuring that all individuals in this country are treated equally under the law would do it.

[Flagg]

I wouldn't advise that. Too many militia fucknuts with AR-15s would take that as a cue to give the US a real terrorism threat, and I really don't think it's worth spilling blood over the right for gay couples to file joint tax returns.

1. Fuck You.

This. And if the militia fucknuts want to come out and play, well... Shit happens.

[Zaune]

If it was literally any other LGBT rights issue then I'd probably agree with you. But having been a collateral casualty in two messy divorces, I personally think that the legal and financial baggage that comes with having a legally binding wedding ceremony is more trouble than it's bloody worth for straight people anyway; so far as I can tell, marriage is a state of mind more than anything else.

[Flagg]

If it was literally any other LGBT rights issue then I'd probably agree with you. But having been a collateral casualty in two messy divorces, I personally think that the legal and financial baggage that comes with having a legally binding wedding ceremony is more trouble than it's bloody worth for straight people anyway; so far as I can tell, marriage is a state of mind more than anything else.

So... Take your neuroses somewhere else?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it was literally any other LGBT rights issue then I'd probably agree with you. But having been a collateral casualty in two messy divorces, I personally think that the legal and financial baggage that comes with having a legally binding wedding ceremony is more trouble than it's bloody worth for straight people anyway; so far as I can tell, marriage is a state of mind more than anything else.

I reiterate. Fuck. You.

Lets start with just the practicalities.

1. Joint taxes
2. Inheritance rights over joint property (as it stands without gay marriage, even a notarized will can be contested by blood relations and they will often win). You know what that means? ANYTHING in your spouses name, like maybe the house or car, automatically goes to their legal next of kin unless you are married.
3. Power of attorney in the event of incapacitation (Ditto with regard to inheritance, save that Advance Care Directives are often ignored by hospitals unless a blood relative or Married Partner confirms it, again, because the next of kin can challenge an ACD and will almost always win, or sue the hospital for wrongful death. And also win)
4. Hospital visitation (We have this by executive order now, but those can be rescinded)
5. Child custody and join adoption. Have adopted kids? Did your spouse die? Without you being married and adopting jointly, No Custody For You.
6. In the military? Sucks to Be You, because unless you are married, your partner gets Jack and Shit. Not even a death notification in the event you get shot. No base housing or relocation assistance, death benefits, Nothing.

The list goes on to include over a thousand other specified rights, benefits, and protections.

So stop projecting your fucking daddy issues and flagrant hipsterdom on everyone else.

........................................................................................

Now there are the larger issues.

If the state of Alabama is permitted to get away with this, and nullify federal court rulings, the Rule of Law itself collapses. Alabama could just as well decide to nullify Loving v Virginia, or Brown v Board of Education, or Miranda. And it could spread to other states and other issues.

Laws mean nothing unless they are enforced.

[Zaune]

The first five of those points can be at least partly negated by simply writing a will, but I take your point on the practicalities.

And you might be right on the larger issues, but... Well, it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. If the state of Alabama refuses to back down in the face of anything less than Federal troops, do we really want to risk people getting shot dropping the hammer on them over something minor just to deter them from trying it on with something major?

[Iroscato]

If that is the price of equality, then so be it. Think of all the movements in history that did not back down when facing the barrel of a gun.

[Flagg]

The first five of those points can be at least partly negated by simply writing a will, but I take your point on the practicalities.

And you might be right on the larger issues, but... Well, it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. If the state of Alabama refuses to back down in the face of anything less than Federal troops, do we really want to risk people getting shot dropping the hammer on them over something minor just to deter them from trying it on with something major?

Fuck you.
If you had actually read what AD wrote you'd have seen this:

2. Inheritance rights over joint property (as it stands without gay marriage, even a notarized will can be contested by blood relations and they will often win). You know what that means? ANYTHING in your spouses name, like maybe the house or car, automatically goes to their legal next of kin unless you are married.

And number 5 cannot possibly be taken care of "by simply writing a will" because child services will take the children if the "official adoptee" dies and place them with foster parents.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The first five of those points can be at least partly negated by simply writing a will, but I take your point on the practicalities.

You failed to read. Will Get Contested By Blood Relatives. Blood Relatives Usually Win. The same with advance care directives and Power of Attorney.

And you might be right on the larger issues, but... Well, it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. If the state of Alabama refuses to back down in the face of anything less than Federal troops, do we really want to risk people getting shot dropping the hammer on them over something minor just to deter them from trying it on with something major?

Yes. You beat them with the pain stick early, so the problem does not get any worse and other states like TX dont start doing the same thing.

You wont need federal troops though. A Contempt of Court charge followed up with the US Marshall's Service arresting Roy Moore and the Alabama Governor and frog-marching them into federal prison until they relent would be more than sufficient.

[Flagg]

I dunno, AD. I think you send in the troops now because in 2 years there may be a person in the WH who agrees with soon to be former (again) Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore and lets states de-facto nullify federal law that they (and the POTUS at the time) disagrees with.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I dunno, AD. I think you send in the troops now because in 2 years there may be a person in the WH who agrees with soon to be former (again) Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore and lets states de-facto nullify federal law that they (and the POTUS at the time) disagrees with.

There is that, but here is the thing. Actual troops require the direct and personal action of the POTUS. A POTUS that, lets face it, has no fucking spine right now (seriously, Cliven Bundy has not been dragged out of his home in chains. I would have sent in armored vehicles and destroyed them all. Root And Branch). The US Marshals, while technically part of the executive branch, dont. They work for the courts and serve federal warrants.

Enforcing the civil rights rulings of the federal courts has also been their historical role. The US Marshals were sent in to protect black students during desegragation, and it was only after they were assaulted that federal troops were deployed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I wouldn't advise that. Too many militia fucknuts with AR-15s would take that as a cue to give the US a real terrorism threat, and I really don't think it's worth spilling blood over the right for gay couples to file joint tax returns.

1. Fuck You.

This. And if the militia fucknuts want to come out and play, well... Shit happens.

Actually it would probably do future generations some good since they seem to think that the rifle is the ultimate weapon. Seriously, fuck these people. I don't think the government should tolerate what has the potential to be basically domestic terrorism training camps.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't advise that. Too many militia fucknuts with AR-15s would take that as a cue to give the US a real terrorism threat, and I really don't think it's worth spilling blood over the right for gay couples to file joint tax returns.

Unlike some in this thread appear to, I do not want a bloody crackdown, and I find anyone who wants a violent conflict disgusting. But fear of violence should never be allowed to deter the government from enforcing the law because if it does it sends the message that terrorism works and the law is meaningless against anyone willing to use violence. That's not a precedent we should set. So enforce the law and if some thugs start a fight, its on them and we should use whatever force is necessary and no more in order to uphold the law. That said, it shouldn't be necessary to send troops to resolve this.

Edit: Just have the fuckers arrested for Contempt of Court like Alyrium Denryle said.

[Pelranius]

So apparently Moore doesn't believe in the supremacy clause.

So would arresting him for refusing a federal court order fall under the U.S. Marshalls' or the FBI's balliwick? (I think the FBI is charge of investigating sedition. There was a VA whistleblower in 2005, Laura Berg, whom her HR department asked the FBI to investigate her for sedition).

[Gaidin]

Also, at least wait until SCOTUS before pulling your stunts. Ike did. Want to pull a stunt like that only to have SCOTUS reverse you? That'll be...brilliantly conceived and awesomely executed. I'd say bra-fucking-vo with that one for all I disagree with what Alabama's current stunts... Golf clap, yo.

[The Romulan Republic]

The first five of those points can be at least partly negated by simply writing a will, but I take your point on the practicalities.

And you might be right on the larger issues, but... Well, it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. If the state of Alabama refuses to back down in the face of anything less than Federal troops, do we really want to risk people getting shot dropping the hammer on them over something minor just to deter them from trying it on with something major?

I don't think it'll come to that, but if it did, do you want them to set a precedent that a state can tell Federal law to piss off with impunity? Do you want it to escalate until its something much bigger?

[Borgholio]

do you want them to set a precedent that a state can tell Federal law to piss off with impunity?

Already happened. 1861. We all know how well that turned out...

[Flagg]

I dunno, AD. I think you send in the troops now because in 2 years there may be a person in the WH who agrees with soon to be former (again) Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore and lets states de-facto nullify federal law that they (and the POTUS at the time) disagrees with.

There is that, but here is the thing. Actual troops require the direct and personal action of the POTUS. A POTUS that, lets face it, has no fucking spine right now (seriously, Cliven Bundy has not been dragged out of his home in chains. I would have sent in armored vehicles and destroyed them all. Root And Branch). The US Marshals, while technically part of the executive branch, dont. They work for the courts and serve federal warrants.

Enforcing the civil rights rulings of the federal courts has also been their historical role. The US Marshals were sent in to protect black students during desegragation, and it was only after they were assaulted that federal troops were deployed.

Cliven Bundy should have had his little militia wiped out by A-10's, been captured dead or alive (don't care which) and his entire herd distributed to Indian American reservations.

[Flagg]

Rather talk about that things awesomeness than douchebag Alabamans any day.