US: Gay marriage comes to Alabama over chief judge's objections

[puck2]

Who or what protects the US citizens against dement judges?

Unlike judges in many other countries, American judges are drawn from the ranks of ordinary lawyers and installed on the bench without any specialized training. Not even Supreme Court justices, although they often have prior experience on other courts, receive specialized training beyond the legal education of every lawyer in the United States. <--->

.....Once appointed, justices serve until they die or choose to retire; there are no fixed terms and no mandatory retirement. .......

from:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2013/02/20130206142159.html#axzz2RpgFN1Xz

[Nakajima]

Who or what protects the US citizens against dement judges?

Unlike judges in many other countries, American judges are drawn from the ranks of ordinary lawyers and installed on the bench without any specialized training. Not even Supreme Court justices, although they often have prior experience on other courts, receive specialized training beyond the legal education of every lawyer in the United States. <--->

.....Once appointed, justices serve until they die or choose to retire; there are no fixed terms and no mandatory retirement. .......

from:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2013/02/20130206142159.html#axzz2RpgFN1Xz

I am more worried about demented conservative US citizen AND chief justice Roy Moore.

[Publicus]

Before you start celebrating you might want to take a look at the ruling. It does not overturn Alabama's 'ban' on same sex marriages. And, technically it is not a ban on same sex marriage. It defines 'marriage' as between a man and a woman.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/scotus-sez-thats-all-folks

By refusing to halt marriage licenses in Alabama, the Supreme Court has telegraphed that there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer, said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. Instead, the odds of a ruling bringing marriage equality to all 50 states have increased significantly."

Conservatives better get used to it.

The Supreme Court's decision has nothing to do the Alabama probate judges. As I said, please read it for yourself, not someone's interpretation of it. Particularly someone that has a vested interest in certain decisions going their way.

Everyone has a vested interest in how a court rules. The vested interests of 320 million Americans in the current matters are the definition and meaning of marriage in the society, the whole of the society in the early 21st century and going forward. To think only one side of a case before the Supreme Court has a vested interest is to be oblivious and itself one sided.

It is correct to say the SC did not address the matter of probate judges in Alabama or the issue of gay marriage.

The SC ruled on only the legitimacy of the particular US District Court ruling overturning the anti-gay marriage law. The SC agreed with the US court of appeals ruling that the US District Court for Alabama acted judicially, appropriately, correctly in reaching its decision to negate the state's anti-gay marriage laws. The SC said nothing about the laws themselves.

The state's probate judges who conduct marriage proceedings and who are defying the US District Court ruling are not the concern of the US Supreme Court, nor are they a matter for the US appeals court. They are the direct concern of the US District Court and the judge who made the ruling and issued the order, Judge Callie Granade

The many state probate judges who are defying the US District Court are violating the US Constitution and their oath of office too. Their oath of office contains the pledge to support the state constitution and the US Constitution. In any conflict between the two, the US Constitution Supremacy Clause establishes that the US document supersedes any state law or constitution,always and every time, in every state in everything.

This is the matter of the US District Court and the particular Judge, Callie Granade (appointed by Prez G.W. Bush).

[Nakajima]

Before you start celebrating you might want to take a look at the ruling. It does not overturn Alabama's 'ban' on same sex marriages. And, technically it is not a ban on same sex marriage. It defines 'marriage' as between a man and a woman.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/scotus-sez-thats-all-folks

By refusing to halt marriage licenses in Alabama, the Supreme Court has telegraphed that there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer, said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. Instead, the odds of a ruling bringing marriage equality to all 50 states have increased significantly."

Conservatives better get used to it.

The Supreme Court's decision has nothing to do the Alabama probate judges. As I said, please read it for yourself, not someone's interpretation of it. Particularly someone that has a vested interest in certain decisions going their way.

Everyone has a vested interest in how a court rules. The vested interests of 320 million Americans in the current matters are the definition and meaning of marriage in the society, the whole of the society in the early 21st century and going forward. To think only one side of a case before the Supreme Court has a vested interest is to be oblivious and itself one sided.

It is correct to say the SC did not address the matter of probate judges in Alabama or the issue of gay marriage.

The SC ruled on only the legitimacy of the particular US District Court ruling overturning the anti-gay marriage law. The SC agreed with the US court of appeals ruling that the US District Court for Alabama acted judicially, appropriately, correctly in reaching its decision to negate the state's anti-gay marriage laws. The SC said nothing about the laws themselves.

The state's probate judges who conduct marriage proceedings and who are defying the US District Court ruling are not the concern of the US Supreme Court, nor are they a matter for the US appeals court. They are the direct concern of the US District Court and the judge who made the ruling and issued the order, Judge Callie Granade

The many state probate judges who are defying the US District Court are violating the US Constitution and their oath of office too. Their oath of office contains the pledge to support the state constitution and the US Constitution. In any conflict between the two, the US Constitution Supremacy Clause establishes that the US document supersedes any state law or constitution,always and every time, in every state in everything.

This is the matter of the US District Court and the particular Judge, Callie Granade (appointed by Prez G.W. Bush).

The SCOTUS is set to take up the case at national level around June, then we can finally put this issue to rest once and for all, like it has been with inter racial marriage.

Then we'll see conservatives crying "Sodom and Gomorrah!" and predicting the end of the world.

Will be fun to watch.

[Jingthing]

The days are numbered and the writing is on the wall for commitment phobic coupled gays who have been relying on the excuse, darling I'd really really love to marry you, but it's not legal!

[Jingthing]

The U.S. gay civil rights movement continues, as it is not only about legal marriage equality, even after the seemingly inevitable 50 state decision by the supreme court.

As federal judges have obliterated state same-sex marriage bans — there are now 37 equal-marriage states — there has been surprisingly little backlash, even in other deeply conservative states. The Alabama episode, driven by a firebrand jurist, has been unusually fierce. This week’s events shouldn’t discourage the Supreme Court from deciding in favor of marriage equality this year.

Meanwhile, supporters of gay rights should keep expectations in check about how much work remains to be done. Marriage equality is just one of many goals. State legislatures and federal lawmakers need to be convinced to enhance civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians — prohibiting employment discrimination, for example, or discrimination in business transactions. In places like Alabama, that will take a lot more effort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/despite-resistance-alabama-heads-the-right-way-on-same-sex-marriage/2015/02/10/21eb72f0-b170-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html

[jaywalker]

The sad and startling thing is that it seems as if this guy Moore is not just grandstanding or politicking but genuinely believes that homosexuality is evil.

I expect that sort of sincerely held view from uneducated trailer trash, but not from an educated person.

I guess it just goes to show what religion can do to common sense.

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

so if 81% of people in any state decide to enforce stoning people to death for some sin, should we respect that?

Majority of people cannot legislate something that has been agreed by all states to be illegal. Discrimination is one of such thing.

That is why Constitution exist, not to be cherry picked by conservatives trying to deny someone else of their equality and human rights.

Talking to a wall.

[Nakajima]

The sad and startling thing is that it seems as if this guy Moore is not just grandstanding or politicking but genuinely believes that homosexuality is evil.

I expect that sort of sincerely held view from uneducated trailer trash, but not from an educated person.

I guess it just goes to show what religion can do to common sense.

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

so if 81% of people in any state decide to enforce stoning people to death for some sin, should we respect that?

Majority of people cannot legislate something that has been agreed by all states to be illegal. Discrimination is one of such thing.

That is why Constitution exist, not to be cherry picked by conservatives trying to deny someone else of their equality and human rights.

Talking to a wall.

As Publicus tried to explain you without success:

"The judge's oath of office as a state judge includes upholding the state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The supremacy clause in the US Constitution establishes federal law(s) and the US Constitution as being superior to any state law or of any state constitution, always and every time."

You clearly think the Constitution grants states the right to legislate whatever they want but it's actually not so and it's written within the Constitution itself.

Should a state be allowed to decide blacks can no longer marry whites or to erase the state-church division?

You should be able to understand it unless of course you are at odd with this particular issue, but worry not, it won't be an issue for long, the SCOTUS will soon make a binding decision for the whole US territory.

I know, it feel just like when segregation ended in 1968, doesn't it? how dared those damned SCOTUS Justice bully states into giving equal rights to blacks? Were you there to protest it? If not you can take this chance to be on history wrong side.

Civilization is moving forward disregarding pathetic attempts to use the Constitution exactly in opposition of its true meaning.

[Publicus]

The sad and startling thing is that it seems as if this guy Moore is not just grandstanding or politicking but genuinely believes that homosexuality is evil.

I expect that sort of sincerely held view from uneducated trailer trash, but not from an educated person.

I guess it just goes to show what religion can do to common sense.

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

The people who go on about "states' rights" think only the states have rights. The thinking is in error.

The first ten amendments which were adopted simultaneously, the Bill of Rights, guarantees individual freedom, liberty, justice, to each citizen.

Note the ordinal arrangement of the Bill of Rights, which amendment is first, which is second....which is 10th and thus the last of the grouping.

It is clear in the body of US lawmaking and jurisprudence that each individual citizen has inherent and "inalienable" natural and legal rights. The rights of the individual entirely eclipse the vague and reactionary claim of "states' rights"

When each state was admitted to the United States it signed on the dotted line that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. When Alabama became the 22nd state in 1819 it signed on that dotted line. Yet Alabama was among the eleven states that were on the wrong side in losing the civil war. That alone should have brought the point home to the state and its people 150 years ago, but it apparently has not yet done so.

Whatever this nebulous notion of "states' rights" may claim, the claims are superseded by the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution to each and every citizen. That is what the Supremacy Clause is about and why it exists. In a conflict between a state and the federal government, the Constitution says the United States Government prevails. Always, every time, in everything.

[jaywalker]

The sad and startling thing is that it seems as if this guy Moore is not just grandstanding or politicking but genuinely believes that homosexuality is evil.

I expect that sort of sincerely held view from uneducated trailer trash, but not from an educated person.

I guess it just goes to show what religion can do to common sense.

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

The people who go on about "states' rights" think only the states have rights. The thinking is in error.

The first ten amendments which were adopted simultaneously, the Bill of Rights, guarantees individual freedom, liberty, justice, to each citizen.

Note the ordinal arrangement of the Bill of Rights, which amendment is first, which is second....which is 10th and thus the last of the grouping.

It is clear in the body of US lawmaking and jurisprudence that each individual citizen has inherent and "inalienable" natural and legal rights. The rights of the individual entirely eclipse the vague and reactionary claim of "states' rights"

When each state was admitted to the United States it signed on the dotted line that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. When Alabama became the 22nd state in 1819 it signed on that dotted line. Yet Alabama was among the eleven states that were on the wrong side in losing the civil war. That alone should have brought the point home to the state and its people 150 years ago, but it apparently has not yet done so.

Whatever this nebulous notion of "states' rights" may claim, the claims are superseded by the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution to each and every citizen. That is what the Supremacy Clause is about and why it exists. In a conflict between a state and the federal government, the Constitution says the United States Government prevails. Always, every time, in everything.

Can't argue with the Fed's.

I won't dispute that.

The Civil War was about State's rights (not slavery). Slavery would have went the way of the do-do bird on its own due to the Industrial Revolution.

I despise the thought of slavery, but that was 150 years ago. Sorry to even bring it up, but one can't mention the Civil War without talking about it.

My argument is that if I disagree with the Federal government interfering in what local governments decide, like this judge disagreed, we are IMMEDIATELY labeled, "Something-phobic".

Somebody can call me a conservative right-wing fanatic (which I'm not) & that's politically correct.

If I point out that local communities should be able to pass local laws via their local governments, I'm accused of wanting to stone people to death & compared to IS or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I could care less one way or the other about gay marriage.

The only thing I despise is Washington poking their noses into local affairs.

OH yeah, I also despise people that want to stone me online because I have ideas that differ from theirs.

HEAVEN FORBID that a relaxed Conservative like me express my views in a logical manner without being castigated as Racist or Homophobic or some other nasty word, which I resent as much a black guy being called the "N" word.

It creates a great deal of respect in my mind for liberals that do that - NOT!

[Publicus]

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

The people who go on about "states' rights" think only the states have rights. The thinking is in error.

The first ten amendments which were adopted simultaneously, the Bill of Rights, guarantees individual freedom, liberty, justice, to each citizen.

Note the ordinal arrangement of the Bill of Rights, which amendment is first, which is second....which is 10th and thus the last of the grouping.

It is clear in the body of US lawmaking and jurisprudence that each individual citizen has inherent and "inalienable" natural and legal rights. The rights of the individual entirely eclipse the vague and reactionary claim of "states' rights"

When each state was admitted to the United States it signed on the dotted line that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. When Alabama became the 22nd state in 1819 it signed on that dotted line. Yet Alabama was among the eleven states that were on the wrong side in losing the civil war. That alone should have brought the point home to the state and its people 150 years ago, but it apparently has not yet done so.

Whatever this nebulous notion of "states' rights" may claim, the claims are superseded by the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution to each and every citizen. That is what the Supremacy Clause is about and why it exists. In a conflict between a state and the federal government, the Constitution says the United States Government prevails. Always, every time, in everything.

Can't argue with the Fed's.

I won't dispute that.

The Civil War was about State's rights (not slavery). Slavery would have went the way of the do-do bird on its own due to the Industrial Revolution.

I despise the thought of slavery, but that was 150 years ago. Sorry to even bring it up, but one can't mention the Civil War without talking about it.

My argument is that if I disagree with the Federal government interfering in what local governments decide, like this judge disagreed, we are IMMEDIATELY labeled, "Something-phobic".

Somebody can call me a conservative right-wing fanatic (which I'm not) & that's politically correct.

If I point out that local communities should be able to pass local laws via their local governments, I'm accused of wanting to stone people to death & compared to IS or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I could care less one way or the other about gay marriage.

The only thing I despise is Washington poking their noses into local affairs.

OH yeah, I also despise people that want to stone me online because I have ideas that differ from theirs.

HEAVEN FORBID that a relaxed Conservative like me express my views in a logical manner without being castigated as Racist or Homophobic or some other nasty word, which I resent as much a black guy being called the "N" word.

It creates a great deal of respect in my mind for liberals that do that - NOT!

One can note of course my post discusses the Constitution of the United States.

It says nothing about the many additional items presented in your post.

I point out the Supremacy Clause every state signed on to, agreed to, accepted, established the US Constitution as superior to any or all state constitutions and to any and all state laws, to include of course the county and the municipality level of government.

Article VI of the US Constitution, the directly relevant part is...

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

The language in the article, "to the contrary notwithstanding" means of course no matter what the states say or do.

In the coming 24 hours the US District Court Judge for Alabama who ruled the state constitution violates the US Constitution will issue a contempt of court citation against one Alabama probate judge who is defying the Court by refusing to perform gay marriages. The rest of the Alabama state judges in defiance of the US Constitution can make their own decisions or responses. Alabama seems to have this strange compulsion to lose and be punished by the larger society.

The Civil War btw was fought over the issue of secession...arbitrary and whimsical secession. It was not fought over states' rights because eleven states declared their permanent separation from the Union of the states to organize the Confederate States of America and their own national government, of which as you know Jefferson Davis of Virginia was chosen as president.

The US South missed the Industrial Revolution and continues to suffer from it to the present and will continue to remain behind the eight-ball indefinitely as the rest of the country changes which is to say progresses further.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Publicus

[CMNightRider]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

[Jingthing]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Same sex marriage IS now legal in the majority of U.S. states, at the national level, and strong indications that this year it will probably become a 50 state thing due an anticipated major supreme court decision. Racists used to say marriage was only meant for people of the same race not so long ago in the U.S. but the racists lost that one and the anti-gay forces are losing this one too. Yes I think it's true that most straight parents want and expect their kids to be straight too ...the odds are in their favor on that expectation, but good parents make the adjustment and realize the child they always loved is the same person they always loved ... just gay.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Jingthing

[sdanielmcev]

The guy believes that Washington should have no say over what 81% of people in Alabama believe.

State's Rights is what it's about.

I know I'm talking to a wall though. The US Constitution is a dead letter. Has been for a long time, especially when any kind of "Politically Correct" issue arises.

The people who go on about "states' rights" think only the states have rights. The thinking is in error.

The first ten amendments which were adopted simultaneously, the Bill of Rights, guarantees individual freedom, liberty, justice, to each citizen.

Note the ordinal arrangement of the Bill of Rights, which amendment is first, which is second....which is 10th and thus the last of the grouping.

It is clear in the body of US lawmaking and jurisprudence that each individual citizen has inherent and "inalienable" natural and legal rights. The rights of the individual entirely eclipse the vague and reactionary claim of "states' rights"

When each state was admitted to the United States it signed on the dotted line that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. When Alabama became the 22nd state in 1819 it signed on that dotted line. Yet Alabama was among the eleven states that were on the wrong side in losing the civil war. That alone should have brought the point home to the state and its people 150 years ago, but it apparently has not yet done so.

Whatever this nebulous notion of "states' rights" may claim, the claims are superseded by the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution to each and every citizen. That is what the Supremacy Clause is about and why it exists. In a conflict between a state and the federal government, the Constitution says the United States Government prevails. Always, every time, in everything.

Can't argue with the Fed's.

I won't dispute that.

The Civil War was about State's rights (not slavery). Slavery would have went the way of the do-do bird on its own due to the Industrial Revolution.

I despise the thought of slavery, but that was 150 years ago. Sorry to even bring it up, but one can't mention the Civil War without talking about it.

My argument is that if I disagree with the Federal government interfering in what local governments decide, like this judge disagreed, we are IMMEDIATELY labeled, "Something-phobic".

Somebody can call me a conservative right-wing fanatic (which I'm not) & that's politically correct.

If I point out that local communities should be able to pass local laws via their local governments, I'm accused of wanting to stone people to death & compared to IS or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I could care less one way or the other about gay marriage.

The only thing I despise is Washington poking their noses into local affairs.

OH yeah, I also despise people that want to stone me online because I have ideas that differ from theirs.

HEAVEN FORBID that a relaxed Conservative like me express my views in a logical manner without being castigated as Racist or Homophobic or some other nasty word, which I resent as much a black guy being called the "N" word.

It creates a great deal of respect in my mind for liberals that do that - NOT!

One can note of course my post discusses the Constitution of the United States.

It says nothing about the many additional items presented in your post.

I point out the Supremacy Clause every state signed on to, agreed to, accepted, established the US Constitution as superior to any or all state constitutions and to any and all state laws, to include of course the county and the municipality level of government.

Article VI of the US Constitution, the directly relevant part is...

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

The language in the article, "to the contrary notwithstanding" means of course no matter what the states say or do.

In the coming 24 hours the US District Court Judge for Alabama who ruled the state constitution violates the US Constitution will issue a contempt of court citation against one Alabama probate judge who is defying the Court by refusing to perform gay marriages. The rest of the Alabama state judges in defiance of the US Constitution can make their own decisions or responses. Alabama seems to have this strange compulsion to lose and be punished by the larger society.

The Civil War btw was fought over the issue of secession...arbitrary and whimsical secession. It was not fought over states' rights because eleven states declared their permanent separation from the Union of the states to organize the Confederate States of America and their own national government, of which as you know Jefferson Davis of Virginia was chosen as president.

The US South missed the Industrial Revolution and continues to suffer from it to the present and will continue to remain behind the eight-ball indefinitely as the rest of the country changes which is to say progresses further.

I may be being a bit picky here, but the decision here has nothing to do with the supremacy clause because there is no superceding federal law.

[Publicus]

The current matter in Alabama is a clash of a state constitution in contradiction of the United States Constitution, which means the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution applies, and it applies directly..

The Alabama constitution says gay marriage is prohibited.

The US constitution is not settled on this matter yet, but it will be settled by the SCOTUS by or at mid-year. SCOTUS a few days ago affirmed by a vote of 7 justices to 2 justices that the US District Court judge for the Alabama district was within her remit to declare the Alabama constitution in this respect to be in conflict with the US Constitution.

The 7-2 alignment of the SCOTUS in the Alabama case at the US District Court was handwriting across the sky from sea to shining sea that state and other laws within states and state constitutions that prohibit gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just about the only thing that could prevent this is the earth under the Supreme Court building opening up and swallowing it so go ahead to keep on praying but as always, it will get you nowhere.

[sdanielmcev]

The current matter in Alabama is a clash of a state constitution in contradiction of the United States Constitution, which means the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution applies, and it applies directly..

The Alabama constitution says gay marriage is prohibited.

The US constitution is not settled on this matter yet, but it will be settled by the SCOTUS by or at mid-year. SCOTUS a few days ago affirmed by a vote of 7 justices to 2 justices that the US District Court judge for the Alabama district was within her remit to declare the Alabama constitution in this respect to be in conflict with the US Constitution.

The 7-2 alignment of the SCOTUS in the Alabama case at the US District Court was handwriting across the sky from sea to shining sea that state and other laws within states and state constitutions that prohibit gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just about the only thing that could prevent this is the earth under the Supreme Court building opening up and swallowing it so go ahead to keep on praying but as always, it will get you nowhere.

It will not become the law of the land if the Supreme Court rules one way or the other. The Supreme Court does not make laws. Quit spreading your nonsense. A constitutional scholar you're not.

[Jingthing]

SCOTUS doesn't write state laws. But if SCOTUS declares denying same sex people the right to marriage is unconstitutional, then the states literally have no legal choice but to allow those marriages. All 50 states.

[Publicus]

The current matter in Alabama is a clash of a state constitution in contradiction of the United States Constitution, which means the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution applies, and it applies directly..

The Alabama constitution says gay marriage is prohibited.

The US constitution is not settled on this matter yet, but it will be settled by the SCOTUS by or at mid-year. SCOTUS a few days ago affirmed by a vote of 7 justices to 2 justices that the US District Court judge for the Alabama district was within her remit to declare the Alabama constitution in this respect to be in conflict with the US Constitution.

The 7-2 alignment of the SCOTUS in the Alabama case at the US District Court was handwriting across the sky from sea to shining sea that state and other laws within states and state constitutions that prohibit gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just about the only thing that could prevent this is the earth under the Supreme Court building opening up and swallowing it so go ahead to keep on praying but as always, it will get you nowhere.

It will not become the law of the land if the Supreme Court rules one way or the other. The Supreme Court does not make laws. Quit spreading your nonsense. A constitutional scholar you're not.

No one here is a constitutional scholar so it is gratuitous to say so...no one here is a scholar either.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and I'm discussing it. I have that right.

Anyone knows that if the SCOTUS strikes down the anti-gay marriage laws of the several states it is reviewing, there will be no more anti-gay laws or amendments to state constitutions as in the case in Alabama. If some jurisdiction were to pass any such law, it will be negated fairly immediately.

If the Court does as expected to strike down those laws, it will do it on a constitutional grounds, as you and many others well know. Then gay people in all 50 states can become legally married because the SCOTUS will have found the Constitution says neither the feds nor the states can prevent it nor can they obstruct gay marriage in any way, and that the Constitution says so.

As I'd noted in my post above, Article VI of the US Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause that established the document as the "supreme law of the land." The SCOTUS makes its findings with that always in mind.

Counselor..

[Nakajima]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

[CMNightRider]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

You can certainly marry another man or even the goat in your back yard for all I care. I'm just saying marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. As far as having a wonderful gay son vs some straight bully macho thug for a son, I would take the thug because he can be turned around. Although, I would make sure I told him not to turn around in front of a gay guy, just as a precaucation. I really don't mind being left behind by history on this one.

[Nakajima]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

You can certainly marry another man or even the goat in your back yard for all I care. I'm just saying marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. As far as having a wonderful gay son vs some straight bully macho thug for a son, I would take the thug because he can be turned around. Although, I would make sure I told him not to turn around in front of a gay guy, just as a precaucation. I really don't mind being left behind by history on this one.

Then just crawl back under that rock and possibly fossilize in there. Nobody cares what you think marriage is meant to be, is going to be what open minded future generations want it to.

BTW you should read this below, see you at the club dear... I am sure I'd meet there your son too.

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

[CMNightRider]

So far as I am aware not one license has been issued to same-sex couples in Alabama.

terrible thing ignorance:

suck it conservative dinosaurs!

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/live-updates-alabama-marriage-equality

Wow, "Suck it conservative dinosaurs"??? I don't believe there are any "conservative dinosaurs" that have any interest in any of your man love comments. Maybe it would be better to keep those comments between you and your man friend. This is just about gay marriage and nothing to get angry over.

[CMNightRider]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

You can certainly marry another man or even the goat in your back yard for all I care. I'm just saying marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. As far as having a wonderful gay son vs some straight bully macho thug for a son, I would take the thug because he can be turned around. Although, I would make sure I told him not to turn around in front of a gay guy, just as a precaucation. I really don't mind being left behind by history on this one.

Then just crawl back under that rock and possibly fossilize in there. Nobody cares what you think marriage is meant to be, is going to be what open minded future generations want it to.

BTW you should read this below, see you at the club dear... I am sure I'd meet there your son too.

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

Apparently, this is a very sensitive issue with you. "Crawl back under that rock"?? Just because a person understands marriage was meant to be between a man and woman, doesn't make them homophobic. After reading some of your disturbing posts, I would just about guarantee we travel in different circles, so we won't be meeting at any of the clubs you frequent.

[Nakajima]

So far as I am aware not one license has been issued to same-sex couples in Alabama.

terrible thing ignorance:

suck it conservative dinosaurs!

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/live-updates-alabama-marriage-equality

Wow, "Suck it conservative dinosaurs"??? I don't believe there are any "conservative dinosaurs" that have any interest in any of your man love comments. Maybe it would be better to keep those comments between you and your man friend. This is just about gay marriage and nothing to get angry over.

"JUST about gay marriage"

you mean like when I have not been able to marry my partner and be happy? or like some other friends of mine that cannot get a marriage visa to stay with their loved ones?

Do you even realize how devastating it is not being able to be with the person of your life and be denied what others have just because of different sexual orientation. All the years people have been waiting, sometime having to travel thousands of km. to see each other, they are not going to be returned to them. All the happy moments they lost?

Or maybe like when a girl I know could not visit her dieing partner in hospital after a car crash to say good bye to her?

"JUST" ???

you have no idea!

[Nakajima]

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

You can certainly marry another man or even the goat in your back yard for all I care. I'm just saying marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. As far as having a wonderful gay son vs some straight bully macho thug for a son, I would take the thug because he can be turned around. Although, I would make sure I told him not to turn around in front of a gay guy, just as a precaucation. I really don't mind being left behind by history on this one.

Then just crawl back under that rock and possibly fossilize in there. Nobody cares what you think marriage is meant to be, is going to be what open minded future generations want it to.

BTW you should read this below, see you at the club dear... I am sure I'd meet there your son too.

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

Apparently, this is a very sensitive issue with you. "Crawl back under that rock"?? Just because a person understands marriage was meant to be between a man and woman, doesn't make them homophobic. After reading some of your disturbing posts, I would just about guarantee we travel in different circles, so we won't be meeting at any of the clubs you frequent.

"Just because a person understands marriage was meant to be between a man and woman, doesn't make them homophobic" - yes it does, you not only express views against marriage but also against gays in general when you say "I would make sure I told him not to turn around in front of a gay guy, just as a precaucation".

"we won't be meeting at any of the clubs you frequent" - I beg to differ that what all closeted conservatives say.

Now stop writing and hurry with that make up or you'll be late at the park tonight. Boys don't wait.

[CMNightRider]

So far as I am aware not one license has been issued to same-sex couples in Alabama.

terrible thing ignorance:

suck it conservative dinosaurs!

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/live-updates-alabama-marriage-equality

Wow, "Suck it conservative dinosaurs"??? I don't believe there are any "conservative dinosaurs" that have any interest in any of your man love comments. Maybe it would be better to keep those comments between you and your man friend. This is just about gay marriage and nothing to get angry over.

"JUST about gay marriage"

you mean like when I have not been able to marry my partner and be happy? or like some other friends of mine that cannot get a marriage visa to stay with their loved ones?

Do you even realize how devastating it is not being able to be with the person of your life and be denied what others have just because of different sexual orientation. All the years people have been waiting, sometime having to travel thousands of km. to see each other, they are not going to be returned to them. All the happy moments they lost?

Or maybe like when a girl I know could not visit her dieing partner in hospital after a car crash to say good bye to her?

"JUST" ???

you have no idea!

This may come as a shock to you but marriage isn't all that great. It's like betting half of what you own that the marriage won't end in divorce. It's about a 50/50 chance you will stay together. Then to make matters worst, gays tend to have serious mental issues which would more than likely make the odds of the marriage working even less. In your case, I would look for a gay psychiatrist to marry. Just saying.

[Nakajima]

Wow, "Suck it conservative dinosaurs"??? I don't believe there are any "conservative dinosaurs" that have any interest in any of your man love comments. Maybe it would be better to keep those comments between you and your man friend. This is just about gay marriage and nothing to get angry over.

"JUST about gay marriage"

you mean like when I have not been able to marry my partner and be happy? or like some other friends of mine that cannot get a marriage visa to stay with their loved ones?

Do you even realize how devastating it is not being able to be with the person of your life and be denied what others have just because of different sexual orientation. All the years people have been waiting, sometime having to travel thousands of km. to see each other, they are not going to be returned to them. All the happy moments they lost?

Or maybe like when a girl I know could not visit her dieing partner in hospital after a car crash to say good bye to her?

"JUST" ???

you have no idea!

This may come as a shock to you but marriage isn't all that great. It's like betting half of what you own that the marriage won't end in divorce. It's about a 50/50 chance you will stay together. Then to make matters worst, gays tend to have serious mental issues which would more than likely make the odds of the marriage working even less. In your case, I would look for a gay psychiatrist to marry. Just saying.

"gays tend to have serious mental issues" you mean you have personally met a lot of them? or are you citing some statistic only you know about? You should try to support your claim with some evidence. Personally I see many heterosexuals with plenty of issues.

"This may come as a shock to you but marriage isn't all that great" - I still prefer to give it a try, maybe I'll be in the good 50%.

"In your case, I would look for a gay psychiatrist to marry. " - Thanks but I already have a partner which I am going to marry soon, I did not have to go looking for him in some third world country, nor go-go bars, clubs etc... he's about my age and not 20-30 years younger, there are no economic interests between us and he doesn't ask me to send money to his family and we are both in perfect shape and very good looking. Did I describe the opposite of some hetero in Thailand? Uhmmmm.... but we are the one having issues.... I see.

But I agree with you: if I'd ever need a shrink I'd pick a gay one, he'll be smarter and surely more empathic and sensitive.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and stop bickering.

Feel free to express your opinion about the topic, but not about other posters.

[2alex4alex]

The pro homosexual marriage people can rant and rave from now to domesday about how wonderful it is to make gay marriage legal but the bottom line is, marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to understand this.

I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have a son say he is going to marry Joe or George, what??? OMG!

Love is love, common sense is: you marry who you want and I marry who I want. You don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do.

I rather have a gay son which is a decent human being than some straight bully macho thug.

You and the likes of you are being left behind by history.

FACT is: gays are getting married all over the civilized world. Get used to it.

would like to see how you,gays, are going to breed..Sucking d*ck of another man will not make you pregnant.

[Jingthing]

...

Sucking d*ck of another man will not make you pregnant.

You don't say? Who knew? Notify the press!