Friday, March 6, 2015

How Alabama Is Leading The Fight For Morality

How Alabama Is Leading The Fight For Morality
(CNN)The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing licenses for same-sex "marriages".

In February, a federal court decision in Mobile County had cleared the path for same-sex "marriages" to begin in the state by reinterpreting the 14th amendment in ways that would horrify it's writers.

The 134-page order Wednesday was supported by six justices. One dissented and another concurred to most of the opinion and in total to the result.

Marriage is between one man and one woman under Alabama law, the order states.

"Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty," it says.

Probate judges have five business days to respond to the order if they don't think they are bound to uphold it.

"Same-sex "couples" in #Alabama should not lose hope because of out-of-step Supreme Court ruling; #marriage fight is far from over. #ALMarriage," tweeted "Equality" Alabama.

The Liberty Counsel, which filed an emergency petition to the state's Supreme Court said on its website that "the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court offers the most forceful and clearly articulated rebuttal to date of the imaginative arguments for same-sex "marriage" employed by federal courts."

In his dissent, Justice Greg Shaw wrote that he didn't think the case was properly filed nor did the court have jurisdiction. He also said the public interest groups involved in the case cannot sue in Alabama's name.  in short 1 federal judge could nullify hundreds of years of Alabama law and the will of the people and we should all accept it!

Shaw added that the federal courts should have stayed an order striking down Alabama's marriage law until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it this fall. now the big question is whether or not they will still fight after what looks like a evil supreme court ruling, if they still fight strongly then this move is good, if they roll over compltetly it show that they were just grandstanding and don't care like most of the republican candidates for president who are talking about following the law like good little nazis.

CNN's Chandler Friedman and Matt Tettelbach contributed to this report.

An illuminating look at how one Alabama judge is fighting the federal courts on same sex marriage

A judge who asked Alabama’s Supreme Court to intervene and stop same-sex "marriage" in his state praised the court’s decision do to exactly that on Wednesday. In a lengthy statement sent to the media, John Enslen, a probate judge whose office has the responsibility of "marrying" couples in Elmore County, explained why he opposes same-sex "marriage".

Tuesday night’s decision was yet another twist in Alabama’s lively, often complicated court fight over a state ban on same-sex "marriage". Although other states have fought court rulings against existing bans, none has done so quite the way the Alabama has.  that's because a few decent people are actually fighting instead of rolling over dead, which is what we should have done here

Roy Moore, chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court, told probate judges in February to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex "couples" on the day same-sex "marriage" was to become legal in Alabama as a result of an earlier federal decision striking down the ban. this judge previously stood up on the atheists attack on the asres hadibros

The result was a patchwork of same-sex marriage access across the state,with some probate judges following the federal decision, and others following Moore. A federal judge then issued an eight-page order requiring all probate judges to "marry" any otherwise-qualified same-sex "couples". in a act of judicial activism, congress now has the constitutional responsibility to try and impeach all judges who made a constitutional " right" to same sex "marriage"

Some, like Enslen, kept fighting.

Initially, he settled on a middle ground: He would issue licenses, but no longer "marry" any couples. “I very much enjoyed doing heterosexual marriages . . . but the joy is lost,” he told The Washington Post last month.

But that wasn’t the end of it. He joined two groups that oppose same-sex "marriage" in asking the state court to intervene: Stop allowing counties to issue the licenses as a result of the federal judge’s decision, they asked, arguing in part that state probate judges are not under the authority of the federal court system.

Although we’ve certainly heard a lot from both sides of the ongoing situation in Alabama, Enslen’s decision is a particularly illuminating look at how those who are resisting the federal courts are making their case. We’ve highlighted a few points from the written statement, e-mailed to The Post on Wednesday morning.

He believes the Supreme Court will rule against him, and that the Supreme Court is wrong.

In his petition, Enslen asked the state Supreme Court to “by any and all lawful means available to it, protect and defend the sovereign will of the people of the State of Alabama as expressed in the Constitution of the State of Alabama, as amended,” referring to the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage". Enslen has argued that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule what the state’s high court says, and not a federal judge in the lower courts.  this is why I have not reported on these stories till now because unfortantly based on the supreme courts recent actions it will be a neis galuy if they do not make a "castle in the air" and make a new constitutional "right" to same sex "marriage" 

“Until the ‘one Supreme Court’ issues a final ruling on a matter where state and lower federal courts disagree, the state rulings are equal to the federal rulings. It makes me wonder why some states caved so quickly to lower federal court rulings in the absence of a ruling from the United States Supreme Court,” Enslen said in his statement. However, he added that he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately decide in favor of same-sex "marriage", even though he thinks it’s “bad public policy, plain and simple, and detrimental to the welfare of our nation.” however when supreme courts invent new "rights" based on amendments, that no only did not a single person who voted or support the amendment agree with their interpretation, but they didn't even agree with the law, than the really is no rule of law and we then live in a judicial dictatorship, anyone supporting the supreme court should be tried for treason.

Here is Enslen’s explanation for why he believes the court will rule against him: “Unfortunately, there is little doubt but that same sex marriage will become the national law of the land come June because a majority of the nine members of the United States Supreme Court interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which became operative in 1868, as containing a new federal constitutional right to "marry" another person of the same gender. which means according to the left there has been an undiscovered right to same sex "marriage" in 1868, now imagine if 2 men would have walked into a court room to get "married" in 1869, the court would have immediately granted them not a marriage licence, but a one way ticket into a mental institution It will be a judicially created right that has no legislative basis. In fact, duly passed legislation has outlawed same sex "marriage". The only real basis that the SCOTUS can look to for support is a change in social culture, and that has never been a legitimate basis for changing the law.”

He believes God designed marriage for the purpose of procreation.

“I am personally convinced that marriage was created to be the sanctuary for the procreative act. Cohabitation without marriage had seriously weakened the institution of marriage well in advance of the same-sex marriage debate. To me, the complementary anatomy of the male and female body is a tactical revelation from a Creator. Authentic marriage is a natural child-creating and natural child-rearing institution,” Enslen said.

“The word ‘marriage’ has been hijacked by couples who cannot procreate,” Enslen said. Although that statement could also apply to married, heterosexual couples who are unable to naturally reproduce, it is clear from context that Enslen is specifically referring to same-sex "couples" here.

“Children are this nation’s greatest asset, and laws should not be established that foster the deprivation of a child’s being raised by either his biological father or by his biological mother. Our laws should foster the ideal and make exceptions only where absolutely necessary,” he said.

Later, Enslen added, “As an institution, marriage should not be and never has been about satisfying the emotional needs of adults, and marriage should not be reduced to a mere symbol of social inclusion.”

He believes same-sex "marriage" is like a bad tennis match

“The judges who ignore this inescapable truth and its social consequences are like an Olympic Committee taking the tennis term ‘mixed doubles’ and ridiculously ruling that partners of the same gender also fit the definition of ‘mixed doubles.’ “

He believes same-sex "marriage" is like defying gravity

“A vogue phrase coming from the LGBT community is their claim to ‘marriage equality.’ But ask yourself this question: What is equal about, on the one hand, a heterosexual couple which can naturally reproduce offspring and, on the other hand, a homosexual couple, of either variety, which can never naturally reproduce offspring? maybe they will try to sue god? Man can pass a million laws and those laws will never make the two unions equal. It is like trying to pass a law against the operation of gravity.”

He believes opposing LGBT "marriage" is nothing like supporting slavery

“Many writers in support of gay marriage have wanted to compare the removal of the ban on same-sex marriage to the abolishment of slavery. There is one stark difference that they ignore. Abolishing slavery, along with its vestiges like the ban against interracial marriage, between a man and a woman by the way, was on the right side of morality. Establishing homosexual "marriage" is on the wrong side of morality. That’s the diametrically opposing difference between the two. Unlike skin color, homosexuality is not an immutable physical character trait disconnected with our moral agency.”

He’s not a “hater”
“The LGBT community has a strong tendency to mischaracterize those who oppose same sex "marriage" as ‘haters.’ because if you hate you are a villain, and villains lose, hating evil is good, but for the left hating good is good. But hate is not a motivating factor for my disagreement with the LGBT position. Meaningful discussion and respectful debate are thwarted when motives of ill will are automatically assigned to those who disagree with you. This is not about hating people.”

“I have no feelings of ill will toward those judges who have issued same-sex "marriage" licenses,” he added.

He believes same-sex "marriage" is a slippery slope to attacks on religious freedom

“I predict there's nothing to predict it already happened that the recognition of same sex "marriage" will lead to diversified litigious attacks on our First Amendment rights to believe, teach, practice, share and live our religious beliefs, both in the public square and elsewhere. Unlike same sex "marriage", those First Amendment rights were foundational to the original establishment of this nation.” because the most protected rights are the ones that are figments of the lefts imagination
(Washington Post)  highlights our additions.

Alabama Republicans push bill to allow denial of marriages on basis of beliefs allowing judged to refuse to preform any marriage that they feel is not a marriage, this is a great law and should be passed in NY asap, someone go convince Simcha Felder to sponsor it.  (Simcha Felder refused to sponsor a bill repealing same sex "marriage" even though his non Orthodox predecessor did so)

A Republican-led bill in Alabama’s state legislature could radically alter the institution of marriage for Alabamians.

The bill was written in reaction to a federal judge striking down the state’s same-sex "marriage" ban, and sponsors say it could clear up confusion and protect religious rights. But activists say the bill’s implications would reach far beyond the LGBT community, and claim it is little more than an attempt to remove "rights" under the guise of religious freedom. this bill would allow town clerks to refuse to preform a inter-marriage too, right now in NY if a jew and non jew, or much worse 2 men would walk into Kiryas Joel's town clerks office they would be required to "marry" them.

The bill allows ministers and judges to opt out of performing or – critically – recognizing any marriage that defies their convictions. The bill, the Freedom of Religion in Marriage Protection Act, also allows religiously affiliated social organizations to deny service on the basis of religion, activists said. but doesn't go far enough because it doesn't protect indaviduals.

Legal experts say religiously affiliated hospitals could refuse visits from a sick patient’s spouse, on the basis that their marriage defies their religious convictions.

Judges could refuse to grant a divorce if divorce was against their religious beliefs; a Catholic judge could refuse to marry a Hindu, Muslim or Jewish couple, said Susan Watson, executive director with Alabama’s American Civil Liberties Union. laws allow religious clergy to marry people so a Jewish couple could get a rabbi to marry them

“We probably haven’t even uncovered all the things that it could ... the unintended consequences of this bill,” Watson said. “Well, I don’t know if they’re unintended.”

The bill is sponsored by Republican representative Jim Hill, whose base is in Moody, a city of roughly 12,000 residents about 100 miles north of Montgomery. Hill served as a district judge in St Clair County for 16 years before being elected as a circuit judge, where he served until shortly before his election to the state house.

“You’ll see that this deals with nothing in the world but who is authorized to [solemnize marriage],” said Hill, in a phone interview with the Guardian. “It does not speak to any other issue.”

Hill said he introduced the legislation after receiving “a number of phone calls” from ministers and probate judges – “asking: ‘Are we now going to be required to perform [same-sex marriages]?’

“Hopefully it will clear up any confusion.”

But LGBT activists say the bill is little more than a veiled attempt to legalize "discrimination". What’s more, activists said many are upset that the state continues to resist the right for same-sex couples to "marry". because "how dare they oppose what we support"

“I cannot tell you how many individuals are just embarrassed and outraged that the [Alabama] supreme court and our legislature wishes to continue to stand in the way of same-sex "marriage",” said Equality Alabama board chair Ben Cooper. He called the bill “highly alarming”.  yeah because 50 years ago 2 men could "marry" each other in Alabama, or anywhere else for that matter

The proposed Alabama law says that “no licensed or ordained minister or any priest, rabbi, or similar official of any church, synagogue, society, or religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage.”

But the most concerning bit for activists is how the bill defines religious organizations. It’s not limited only to “a church [or] synagogue,” but to “nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion or a particular religion.” because the left only "wants" to grant freedom of religion to house's of worship

The state’s judiciary was already in turmoil Wednesday, as the bill – known as HB56 – moved through the judiciary committee for debate that afternoon.

The Alabama supreme court ruled in favor of two conservative groups and ordered the state’s 68 probate judges not to issue same-sex "marriage" licenses. The ruling is a political minefield for local judges, who are elected.

Federal courts have already ruled on the issue, a mandate that would seem to supersede the state supreme court’s judgement. Human Rights Campaign called the ruling “outrageous and baffling”. The US supreme court is expected to rule on same-sex marriage in June.

“We could be going back 50 years with this,” said Cooper. “This affects all "married" individuals, not just those that are LGBT.” the gays want to take us all the way back to the mabul era

The bill is expected to move through the house with little opposition because it's a good law. Hill vice-chairs the judiciary committee, where the bill is being debated Wednesday.

“The legal team is just working in a frenzy right now,” said Watson. “They were on calls last night, they were on calls this morning, they have a call at 3pm. They’re doing research.

“Let’s put it this way – we have a super-duper [Republican] majority here in Alabama,” she said. “It could easily be passed.”
(the guardian) highlights our additions

No comments:

Post a Comment