Alabama vs. Gay Marriage

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

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.

Except that virtually of the pro gay marriage rulings in the past several years (including the one in Alabama) came about because the Federal Judges found the state level marriage bans to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If the state bans violate this clause, they cannot be enforceable because the clause represents federal law and would therefore be covered by the Supremacy Clause.

[BlaqueKatt]

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).

And the governor blocking the doors to the university in an attempt to stop desegregation. The Army escorting kids to school.....etc. Alabama has a bad track record for civil rights in general.

[Panacea]

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

This situation is very odd. It's a district court ruling (federal) which normally wouldn't apply statewide. But this one has, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear the appeal, probably because they bypassed the Appeals Court.

So Moore is saying this federal court can't impose its ruling on the state as a whole.

He's wrong. The court can. Moore is picking nits. He'll probably get impeached again.

[protege]

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

Yep, and Mississippi is #1. Both have pretty bad records on civil rights issues--firebombing black churches, the murders of civil rights workers, the attacks on the Freedom Riders...

[fireheart17]

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

Thank you, that was the rule I was thinking of! You'll also notice I DID mention the US

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

The story continues. Today, despite orders from TWO separate Federal Judges, the Alabama Supreme Court voted to immediately halt and block all same sex marriages in the state.

The situation in Alabama will likely remain murky until the U.S. Supreme Court rules a few months from now.

[HYHYBT]

I'm starting to doubt even that will straighten them out, at least not right away.

[s_stabeler]

it has to- the Supreme Court is binding precedent.

[wolfie]

The story continues. Today, despite orders from TWO separate Federal Judges, the Alabama Supreme Court voted to immediately halt and block all same sex marriages in the state.

I'm curious to see what would happen if one of those Federal judges issued arrest warrants on charges of contempt of court against all members of the Alabama Supreme Court.

[Tama]

A religious shitfest, since I'm assuming that's the reason these judges are doing this.