Alabama vs. Gay Marriage

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

The story so far...

1. A Federal Judge rules Alabama's ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional

2. The state appeals and a stay is issued to allow them to send the issue to the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court declines to extend the stay and rules the Judges intial ruling will stand (The Supreme Court will be ruling on another gay marriage case in a few months)

4. Gay marriage gets the go ahead in Alabama.

BUT...

5. Chief Justice Roy Moore issues an order to Alabama probate judges specifically directing them to IGNORE the Federal Court Order and NOT issue licenses to Same sex couples.

6. The vast majority of Alabama's counties have followed Moore's order, some even going so far as to refuse to issue ANY licenses, even to heterosexual couples.

7. So now some of the same sex couples are heading back to court in AL to try and get this mess all sorted out.

Oh and you might remember Roy Moore as the guy who previously ended up in a legal spat over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse.

Most likely, this will stay tangled up for at least another week. It's looking like the Supreme Court may rule in favor of gay marriage federally. It will be interesting to see the fallout from that decision but really, it's been heading this way for some time and Alabama had to know they'd be in line sooner or later.

[s_stabeler]

I've a feeling it'll drag on longer than it takes for the Supreme Court to decide to allow gay marriage federally- because, if the guy is already ignoring the supremacy clause to instruct judges to ignore a federal ruling, are they likely to abide by a Supreme Court ruling? (oh, and as for the states rights people- you DO realize that states being able to ignore the federal government was what caused the Articles of Cofederation to fail? You need to tread VERY carefully if you ant to allow states to overrule the federal government.)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I've a feeling it'll drag on longer than it takes for the Supreme Court to decide to allow gay marriage federally- because, if the guy is already ignoring the supremacy clause to instruct judges to ignore a federal ruling, are they likely to abide by a Supreme Court ruling? (oh, and as for the states rights people- you DO realize that states being able to ignore the federal government was what caused the Articles of Cofederation to fail? You need to tread VERY carefully if you ant to allow states to overrule the federal government.)

If you want to allow the States to override the Federal Government, then why would you even need a Federal Government? Makes no sense to me.

[TheHuckster]

Is it possible to hold Roy Moore in contempt? It sounds like a slam-dunk case to me.

[HYHYBT]

Minor correction at #2: the appeal would be to the 11th Circuit, which also has one from Florida lined up on the same issue; an appeal to the Supreme Court would come after that, if it were still a live issue by then, which it won't be. Both the appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to extend the stay.

6. The vast majority of Alabama's counties have followed Moore's order, some even going so far as to refuse to issue ANY licenses, even to heterosexual couples.

Most of what I've read assigns all those not issuing licenses at all the motive of wanting to avoid issuing them to gay couples, and I don't understand why. As things stand now, they're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position, and they could easily see shutting down completely until things are resolved as the move least likely to get them sued or held in contempt.

if the guy is already ignoring the supremacy clause to instruct judges to ignore a federal ruling, are they likely to abide by a Supreme Court ruling?

If I've read correctly, his *current* position is that the Supreme Court, but not lower federal courts, has the power to invalidate state law. On the other hand, he has shown before that he'll ignore them, too, when he feels like it.

[Andara Bledin]

If you want to allow the States to override the Federal Government, then why would you even need a Federal Government? Makes no sense to me.

From what I read on the relevant thread on the Ars forusm, in this case, the SC ruling doesn't actually apply, unfortunately. It applies to certain sections of the state government, but probate judges aren't bound by that particular ruling.

It's tricky understanding which sections of the government are held by which rulings of the various courts. If I have my info right, the upcoming case will be binding, though.

[s_stabeler]

that quote was more about states rights generally- specifically, where some people advocate state law being held above federal law.

[fireheart17]

that quote was more about states rights generally- specifically, where some people advocate state law being held above federal law.

I believe in both Australia and the US, there is a ruling somewhere in our political and legal systems that states that where the state and federal laws don't match up, federal trumps state law. (This was used to great effect when one state over here allowed for same sex marriage. That only lasted a week as the federal government challenged the state vs federal rule in the high court. High court wound up ruling in favour of the federal government, but stated that there is no constitutional law forbidding gay marriage, it just simply boils down to the federal government getting their heads out of their asses and their asses out of the corrupted font)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I believe in both Australia and the US, there is a ruling somewhere in our political and legal systems that states that where the state and federal laws don't match up, federal trumps state law. (This was used to great effect when one state over here allowed for same sex marriage. That only lasted a week as the federal government challenged the state vs federal rule in the high court. High court wound up ruling in favour of the federal government, but stated that there is no constitutional law forbidding gay marriage, it just simply boils down to the federal government getting their heads out of their asses and their asses out of the corrupted font)

We have that in America too, it's in the Constitution and known as the Supremacy Clause.

This isn't the only area where states have tried to ignore or pretend they don't have to follow federal rulings. Several states have enacted laws permitting police to immediately arrest anyone from the Federal government who comes to that state to enforce any kind of gun ban or gun control legislation that might pass.

[Greenday]

I've a feeling it'll drag on longer than it takes for the Supreme Court to decide to allow gay marriage federally- because, if the guy is already ignoring the supremacy clause to instruct judges to ignore a federal ruling, are they likely to abide by a Supreme Court ruling? (oh, and as for the states rights people- you DO realize that states being able to ignore the federal government was what caused the Articles of Cofederation to fail? You need to tread VERY carefully if you ant to allow states to overrule the federal government.)

Personally, I feel that if the SCOTUS rules that prohibition of gay marriage (or any other such thing) is unconstitutional and a state's leaders ignore it, that's pretty damn treasonous.

[Nyoibo]

I figure if a state wants to ignore a federal ruling, then they loose federal funding.

[Greenday]

I figure if a state wants to ignore a federal ruling, then they loose federal funding.

That'd be hilarious since Alabama is the third most dependent state of federal funding.

[wolfie]

The supremacy clause is balanced by the 10th amendment, which specifies that areas of jurisdiction not granted to the Federal government belong to the People and the States. If "who is allowed to marry" is an area granted to the Feds, then the Federal ruling takes precedence under the supremacy clause. If it isn't, then the Feds have no jurisdiction in the area, so any law they pass on the subject should be voided under the 10th amendment.

Still, it's interesting that Alabama is deciding not to follow Federal law. There IS a precedent for that, and Alabama came out on the wrong end of it (Lee vs. Grant, Appotomax 1865).

Several states have enacted laws permitting police to immediately arrest anyone from the Federal government who comes to that state to enforce any kind of gun ban or gun control legislation that might pass.

That sounds like insurrection to me - any arrests under such laws should be immediately followed by the "un-arrest" of the Federal officials by the U.S. Army.

[s_stabeler]

It depends. If the law was being actively challenged in the courts, then they might have a case for it not being armed insurrection. If any challenges had failed, however, then yep, said state would likely be getting a new government shortly afterwards,

[lordlundar]

That sounds like insurrection to me - any arrests under such laws should be immediately followed by the "un-arrest" of the Federal officials by the U.S. Army.

And a hop, skip and jump to a new civil war, only this time there's WMDs that are at risk of being brought into play.