We need a modern day Sherman to plow under this shithole:
The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday night ordered probate judges around the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, ruling in direct opposition to a federal judge that the state’s ban on same sex marriage did not violate the United States Constitution.
In a 7-to-1 decision, the court ruled that “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” and that the state’s probate judges “have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law.”
While the court found that the state’s probate judges were not legally bound by the multiple rulings by a Federal District Court judge, Callie V. S. Granade, in favor of same-sex marriage, it also delivered a long and forceful rebuttal of her decision and the findings of federal judges across the country on same-sex marriage.
“Government has an obvious interest in offspring and the consequences that flow from the creation of each new generation, which is only naturally possible in the opposite-sex relationship, which is the primary reason marriage between men and women is sanctioned by state law,” the court ruled.
The ruling, on a petition brought by two conservative groups and joined by a county probate judge, is only the latest round in a battle over jurisdiction on the question of same- sex marriage in Alabama. The fight is likely to be decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Ok lawyers, why isn’t this simply a Supremacy Clause issue, and if it is, why have these guys not been curbjawed yet?
JPL
Why isn’t Cliven Bundy in jail?
Tommy
I’d love a lawyer or two to weight in. I will openly admit, and not so proud of this, I don’t know how a Federal court supersedes a State court. I guess I just thought it did, but have no idea on the case law.
The Moar You Know
Sherman never went through Alabama. I think we can all agree that was a regrettable oversight on his part.
@Tommy: Lincoln vs. CSA. Famous case.
Baud
The Supremacy Clause is at issue, but the Supreme Court will decide gay marriage before any appeal can be heard in this case. The only possibility for immediate relief is for the district court judge to order federal marshals to arrest clerks that fail to issue marriage licenses.
Napoleon
This is a supremacy clause issue and the AL SC it flat out in the wrong.
john not mccain
As a native of Alabama let me just say: Fuck those judges and the diseased confederate trash that brought them into the world.
Butch
“Forceful” has now become a synonym for “incoherent?” Who knew?
PurpleGirl
Don’t they mean “one man and one woman, serially”? Isn’t Alabama one of those states with “covenant” marriages? Also, don’t they have one of higher rates of divorce, like a number of other southern states?
ETA: If anyone has debased and made marriage worthless it’s the good “Christian” folk of Alabama who can’t keep their vows.
Linnaeus
Oh, that’s a good one.
The Moar You Know
@Napoleon: Yes, they are, and the last time they did this we had to occupy the state with National Guardmen for a while.
You’d think Alabama (which is where my entire family is from, but not me thank God) would get tired of being the severely emotionally disturbed kid in the overcrowded classroom that is America, but I guess not.
piratedan
@PurpleGirl: yes, but those divorces are breaking a sacred covenant, espcially when Alabama Football season tickets are involved….
AnderJ
From what I understand, the order of the Federal District Court only binds the parties. The constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law of the land. However, the question is whether the Federal District’s court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is also the supreme law of the land. The argument is that state courts are only bound by an interpretation of the US constitution by the US Supreme Court. Or otherwise, why would a Federal Circuit Court Judge’s interpretation bond the AL Supreme Court.
I have not seen any definitive answer to the question.
Nonetheless this will be a problem for the AL probate judges: will they follow the AL Supreme Court or wait for orders from the Federal District Courts? Some will to the former, other the latter.
Although gays should be able to get married asap, the US Supreme Court should have avoided this chaos my granting a stay to the Federal District Court’s order.
Nonetheless, in the medium term, chaos is good for the aupportes of equality: the Supreme Court has to step in and the way the AL Supreme Court meddled with the case will not be of help to the opponents of SSM.
By the way, during the Mardi Gras parade in Mobile, much fun was made of justice Moore. Nice cartoon with “Moore is right, in AL marriage is family business” together with a cartoon of cousins marrying each other
Pogonip
John, how’s Ginger doing on insulin?
Cacti
This is a supremacy clause issue.
Some remedial learning for the Alabama Supreme Court is in order.
An order to show cause for why they shouldn’t be held in contempt of the US District Court may be in the Alabama justices’ future.
Joel Hanes
IANAL
It seems to me that it is a supremacy issue.
It also seems to me that it will be handled gently, with misdirection and finesse, for the same reasons that the Feds didn’t storm the Bundy ranch, or take over immediately in Ferguson :
1. Conservatives are motivated primarily by resentment and rage.
2. Nothing sets them off more reliably than that awful black man in the White House exercising overt authority, even when legitimate, especially on issues already suffused with race.
3. So the direct approach to such issues would have the effect of inflaming conservatives, which makes them more activist and less rational.
4. Obama judges that the nation is already at the limit of conservative intransigence, and that overt action in Alabama to re-assert federal supremacy would provoke a positive-feedback cycle in which nutcases openly rebel, which requires the rebellion be suppressed, which triggers more widespread insurrection, which must be suppressed, which …
PurpleGirl
@Linnaeus: Right. Historically, marriage was sanctioned by governments because they were contracts between families which governed the disquisition of family property and wealth and the legitimacy of the male offspring who would get that property/wealth.
ETA: In reality, only the poor were able to “marry” for love, often without benefit of clergy.
Hal
Hasn’t this b.s. argument been sliced and diced and thrown into the garbage by now? Same sex marriage does not interfere with straight procreation.
dmsilev
@Linnaeus: so, I trust state law therefore requires fertility tests before issuing a marriage license?
dedc79
There’s that old saying (apocryphal, I believe) attributed to Andrew Jackson “John Marshall has spoken, now let him enforce it.”
To the extent our system works it’s because when judicial branch issues an order, the executive branch complies with or enforces the order.
[Edited to fix quote at the top]
Here it’s coming up in the context of federal authority over states, but it’s still really a question of enforcement not law. Will the federal government force Alabama to comply and how?
Villago Delenda Est
This time, none of that wussified shit that Sherman pulled the last time.
Gin & Tonic
@Linnaeus: So post-menopausal women or post-vasectomy men can no longer be married in Alabama?
Bobby B.
I’ve always been saying we need to FINISH the Civil War. Welcome to my Crazy, young skywalker.
piratedan
@Cacti: I’d settle for kicking the reactionary jackasses off the bench and removing their ability to practice law in the USA, but then again, I’m a nice guy who has little tolerance for folks in the legal profession using their authority to fuck over people just because they find them to be icky.
Villago Delenda Est
@Hal:
All the V1agra and C1alis in the quadrant can not fix the limp dicks that are created in response to the existence of same sex marriage.
Tommy
Having the anniversary of Selma not that long ago don’t these asshats get that 10, 50, 100 years from now history won’t look so kindly on them.
Tommy
@Villago Delenda Est: How about it. I am straight and I don’t worry for .0000000000001 seconds that gay marriage will hinder my ability to procreate.
Belafon
@AnderJ: The current supreme law of the land is that a district federal court ruling applies to all areas under its ruling. It doesn’t matter that it’s not necessarily the law of the land, it’s now the law of the part of the land known as Alabama.
Calouste
@Bobby B.: What they should have done at the end of the Civil War is redraw the state lines in the CSA, give all the states new names and move all the capitals. Break completely with the past, disrupt all the old political networks that existed. Bonus points for turning the old South Carolina state house into an insane asylum. Worked in Germany after WWII, except that they forgot to do that to Bavaria, which, no surprise, is the most backward conservative state in the country.
PurpleGirl
@Tommy: No, because these are same pea-brains who think Minority rights are wrong and they don’t honor Selma the way you and I do. They want to turn the clock back to sometime before the Civil Rights movement and Selma.
dmbeaster
Its an Alabama repeat of the refusal to permit desegregation in the 50s. When I studied Constitutional law, I read the same tripe about state sovereignty vs. Federal law in that cintext. There is no legal debate on the effect of Federal judges determining that state law and conduct violate the 14th amendment. The issue ended up being resolved wirh the dispatch of Federal troops to Alabama by Eisenhower. As noted above, the determination of the larger issue by the US Sp. Ct. will hugely change the context of this illegal behavior by Alabama judges. Let’s see if they still have the cojones if gay marriage is affirmed.
Villago Delenda Est
@Calouste: “Die Bayern sind etwas anders.”
Amir Khalid
@Tommy:
On the other hand, you yourself, as you often remind us, have not actually procreated. ;)
Culture of Truth
Because of the famous precedent of Offspring v Ickiness that’s why
vhh
Alabama, like the rest of the slave states, had strict laws against interracial marriage. These were rendered invalid by the Supreme Court’s Loving decision in 1967, but remained in Alabama’s legal code until they were repealed in 2000. In the South the past isn’t even past.
Linnaeus
@dmsilev:
I think we can all be quite certain that it does not. Which is just further evidence of how silly the court’s statement is.
I’ve seen people try to reason their way out of this clear contradiction by saying something to effect of “Well, infertile and/or post-menopausal partners in the marriage are infrequent and acceptable exceptions to the general rule” Or some such bullshit.
kc
Thank God for Alabama.
/South Carolina.
delk
And the Coalition of Conservative African American Pastors (a NOM front) is awarding Chief Justice Roy Moore their first ever “Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award”. Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous letter.
kc
Link is broken.
Napoleon
@AnderJ:
The Supremacy Clause. The Federal Courts are the last word on the US Constitution (with the SCOTUS the highest authority). The US Dist. Ct. for AL is a higher authority on that subject then the SC of AL.
AnderJ
I disagree. First of all, the ruling applies only in the Southern district of Alabama (there are three of separate district court). Furthermore, as it is an order, the question is whether the consideration that the AL constitution violates the US Constitution is even binding upon anyone but the parties to the case. In fact that is what the AL Supreme Court allowed for: it asked the probate judges to confirm that the order will only be applied to the parties in the case. Again, nothing is stopping the federal judges to make some more rulings…
kuvasz
Throw every single on of those seven judges in jail for contempt of court and put them in general lock up with thieves, rapists, and murderers.
PurpleGirl
@delk: What a damnable contradiction. See, I told you, pea-brains who want to return back before the Civil Right movement.
Baud
@AnderJ:
I thought one of the district courts issued a statewide injunction.
AnderJ
@Napoleon: the AL Supreme Court begs to differ and had there been clear precedent on this issue – besides the Civil War – the AL Supreme Court would not have ruled this way. If I remember correctly, there are actually precedents to the contrary (but what do I know I am a Dutch lawyer). Sure, i know they were looking for a loophole, but perhaps they found it.
Linnaeus
I’d like to point out that the kind of view that the Alabama Supreme Court currently holds on marriage equality is not at all limited to people in Alabama or other southern states. As tempting as it may be, out of frustration, to joke about “finishing the Civil War” and all that, it’s worth noting that in most states in which same-sex marriage is legal, it’s due to federal court decisions, and not actions of the state legislature or though voter referenda (my own state being an example of the latter).
AnderJ
@Baud: No they did not. The one district court that ruled on this adjoined one probate judge and earlier on she made clear that although here order was not binding on anyone other then the parties, the US Constitution itself compels the probate judges to perform SSMs.
Baud
@AnderJ:
Ok, thanks.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
Uh, well, you know, states’ rights and all that. Hell, I mean, if the states don’t have the right to nullify any federal law they don’t like, why then we’ll have darkies drinkin’ from our fountains and a-swimmin’ in our pools afore too long.
Tommy
OT. Wow. Watching Democracy Now. The entire hour devoted to the DOJ findings on Ferguson. I only live about 40 miles away and I knew it was bad, but somehow it is worse. I didn’t think that was possible. Some of the emails from public officials are so racist I can’t even put them to words nor will I even post them. They are that bad.
Then you look at the stats the DOJ uncovered. African Americans were arrested 90% of the time for this. 93% for that. Those numbers are so off the chart I don’t even know what to say.
Belafon
@AnderJ: Let’s assume you are correct. The Alabama SC decided that the judges under this rule also didn’t have to issue licenses.
The Moar You Know
@Linnaeus: Awesome. So I can’t get married? Little bike accident when I was a kid. Damn. Good to know that I’m useless to society due to my inability to breed.
Fuckers.
AnderJ
There is a linkt to the only injunction against the Mobile probate judge: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255598034/1-14-cv-00424-55-Order
Earlier Judge Granade (!) explained that her earlier order does not bind anyone but the parties, but the US Constitution does: http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2015/01/254000010-1-14-cv-00208-65-Order-Clarifying-Judgment.pdf
Cacti
@vhh:
Mississippi didn’t ratify the 13th Amendment until 1995, and didn’t notify the US archivist of the ratification until 2012.
So, until 3-years ago, slavery was still the law of the land in the Magnolia State.
AnderJ
@Belafon: not sure whether they did. I have no clue what the order was related to the one probate judge that was slapped with an order to open his window and start issuing licenses. Could you provide quotes in this respect?
BruceJ
@Linnaeus: A good one that’s been demolished in what, 4 of the 5 circuit court decisions handed down so far? As in
Judge: “Ok smarty pants bigot lawyer, so if marriage is all abut the babbies, then how come you don’t want to prevent olds and infertile straight people from marrying?”
SPBL: “Oh um err BUTTSEKS! STATES RIGHTS! BENGHAZI!!!”
Tommy
@Tommy: Here are the stats the DOJ found. African Americans make up 70% of the population in Ferguson. But 85% of traffic stops were African Americans. 90% of tickets. 93% of arrests. 88% of where police used force. Twice as likely to be searched, but less likely than whites to have drugs or a gun. I am sorry, but they are not even trying to “pretend” they are not overtly racist.
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: No. The Alabama Supreme Court is junior to the Federal judge on questions of federal law decided within the jurisdiction of that judge within Alabama. It is illegal for it to instruct state court judges differently on the question. It could ignore decisions by federal judges with no authority in Alabama, but not this judge.
As for the notion that the ruling only applies to the “parties” in the case, you do realize that the defendant is the arm of the state government in question for the issuance of licenses, which lost the case on the basis that the laws in question were invalid. The ruling is not limited to the one gay couple seeking a license or the one judge who refused to issue that license.
burnspbesq
It probably won’t go this far, but the theoretically possible endgame is an armed confrontation between the U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Alabama State Police, if a county probate judge is found in contempt of the District Court and refuses to voluntarily surrender.
Snarki, child of Loki
ZOMBIE Sherman. This time, with nukes.
shortstop
@Linnaeus: Public acceptance of interracial marriage didn’t top 50% until 30 years after Loving. We don’t recognize civil rights based on majority opinion in this country, and when we try to do so, those laws are eventually found unconstitutional.
Let’s say majority approval were an argument, though–a social one, to be sure, because it certainly isn’t a legal one. Let’s further pretend that all states even allow voter referenda on these matters (many or most don’t). Stipulating both of those points, most of the state bans on same-sex marriage would not pass voter referenda today. There’s been too much momentum toward acceptance in the last few years.
kc
@Linnaeus:
Good point. Though Alabama stands out in its mulish refusal to obey the law.
Brother Dingaling
I lived in Alabama for 4.5 glorious years. Right after Sept 11. The good people of that state made a distinct impression upon me. And that was my introduction to Judge Roy Moore, who was, even then, defying the Federal courts (then regarding establishment of religion).
One of my favorite moments was interviewing a state rep who had advocated taking books from libraries and burying them in a big hole in the ground. I compared it to book burning, and he interrupted me and said, “aren’t you paying attention? We’re not talking about book burning, we’re going to put them in a hole and cover them up. No burning involved!” Being surrounded by, and utterly patronized by idiots is a feeling I have never been able to describe adequately to people who haven’t been there.
kc
@Tommy:
Even worse than the racist emails, in my opinion, is the way the police, abetted by city officials, casually ruined the lives of people over minor offenses or wholly made-up offenses.
rea
Sigh. There is a difference between refusal to follow controlling precedent, and refusal to follow a court order. There is no court order applicable to anyone beyond the parties to the original case, so the Alabama Supreme Court isn’t going to be held in contempt and jailed by the federal marshals. It is, however, unethical and disgraceful for a judge to refuse to follow controlling precedent.
shortstop
@AnderJ: If you use the reply function at the bottom right of the comments to which you’re replying rather than just typing “@” before a name, everyone else will be able to see what you’re replying to.
Cacti
@shortstop:
Sounds about right. In the southern town where I went to high school, interracial dating was still considered kind of scandalous, and this was in the early 1990s.
shortstop
@rea: I am amazed that, for so many of them, the need to slap down the gheys is stronger than the need to display probity and professional integrity. This is like one of those made-for-TV 1970s movies…you know, the ones where the flagrantly corrupt small-town Southern sheriffs narrow their eyes and grin contemptuously as they chuckle, “Whatcha gonna doo to stop me, boy?”
AnderJ
@dmbeaster: I’d love to see case law confirming your position. To my mind there is none and in particular not as the ruling by the district court was only an injunction.
AnderJ
@shortstop: thanks!
Punchy
Can we assume that unless this is dealt with quickly, this will be the blueprint for all the other shit states that are being forced to allow SSM? Get the SCs from KS, NE, UT, TN, etc to issue likewise rulings to their respective states?
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: Let me expand on my point.
After the one case is lost, can each and every other probate judge demand a full trial on the same question before they are also bound? The legal answer is no. The alleged “loophole” simply does not exist, and the Alabama Sp. Ct. is complete crap.
Tommy
@kc: You are right that is the worse offense. Years ago I broke the law. I got a DUI. I was guilty, but I could hire a lawyer. Put on a Brooks Brother suit. I walked in and out of court in seconds. Slap on the wrist.
This was a place, the courthouse, I’d never been, but I waited for a time outside the courtroom for it to open.
I only talked to a person or two, but listened to people being called before the judge. It was clear they were lower income people, almost always African American, and they were sucked into our legal system and couldn’t get out of it.
An offense smaller than mine snowballed. It was mind numbing.
Epicurus
“Government has an obvious interest in offspring and the consequences that flow from the creation of each new generation, which is only naturally possible in the opposite-sex relationship, which is the primary reason marriage between men and women is sanctioned by state law,” the court ruled.” What a steaming pile of horseshit. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see the weakness of this argument. Should couples who have no intention of (or ability to) have children be denied a marriage license? No, though I’m sure some God-botherers would like to make it so. More pseudo-religous rulings from a judge who would be right at home with the Taliban. Thanks, Alabama, you’ve succeeded in making Mississippi look progressive.
boatboy_srq
@Linnaeus:
So, same-sex relationships create new generations unnaturally, which is a problem? Does anyone have anything on how AL SC ruled on any cases related to fertility clinics? Just askin’…
@PurpleGirl: They want to return to their mythical past of dashing entrepreneurs, their pretty wives and charmingly-innocent
propertyworkers – all in Panavision and Technicolor and looking remarkably like GWTW. That is, of course, when they’re not fantasizing about their castles and serfs and how they can rally their people to oppose the Usurping Tyrant in [insert chosen capital city here]. They’re the Rhett Butlers, if not the Earls of Loxley – or in this case the Roger Mortimers.Linnaeus
@shortstop:
Let me be clear that I’m not making the argument that civil rights should be a matter of majority approval – I just wanted to voice a caution against assuming that support or the lack of support for civil rights is something that is confined only to particular parts of the country, that’s all.
I do tend to agree that many of the state bans on marriage equality, were they not struck down via the federal courts, probably would be rejected by voters. But there’d be some holdouts, more than we’d like for sure.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
Um, they have a “ministerial” duty? Is this legal language, or are they saying that judges have a religious duty to refuse licenses to gay couples?
Face
With a ruling this wack and completely in the wrong, is it reasonable to ask if Alabama will actually follow a ruling by SCOTUS (assuming it allows for gay marriage)? I can certainly see them dismissing a SCOTUS ruling as easily (“states rights, bitches!”) as they did this federal judge’s.
Linnaeus
@BruceJ:
Tell me about it. You’d think they’d stop trying the “it’s about the children” argument by now. But they don’t.
mainmata
@Linnaeus: Because, as we all know, it is biologically impossible for sexual reproduction to work except if you are married. Argle-bargle-something-something. The AL SC “judges” are not only prejudiced but also profoundly ignorant.
peach flavored shampoo
@kuvasz: If you throw them in jail, then they’ll all come out gay and realize they suddenly support gay marrage. Win win for everyone.
Violet
@Linnaeus: So…if the primary reason for marriage is to procreate, what about those people who procreate outside of marriage? Are those children not real? Does the universe turn inside out?
So confused.
shpx.ohfu
Interesting. Two of the Alabama SC judges went to a law school I never heard of, one Thomas Goode Jones School of Law.
Wiki says “Jones School of Law was founded in 1928 by Montgomery County Circuit Judge Walter B. Jones, an ardent segregationist. The law school is named after Judge Walter B. Jones’ father, Thomas Goode Jones, an alumnus of the Virginia Military Institute, a Confederate veteran of the Civil War, and Governor of Alabama for two terms.”
Ah. That explains it.
boatboy_srq
@shortstop:
The stereotype exists because the exemplars of it exist. The only thing surprising about a decision by backward bigots to make backward bigotry legal is that anyone else is surprised.
Linnaeus
After seeing several similar responses to my comment at #9, I suspect that my intended sarcasm was not very clear. So let me say here that I was being sarcastic. I think the argument that “marriage is really about the children” to be wholly without merit, as is any argument against marriage equality.
Tenar Darell
@Tommy: Not sure if this guy is a lawyer, but there’s a Slate article up about it.
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: The law is simple. When the government loses a case, it applies to the whole government – not just one official directly involved in the case. That is what it means when the federal judge invalidates a state law as unconstitutional. That makes it illegal for all other state officials to continue to enforce the state law.
Any idea to the contrary is just legal fantasy without precedent. And imagine the stupidity of the reasoning of the Alabama Sp. Ct. which allegedly allows all other state officials to ignore the ruling. Would enforcement allegedly require joining every state official as a party before it applies to them? If the particular probate judge resigned and was replaced, then presumably he would also be free to ignore the ruling.
shortstop
@Linnaeus: I know you weren’t personally taking that position. But I thought it important to note that majority opinion is no legal argument–there is way too much “One individual can’t override the wishes of the voters!” coming from the portion of our population that flunked eighth-grade civics class–and that even if it were, there are large questions about how many states still have a majority against same-sex marriage. (Certainly the South and much of the plains and mountains states still do.)
AnderJ
@dmbeaster: In short, yes. Although they will not get full length trials. All probate judges in the Southern district may be enjoined in the current case and in the other districts injunctions may be applied for and quickly given. The other option: any probate judge could ask the USs supreme court to stay the AL supreme court’s ruling.
That the system of having to sets of judges having jurisdiction to interpret the US Constitution might be a crappy system, but well… That doesn’t mean your stuck with it.
AnderJ
@dmbeaster: which law is that? I see the logic behind your argument, but to my mind such law or binding precedent to that effect does not exist.
aimai
@Baud: Sounds good!
AnderJ
@dmbeaster: by the way, the district court judge who gave the order disagrees with you. In the rulings linked to above, she said she could only bind the names officials.
shortstop
It’s hard to argue with the idea that the state has a powerful interest in promoting stable families in which to raise children. Where these bigoted fools fall down on that topic is in insisting that only kids raised by both of their biological parents are worthy of being “protected,” and further in claiming that the conception and rearing of children is the state’s only interest in regulating marriage. We know from solid research that married people live longer, stay healthier and are more productive. They’re also less likely to rely on government-funded safety net programs…something else that wingers tend to rail against.
I have even heard anti-SSM people complain with straight faces that we “can’t afford” as a country to extend the financial benefits of marriage (access to health insurance, freedom from certain estate taxes, etc.) to LGBT people, as though they don’t pay taxes themselves! Every argument against SSM comes down to animus looking for a rationale. Every single one.
AdamCS
If anything, the AL Supreme Court’s decision will probably push Kennedy to extend marriage equality nationally. Arguably, the Supreme Court grants cert. on cases in which there is an untenable circuit split because such splits cause legal uncertainty. What’s happening in Alabama IS not just legal uncertainly but legal chaos, and the best way to resolve the chaos will be to definitively hold that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.
As an aside, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Judge Granade has something more to say about all this even before SCOTUS oral arguments in DeBoer v. Snyder. I’m not convinced it’s likely, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
SRW1
@Calouste:
Bavaria is the most conservative state in Germany and also ranks at or very near the top as far as corruption is concerned (though they see most of the latter as Gschaftlhuberei, ie one hand washing the other with a bit of family grifting on the side).
However, what Bavaria definitely is not, is backward. On the contrary, the state government has a habit of investing quite heavily in high tech and infrastructure. There is a reason why Bavaria is the most wealthy state in Germany and makes the largest contribution to the transfer payments between the states (Länderfinanzausgleich).
SRW1
@Amir Khalid:
Die Versuche halten an!
Johannes
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): It’s legal jargon for an act as to which the state actor assigned to perform it has no discretion. You either meet the qualifications for a driver’s license, or marriage license, or not. The clerk or whever the state entrusts to make the decision (probate judges? Really?) doesn’t get to make an independent judgment call as to whether you are worthy.
Bill Arnold
@BruceJ:
Or, why aren’t they advocating termination of (heterosexual) marriages post-menopause?
Ben Cisco
My family (both sides, both colors) – Alabama natives. That said, Sherman’s bypassing the state is lamentable, as was Lincoln’s decision not to summarily execute every Confederate legislator and officer above the rank of lieutenant by hanging from every available yardarm, streetlight, gaslight, lamp post, weather vane, lightning rod, suspension bridge, and any other structure strong enough and with sufficient ground clearance to accommodate the task. Even if it meant I had never been born. Moore and his ilk are simply vile human beings, and emblematic of the rot that survived the Civil War.
PIGL
@Tommy: You don’t get it….if homo-marriage were illegal, us straight males would have our pick of all the hot lesbian babes. Is what I’m sure they’re thinking in the depths of their putrid black hearts.
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: Which law is that that the same party cannot keep litigating the same issue over and over again? Depends on the circumstance, but res judicata, collateral estoppel, law of the case, etc.
The “party” defendant here is the government — not the individual state official.
@AnderJ: You need to actually read the injunction order that you cite: It says in part
There is more than one order in the case, and the judge has already issued a blanket order applying to all Alabama public officials. The order you reference (which is the second order) has to do with the subsequent effort by the same sex couples to get their license, only to be blocked again even though the initial order is in full force and effect. The second order implements the first one in view of the ongoing refusal to follow the law as decreed by the Federal judge.
And I hope now that you see you are wrong in arguing that allegedly the Federal judge has claimed that her orders only apply to the particular case or judge. That is true only as to the second order, which seeks to enforce the requirement of the initial blanket order as to the particular plaintiffs and the one official involved with that license. The initial order referenced in the above quote applies to all public officials in Alabama.
fuckwit
This post reminded me of: http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly060315.htm
fuckwit
@Hal: If this were true, someone should pass a law requiring fertility tests before issuing marriage licenses. And make illegal any marriages for post-menopausal women, at all, ever, or for any man who has had a vasectomy. Also, too, nullification allowed if either party is found infertile after marriage. Or impotent! The trolling opportunities, they are huge.
geg6
@dmbeaster:
Yes, this is exactly the situation as I understand it.
Jado
@Hal:
Have you SEEN Neil Patrick Harris? I am in a straight marriage, but I can see how some crackers might look at that and go “Hubba Hubba”
Someone else…not me. That’s just silly.
Roger Moore
@Epicurus:
It’s a much worse argument than that. Procreation may be an argument in favor of allowing marriage between straight couples, but it isn’t a good argument in favor of denying marriage to gay couples. It would only work if denying gays equal rights somehow convinced them to become straight, but there’s no reason to think that’s true.
Hal
@delk:
http://wonkette.com/578433/completely-real-coalition-of-african-american-pastors-to-give-mlk-award-to-alabamas-roy-moore#mj6AZ0id1pmKuxJ8.99
Well let’s be honest. The last thing anyone in the south would want is the courts deciding whether or not a law is constitutional.
Craig
Plainly, the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama is in error, and, equally plainly, the United States Courts will give them as many lessons as they require. It can go just about as badly for the honorable justices as they want it to, including fines and prison, but that will play out in the fullness of time.
For my part, I find that really nothing clarifies a moral issue quite like a little “massive resistance” from the old Confederacy. I used to ask, “who wants to be the last judge in America to rule in favor of bigotry?” And now I guess we know.
Dave in snow.....
@Villago Delenda Est:
Exactly!!!
AnderJ
@dmbeaster: i’ll be more than happy to look at this tomorrow. If I’m wrong I’ll tell you, if I’m right I will tell you to. For now you are citing concepts of law that do not apply and I it I remember there is no blanket order and there never was. The judge would be overstepping her authority of she would and if I remember correctly she said as much.
See you tomorrow.
AnderJ
@dmbeasterAnd maybe you can use the time to find the link to that blanket order of yours. And I know about the first order. I actually read them. Haven’t read the AL supreme court decision though yet.
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: The first order is expressly referenced in the material I quoted. It is document no. 29 in the online file which you can access using PACER. I sense that you know how to do that — it is not something you can link since you have to pay a nominal amount to get access to it and must have a free PACER account. In any event, in the second order which you linked, the judge explicitly quotes from the first order, which quote I repeated above. That quote pretty much says it all.
dmbeaster
@AnderJ: I hunted around on the website you had linked for the second order, and was able to find the first order as well. The website is not well organized for finding specific documents, but it is there.
Steve in the ATL
I was on the phone with some folks in our Birmingham office and they told me that the governor had declared a state of emergency. I had to ask whether the emergency was the impending snow and ice storm or the possibility that gay people might get married.
Tree With Water
If memory serves, Sherman had a Alabama outfit in his Army of the Tennessee. There was strong and abiding support down the spine of the Appalachians during that War, a fact that backward southerners today tend to ignore. If the dumb bastards ever knew it in the first place, that is..
the Conster
@Brother Dingaling: @Ben Cisco:
just a shout out to both of you for keeping it really fucking real. I have never set foot in Alabama, and never ever will.
RaflW
@Joel Hanes:
Sounds OK to me.
Well, of course I don’t want Civil War II, but why not let the amok have a run down there in their Sweet Home?
dmbeaster
@Tree With Water: Your memory is correct, and it was a cavalry regiment which joined the Union Army in 1862 after Federals invaded northern Alabama. It was from Winston County, Alabama, which declared neutrality and asserted the right to succeed from the state after it voted for succession.
Hunter
@The Moar You Know: The one I found while researching the issue is Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, from 1859: basically, state courts do not have the authority to overrule federal court decisions.
Ryan
I don’t understand this. I mean they’re judges, so they’re in the Club and don’t pass Go without their $200, but are there no consequences for violating the law?
Howlin Wolfe
@JPL: This. It’s okay if you’re a white, male RWNJ.
Howlin Wolfe
@Tommy: I’m a lawyer, but not a constitutional one. But the federal courts have preemptive jurisdiction over US Constitutional issues, and the Alabama SC’s decision is unconstitutional. It amounts to judicial nullification. Who knows? Maybe Scalia and the other 4 right-wing assholes on the SCOTUS will think it’s A-OK.
ETA: At issue in the federal judge’s ruling was the US constitutional issue of equal protection under the 14th amendment, I believe.