AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

You can't be serious. Go take a lap.

[MalaspinaGold]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

So you also are against subsidize marriage for people who are infertile? I hope so.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

So you also are against subsidize marriage for people who are infertile? I hope so.

Addressed that in this post:

Wulfric, the Bible is against divorced people remarrying. Why don't you feel equally strongly that remarriage should be illegal? Do you see an inconsistency here?

In an ideal world, that would be banned. However, that's not realistic in my wildest dreams. Banning SSM potentially is, at least for now. And in any case, remarriage is ineffective on the strength of the institution of marriage - it doesn't harm the sacred 'one man/one woman bonded together, primarily to raise children' definition of marriage, SSM is destroying that sacred and essential definition as we speak.

Now, comes the obvious question of "Why allow infertiles to marry?". First off, being required to show an official regulating marriage a significant part of one's medical record is a serious infringement on one's privacy. And secondly, the man-woman definition is still kept intact and is not destroyed. Finally, this sort of prohibition is not needed for rational basis review. Rational basis allows for an imperfect fit - as long as it does not destroy the logic behind the policy, and infertile couples marrying does not destroy the logic of man-woman marriage, which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

[MalaspinaGold]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

So you also are against subsidize marriage for people who are infertile? I hope so.

Addressed that in this post:

Wulfric, the Bible is against divorced people remarrying. Why don't you feel equally strongly that remarriage should be illegal? Do you see an inconsistency here?

In an ideal world, that would be banned. However, that's not realistic in my wildest dreams. Banning SSM potentially is, at least for now. And in any case, remarriage is ineffective on the strength of the institution of marriage - it doesn't harm the sacred 'one man/one woman bonded together, primarily to raise children' definition of marriage, SSM is destroying that sacred and essential definition as we speak.

Now, comes the obvious question of "Why allow infertiles to marry?". First off, being required to show an official regulating marriage a significant part of one's medical record is a serious infringement on one's privacy. And secondly, the man-woman definition is still kept intact and is not destroyed. Finally, this sort of prohibition is not needed for rational basis review. Rational basis allows for an imperfect fit - as long as it does not destroy the logic behind the policy, and infertile couples marrying does not destroy the logic of man-woman marriage, which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If an "imperfect fit" allows for the categorization of A into a group that by definition excludes A, then it is not an imperfect fit.

[SteveRogers]

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation.

That's just a conclusory statement, not a counterargument to the judge's decision. What levels of judicial scrutiny are you arguing should be applied to (1) sexual orientation and (2) restrictions on the right to marry?

The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

Destroying? How so? Can you explain in detail what will happen when the institution of marriage is destroyed? Do you mean that people will stop getting married, or what? Has the institution of marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts yet? If not, how much longer will it take?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation.

That's just a conclusory statement, not a counterargument to the judge's decision. What levels of judicial scrutiny are you arguing should be applied to (1) sexual orientation and (2) restrictions on the right to marry?

The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

Destroying? How so? Can you explain in detail what will happen when the institution of marriage is destroyed? Do you mean that people will stop getting married, or what? Has the institution of marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts yet?

Marriage will lose almost all its meaning. It will be seen as little more than a friendship. This is probably already the case in Massachusetts.

[MalaspinaGold]

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation.

That's just a conclusory statement, not a counterargument to the judge's decision. What levels of judicial scrutiny are you arguing should be applied to (1) sexual orientation and (2) restrictions on the right to marry?

The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

Destroying? How so? Can you explain in detail what will happen when the institution of marriage is destroyed? Do you mean that people will stop getting married, or what? Has the institution of marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts yet?

Marriage will lose almost all its meaning. It will be seen as little more than a friendship. This is probably already the case in Massachusetts.

One does not spend twenty-something years raising childen with "friends".

[Ebowed]

Marriage will lose almost all its meaning. It will be seen as little more than a friendship. This is probably already the case in Massachusetts.

I remember when I used to find this sort of satire fresh and amusing...

[SteveRogers]

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation.

That's just a conclusory statement, not a counterargument to the judge's decision. What levels of judicial scrutiny are you arguing should be applied to (1) sexual orientation and (2) restrictions on the right to marry?

The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

Destroying? How so? Can you explain in detail what will happen when the institution of marriage is destroyed? Do you mean that people will stop getting married, or what? Has the institution of marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts yet?

Marriage will lose almost all its meaning. It will be seen as little more than a friendship. This is probably already the case in Massachusetts.

[Citation Needed]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that all marriages in Massachusetts, both gay and straight, are currently merely platonic friendships?

Also, are you just ignoring the question about the legal reasoning behind your position on this issue forever?

[Phony Moderate]

Encouraging more people to enter into such a conservative institution seems like a conservative move on the part of the courts. A real radical move would be to abolish the wretched institution entirely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Encouraging more people to enter into such a conservative institution seems like a conservative move on the part of the courts. A real radical move would be to abolish the wretched institution entirely.

One could view the 13th Amendment as having already done that.  After all, it destroyed traditional marriage by making illegal the concept that the wife was the property of the husband.

[CJK]

Thank God a state court is fighting back against this nonsense.

[Smash255]

Thank God a state court is fighting back against this nonsense.

And what nonsense is that?

[King]

Man, not even Oklahoma took the news this badly. Alabama is going to eat itself.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Man, not even Oklahoma took the news this badly. Alabama is going to eat itself.

Oklahomans can eat at Braum's.  That's the difference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Man, not even Oklahoma took the news this badly. Alabama is going to eat itself.

Nor Kansas or Utah, and they certainly seemed a little unhinged about it. And I think gay marriage is still quite unpopular in WV, and WV actually got it when the Governor and Attorney General decided it was pointless to continue defending the ban.

[badgate]

Children throw tantrums. This is not a surprise.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Man, not even Oklahoma took the news this badly. Alabama is going to eat itself.

Nor Kansas or Utah, and they certainly seemed a little unhinged about it. And I think gay marriage is still quite unpopular in WV, and WV actually got it when the Governor and Attorney General decided it was pointless to continue defending the ban.

Kansas did take the news pretty badly though. The Brownback administration refuses to provide state marriage benefits to any gay couples, and there are some counties in Huelskamp's district that aren't even issuing the licenses. Essentially, a rebellion against the decision, just by different means than in AL.

[CJK]

I have a question for the gay marriage boosters on this forum.

If you think that the 14th amendment forbids consideration of gender differences when issuing marriage licenses, why do you think segregating bathroom facilities is perfectly lawful?

[afleitch]

I have a question for the gay marriage boosters on this forum.

If you think that the 14th amendment forbids consideration of gender differences when issuing marriage licenses, why do you think segregating bathroom facilities is perfectly lawful?

Because a crapper is a crapper. As long as everyone is catered for it doesn't matter whether you have unisex facilities or stalls. You don't even have to provide urinals.

[CJK]

I have a question for the gay marriage boosters on this forum.

If you think that the 14th amendment forbids consideration of gender differences when issuing marriage licenses, why do you think segregating bathroom facilities is perfectly lawful?

Because a crapper is a crapper. As long as everyone is catered for it doesn't matter whether you have unisex facilities or stalls. You don't even have to provide urinals.

You seem not to remember that "separate but equal" was explicitly outlawed in 1954, based on the same amendment.

[SteveRogers]

I have a question for the gay marriage boosters on this forum.

If you think that the 14th amendment forbids consideration of gender differences when issuing marriage licenses, why do you think segregating bathroom facilities is perfectly lawful?

Because a crapper is a crapper. As long as everyone is catered for it doesn't matter whether you have unisex facilities or stalls. You don't even have to provide urinals.

You seem not to remember that "separate but equal" was explicitly outlawed in 1954, based on the same amendment.

Government discrimination on the basis of race is subject to strict scrutiny whereas discrimination on the basis of sex is subject to intermediate scrutiny, so the government has a much lower burden for justifying separating public restrooms into "Men's" and "Women's" restrooms than it would for separating them into "White" and "Colored" restrooms.

[CJK]

I have a question for the gay marriage boosters on this forum.

If you think that the 14th amendment forbids consideration of gender differences when issuing marriage licenses, why do you think segregating bathroom facilities is perfectly lawful?

Because a crapper is a crapper. As long as everyone is catered for it doesn't matter whether you have unisex facilities or stalls. You don't even have to provide urinals.

You seem not to remember that "separate but equal" was explicitly outlawed in 1954, based on the same amendment.

Government discrimination on the basis of race is subject to strict scrutiny whereas discrimination on the basis of sex is subject to intermediate scrutiny, so the government has a much lower burden for justifying separating public restrooms into "Men's" and "Women's" restrooms than it would for separating them into "White" and "Colored" restrooms.

You haven't explained why you believe gender discrimination in marriage is illegal but discrimination in restrooms is legal.

[Brittain33]

What, in your mind, would constitute a plaintiff with standing in a discrimination case like this?

Remember that separate but equal fell because the separate was inherently unequal. Not only did schools for African Americans get a fraction of the resources, but Linda Brown herself had to walk much, much further to get to her segregated school than if she could have gone to her neighborhood school reserved for whites.

In cases where bathroom facilities haven't been sufficient for women, women ask for more women's rooms, not integrated restrooms. The NAACP didn't sue for more African-American schools closer to where children lived.

All that said, it's not impossible that culture changes enough that integrated bathrooms become seen as the logical solution. Many restrooms already share hand washing facilities or provide a series of unisex single-serves.

[RFayette]

As my history teacher put it, "Alabama generally doesn't win with the Supreme Court."