All errors should be reported to

Thursday, January 07, 2016

Gay marriage on hold in Alabama

Alabama's chief justice, Roy Moore, read the Constitution and concluded that, you know what? The federal government has no say over state marriage laws. (That is my take, too.) Justice Moore ordered the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

From the Associated Press:
Alabama Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, the only openly gay member of the Alabama Legislature, said it is time for Moore to stop fighting the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"He'll be challenged and he'll lose and he'll cost the state a lot of money in the process," Todd said.
University of Alabama School of Law Professor Ronald Krotoszynski agreed.
He said that although it is technically true the state Supreme Court never withdrew its March injunction, "the U.S. Supreme Court plainly overruled it and federal courts would rule against judges who refuse licenses."
"In light of this reality, ordering the state's probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to all couples who seek them constitutes an exercise in futility," Krotoszynski said. "At best, it sows chaos and confusion; at worst, it forces couples to bring federal court litigation in order to exercise a clearly established federal constitutional right."
By whose authority?

By whose authority did the federal Supreme Court amend the Constitution and create a right of men to marry men and women to marry women? It goes against 40,000 years of civilization -- with teh exception of the final days of decadent empires.

And by the way, Professor Krotoszynski, "technically true" is the same as true.


  1. Cheers for Judge Moore!

    I don't care who sticks what where or licks what in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I am sick of screeching tiny minorities trying to change things to suit their perversions.

  2. I can understand and sympathize with the legal argument that the SCOTUS can void state laws against homosexuality that serve to limit PRIVATE behavior. I do not understand the legal reasoning that the SCOTUS can void state laws regarding who can or cannot marry. A limitation on the issuance of a marriage license is not the same as a restriction on individual private behavior. If the argument is that homosexuals should have the same "right" to marry as heterosexuals because marriage confers special legal status and benefits, then the real issue becomes the Constitutionality of marriage itself since, by the same logic, state marriage laws disadvantage single individuals against married couples. Clearly the SCOTUS was not and is not prepared to rule all state marriage laws unconstitutional. However, that is the real issue the Court needed to address when ruling on same sex marriage. Instead, the Court settled on a legal compromise that satisfied no one and showed why such broad social issues ought to be beyond its jurisdiction.

  3. I agree with his stance, in spirit (though I'm not certain of its legality), and I also admire what amounts to his last-ditch stance in a war that has clearly been lost already in the current socio-political-legal environment.

    Obama and same-sex marriage are among the legacy that the millennials will leave their progeny, but I might add that Donald Trump (who is supported by this host and whom I might vote for) has declared the Supreme Court decision to be the final word on the topic.