Marriage

[ClydeR]

I can't believe none of you have brought this up! The Supreme Court will decide the marriage issue before July 4. They agreed to hear two issues. First, must states perform marriages for same-sex couples? Second, must states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?

Most people think the answer to the first question will be yes, which will make the second question irrelevant. But what if the court says the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is yes? That would be the most interesting outcome politically. It would make this a very hot issue going into the 2016 election.

[ClydeR]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has always been open about his hostility to gay marriage, saying he believes Satan is responsible for persuading many Americans to support same-sex unions.

But Justice Moore took his opposition to a different level this week when he urged local probate judges to defy a federal judge’s recent ruling striking down Alabama’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

More... (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/28/can-alabama-judges-defy-federal-court-on-gay-marriage/)


Justice Moore has a history of kicking up constitutional dust storms. Most famously, a state panel removed him as chief justice in 2003 after he defied a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state court building. Alabama voters in 2012 returned him to the bench in a narrowly decided judicial election.

But legal scholars are divided on whether, in this case, Justice Moore is wrong on the law, a question that gets into complicated theory about constitutional structure. At issue, specifically: whether a state court can ignore a federal district or appeals court ruling.

The Wall Street Journal has it right. There's a lot of disagreement among legal scholars about whether or not state court judges are required to follow federal court rulings. In the face of such confusion, the only to do is preserve the status quo.

[ClydeR]

The Wall Street Journal has it right. There's a lot of disagreement among legal scholars about whether or not state court judges are required to follow federal court rulings. In the face of such confusion, the only to do is preserve the status quo.

Wow! It's like I could see the future! Or at least I could see the past and knew it would repeat itself.


Davis, after keeping the windows of the marriage license division closed all day, issued a statement in the afternoon indicating that he would seek a "clarification" from the Alabama Supreme Court to the "administrative order" issued Sunday night by Chief Justice Roy Moore instructing probate judges to ignore a federal court order striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"I remain committed to properly applying the law in all judicial and ministerial actions of the Probate Court, but we are dealing with unprecedented conflicts of law between the federal and state courts and I must be certain that any action I take is fully compliant with the law, both the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution and statues of the State of Alabama," Davis stated.

More... (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/no_marriages_in_mobile_on_mond.html)

Yep. No possible way to know which law prevails. Unprecedented, indeed. A lot of counties in Alabama stopped issuing marriage licenses to anybody.



While we're talking about Alabama, take a look at this Facebook page of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court..

http://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

Not your typical judge's Facebook page.

[~Rocktar~]

http://youtu.be/Sbqv3MwwVd8

[Androidpk]

http://i.imgur.com/OQOB6fa.jpg

[waywardgs]

While we're talking about Alabama, take a look at this Facebook page of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court..

http://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

Not your typical judge's Facebook page.

that is one seriously frightening facebook page.

[ClydeR]

The day before the Supreme Court held its oral (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1) arguments (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2) in the marriage cases, Marco Rubio spoke on the subject..


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said it's "ridiculous and absurd" to believe there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, weighing in on the issue ahead of a landmark Supreme Court case.

"It doesn’t exist. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex-marriage. There isn’t such a right," the 2016 hopeful said during an interview this weekend with Christian Broadcasting Network's The Brody File. "You would have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

More... (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240171-rubio-ridiculous-and-absurd-that-theres-a-constitutional)

Anybody who disagrees is ridiculous. And absurd.

[Androidpk]

Rubio is ridiculous and absurd.

[StainlessSteelRat]

This wedge issue, which is used by the owning class to divide us, is ridiculous and absurd.

[ClydeR]

Wow! Rubio is not letting up on the marriage issue. He talks about it more than Santorum and Cruz. In an interview yesterday, he said it is a "real and present danger." When something is a real and present danger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger), the government can suppress Constitutional rights long enough to eliminate the danger.


Christianity is facing a "real and present danger" in the United States due to growing acceptance for gay marriage, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio said.

"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech. Because today, we've reached the point in our society where, if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," the Florida Republican told CBN News.

Rubio said the "next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech, and that's a real and present danger."

The comments are the latest in a series of remarks on gay marriage that have put the presidential contender under the media spotlight.

More... (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/marco-rubio-gay-marriage-real/2015/05/26/id/646809/)

[Warriorbird]

If gay marriage dooms Christianity there must be a lot more gay Christians than anybody ever expected.

[Ker_Thwap]

If gay marriage dooms Christianity there must be a lot more gay Christians than anybody ever expected.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/masturbation-will-make-your-hands-pregnant-in-the-afterlife-televangelist-warns-10275438.html

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the latest science. Since masturbation results in pregnant hands, then gay sex results in pregnant asses. Won't you think of the ass babies?!

[Warriorbird]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/masturbation-will-make-your-hands-pregnant-in-the-afterlife-televangelist-warns-10275438.html

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the latest science. Since masturbation results in pregnant hands, then gay sex results in pregnant asses. Won't you think of the ass babies?!

Wow. Men are DOOMED.

[Ker_Thwap]

Wow. Men are DOOMED.

I prefer to think that when I arrive, I'll have a legion of minions awaiting me. That, or the whole rotting in the ground thing.

[Gelston]

Mad Max is on TV right now btw.

[Androidpk]

Wow! Rubio is not letting up on the marriage issue. He talks about it more than Santorum and Cruz. In an interview yesterday, he said it is a "real and present danger." When something is a real and present danger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger), the government can suppress Constitutional rights long enough to eliminate the danger.

Another reason why Rubio doesn't have a shot at being the president.

[Wrathbringer]

Another reason why Rubio doesn't have a shot at being the president.

You just used shot and president in the same sentence. You're now on a list. Who are you? Why are you here?

[Androidpk]

You just used shot and president in the same sentence. You're now on a list. Who are you? Why are you here?

I only said it to get you to say it. I'm reporting you to Homeland Security!