Connect with us

Breaking News

Alabama Is Standing Up For States Rights

Published

on

Alabama

  • Alabama’s Chief justice Roy Moore said on Wednesday that probate judges have a ministerial duty to not issue any marriage license to same-sex couples.
  • He wants the lower judges to uphold previous state amendments that are in place.
  • Moore’s argument is that the Supreme Court only applies to Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
  • Moore’s critics were quick to slam the decision and warned the probate judges that if they carry out his directive then they could be at risk for contempt sanctions. 

(CNN) Alabama’s chief justice on Wednesday directed probate judges in the state to enforce the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, seven months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalized gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” Roy Moore wrote in an administrative order.

Moore points out that the Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, was targeted at Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee and that the U.S. Supreme Court did not specifically address the Alabama ban.

In Wednesday’s order — which is not an opinion of Alabama’s Supreme Court, but rather issued in Moore’s capacity as the head of the Alabama judicial branch — Moore said that three days after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, his court invited parties to “address the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision” on the state.

See RelatedObama Doesn’t Have The Power

He said the Alabama Supreme Court is still deliberating about the effect of Obergefell and he pointed out that some probate judges, who issue marriage licenses, have asked for guidance.

“Confusion and uncertainty exist among the probate judges of this state as to the effect of Obergefellon the ‘existing orders,” he wrote.

Moore has consistently fought against same-sex marriage. In February, he ordered lower court judges in Alabama not to implement a federal court ruling that overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. He then disputed a federal court order that was issued months later that directed all probate judges to cease enforcement of Alabama’s marriage ban.

When the U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled that states must recognize same-sex marriages, Moore said the decision was “even worse” than the high court’s 19th century decision that paved the way for racial segregation.

Objections to Moore’s order were swift from gay rights organizations.

“Justice Moore’s administrative order is meaningless. Every probate judge in Alabama should be complying with (Obergefell v. Hodges) and a federal district court in Alabama has directly ordered them to do that,” said Chris Stoll, a staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Stoll said that any probate judge who follows the order from Moore would be in violation of the federal court order and put themselves at risk for contempt sanctions.

Gregory M. Lipper, senior litigation counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, “This is the latest in a long series of attempts by Roy Moore to nullify and otherwise interfere with binding federal civil rights decisions. The Supreme Court could not have been any clearer that marriage equality is the law of the entire land, and if there was any doubt, the federal court in Alabama has made it clear that Obergefell applies fully to Alabama marriage officials.”

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN

Continue Reading
43 Comments

43 Comments

  • Ron Shaw says:

    I sent this to my governor and AG…I’d been advocating this since the Supreme Court ‘opinion’ first came down…we, North Dakota, have a Constitutional provision, already, for marriage being between one man and one woman. Tha Supreme Court cannot undo our Constitution.

  • Keith Denney says:

    I thought in this day band time you only follow laws you want to! See 0, Killary the dope heads in Colorado???

  • Ralph Castanza says:

    The Supreme Court needs to stay with interpreting the Constitution. They cannot legislate, only Congress can.

  • bob says:

    People are sick of this over-reaching federal moron!!

  • Frances Stolz says:

    I think the president has overstepped his authority and is out of line.

  • William Smith says:

    States regulate marriage. Federal gov’t does not have jurisdiction. The concocted notion of certain Supreme judges is not supported in the Constitution. Gay folks are free to cohabitate, contract between themselves, from Wills, trusts, medical proxy etc. They are not “married”. The biological hoax of the century.

  • JOHN SIMMONS says:

    IF GOD DIDN’T WANT MAN TO HAVE A FEMALE PARTER, HE WOULD HAVE MADE ONLY ONE KIND OF HUMAN. GOD MAD MAN AND WOMAN TO POPULATE THE WORLD. TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN CAN NOT POPULATE THE EARTH. GOD DID NOT INTEND HUMANS TO BE GAY. MAN SHOULD ONLY MARRY WOMAN.

  • We don’t need a dictator or an unconstitutional supreme court to usurp the power of individual states.

  • Randy says:

    this is a state’s right issue

  • Patrick M Connors says:

    The feds have overreached and not all states are onboard with the ruling of the Supremes, not to mention that many states when the issue was put before the citizens for a vote, declined to support “same sex” marriage. This usurpation of the court in Washington through litigating has to stop.

  • Gary Wayne Van Gorp says:

    The Constitution does not give the RIGHT to address is issue but only the States.

  • Martha Tucker says:

    That judge has every right to do what he did. If Obama din’t hurry up and leave office I’m afraid we won’t be America the land of the free and brave. I wish Obama would go toAfrica and climb a tree where he belongs. The animals have a say in that. They toss him out on his head.

  • stephan w shook says:

    marriage is between a man and a woman.

  • Raul Meruelo says:

    Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a satanic abomination. Bravo to the chief judge for standing up for what is right

  • margaret Brouse says:

    It is against God’s Law.

  • E G says:

    WOW I can tell how REALLY INTIMIDATED YOU ALL ARE! Shows weakness and FEAR!
    Stop drinking the Fear Factor Fox Juice!
    Homophobia can be cured by common sense compassion for the human race.
    Sad sad people with no HOPE of being MISERABLE PEOPLE!
    Who said there is even a God. God would not bloodshed from any of his earthlings.
    By the way. Maybe God is a Female. That’s why HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT TWO TERMED PRESIDENT OF THIS GREAT UNITED STATES! Ha ha. GROW UP HOMOFOBES

  • Brent Shipley says:

    The supreme court has no right to override an institution that has been since the beginning of time. they also do not have the right to interfere with states rights as voiced by the majority of people in those respective states.

  • Charles says:

    There is no “Constitutional right” to be a sexual pervert. There is no “Constitutional right” for sexual perverts to smear their perversion in the faces of decent people.

  • walt says:

    The supreme court say let it happen so be it.

  • Jerry says:

    Marriage is NOT a right, it is a privilege. that privilege is granted ONLY by the States as stated in the Constitution in the section that states that ALL things not specifically granted to the federal government BELONG to the individual States. Period. Why is it that only lawyers,liberals and politicians have a hard time understanding the language in the constitution?

  • william says:

    The Supreme Court did not make this an option.Until their ruling is overturned it it the law of the land

  • Mike Elliott says:

    Marriage licenses are issued by the States. When there are federal marriage license then the federal government can rule on them. Until then, States rule on State’s licenses.

  • Name says:

    The Supreme Court simply invented new law out of whole cloth. The position they embraced may be popular at lower west side cocktail parties, but it has no legal substantiation.

  • Dennis says:

    First and foremost it’s scriptural and secondly it’s none of the Supreme court’s business.
    Each State is autonomous so it’s none of the federal government’s business in the first place. I guess that’s actually the second place. 🙂

  • John Sorrentino says:

    I belive that our country was founded on biblical princapls and to pass laws that condones sinful behavior is wrong.

  • Lyn says:

    I believe in traditional marriage.

  • Bruce Morrow says:

    Because, marriage is not a “right” that can be Constitutionally recognized nor can a Supreme Court decision nullify the State’s right to execute laws that might be contrary to Federal Law, like Colorado and marijuana. Look at the 10th Amendment

  • Jan Jensen says:

    I’m a Christian.

  • Connie says:

    I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. That is what God’s Law is and that’s what it is meant to be!

  • Janine Gullo says:

    because that what it states in the constitution

  • Marvin says:

    I think SCOTUS overstepped their bounds.

  • Lowell says:

    We all need to stand up, or be buried by PC.

  • Randy says:

    The 10 amendment, sStates rule not the FEDS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE

  • Johnny Gregory says:

    Dear friends,
    Just because you can do something ( homosexuality) doesn’t mean you should. Mankind’s freewill allows us many choices. It was not without Divine reasons that God sanctifies union between a man and a woman.
    Energetically paired to couple and provide offspring for our future, man’s role to lead and woman’s to inspire and nurture get diluted with homosexuality. There is no way the energy centers of those of tge same sex complement each other’s sexually. The inner traits of strength and courage, or love and tenderness were God-given that we may mourish and support mates of the opposite sex.
    I totally support the Alabama chief justice’s decision and deep-thinking souls who ponder it will as well.
    Just because mankind can do something doesn’t mean we should.

  • David Scogin says:

    Gods word

  • joanne says:

    you should have to right to refuse…freedom to refuse. ….any service or teaching or belief.

  • Susie Q2002 says:

    I agree that the Supreme Court has changed the law unilaterally and that is illegal by the constitution. What do we do about it? I suggest we impeach the ones who voted yeah on this. Why can’t the States bring the impeachment?

  • floyd says:

    We need to follow the the intent of our founders

  • Bill Thrailkill says:

    I don’t believe judges have the right to make laws ,only to rule on them

  • victor says:

    Gay and lesbians have a right to property and economic rights between their chosen partners. But a marriage it is not. Marriage has been defined for thousands of years by nearly all the religions and ethnic populations as between a Biologic male and a biologic female. Call it anything but a “marriage.” Call it a legal union, joining, just not a marriage. It is not for us to judge any individual for their “choice” that is between them and GOD. But it is not right for someone to be forced to add to their transgression and violate their beliefs. (Note that Islam has been publicly omitted from violating their established beliefs and they openly murder these same people but never face liberal or media outcry.)

  • Mary Howell says:

    Washington is trying very diligently to make the states to conform to their wishes! Stop it before we all become slaves!

  • J A Meeks says:

    Marriage traditionally has been defined as a legal union between one man and one woman and all of the included rights between them with the blessing of a Priest, Minister.

    Example, property and inheritance. Last names of children, health decisions. etc.

    Same sex couples have the right to legally document their UNION and it’s benefits with the assistance of a Notary Public, or willing cleric. No cleric or other should be made to perform a ceremony that goes against their principles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

SIGN UP FOR BNA NEWSLETTERS

Free Come and Take It Hat
President Trump Playing Cards offer

Copyright © 2022 Breaking News Alerts. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.