Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[80zephyr]

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?

Mark

Good question Mark.

Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.

If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.

My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.

Mark

The law doesn't recognize polygamy as legal.

That was easy.

You answered a question I did not ask.

Typical.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Sils theory of contract, children, and marriage may be the looniest POV that we have seen on the Board in years.

If it is, it shouldn't be. Care of our future citizens should be of the utmost importance. They have rights to, or at least they should.

Mark

Children do have rights. Being parties to their parents marriage isn't one of them.

And we're speaking on points of law. Not your personal opinion.

That children have no rights in a situation where they are the injured party where they had no control means they have no rights.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

But gun ownership isn't?

Where did I say gun ownership isn't a right?- please provide the quote.

Meanwhile- marriage is a right. Repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court.

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used..

Not to me- that is the standard the courts use- and have used- for marriage laws, for gun laws- whenever a state passes a law that does restrict a right we have- State's can only restrict a right when it serves a compelling interest(no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

So you will insist on a man's right to marry multiple women?

Lol. You just stated to me that my opinion doesn't matter, and that we were arguing points of law.

So, what does his opinion have to do with anything?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?

Mark

Good question Mark.

Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.

If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.

My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.

Mark

The law doesn't recognize polygamy as legal.

That was easy.

You answered a question I did not ask.

Typical.

Mark

We're speaking of the law. Polygamy isn't legal.

Pretend otherwise. It won't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Sils theory of contract, children, and marriage may be the looniest POV that we have seen on the Board in years.

If it is, it shouldn't be. Care of our future citizens should be of the utmost importance. They have rights to, or at least they should.

Mark

Children do have rights. Being parties to their parents marriage isn't one of them.

And we're speaking on points of law. Not your personal opinion.

That children have no rights in a situation where they are the injured party where they had no control means they have no rights.

Mark

And what situation is that? For a conversation about law you're being remarkably vague

 

[Skylar]

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

Deflection. You argued that there was no such thing as an illegal law. I proved to you that there is indeed such a thing.

And I also admitted that even an illegal law could be enforced.

Mark

Strawman fallacy. I've never argued that there's no such thing as an illegal law. On the contrary, I've argued that state laws can absolutely be illegal if they violate the constitution. I've even cited specific examples: Laws that ban same sex marriage.

Demonstrating the absurdity of your claim.

And when I ask you who has found that Obergefell was 'unconstitutional'.....you predictably flee.

Typical.

 

[Kondor3]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Gays won the argument because those who opposed them, like you, had nothing more than namecalling as their counter argument. Like you.

It's not name-calling... it's an accurate usage of the English language, expressing widely-held and correct perspective on such perversion and filth.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Gays won the argument because those who opposed them, like you, had nothing more than namecalling as their counter argument. Like you.

It's not name-calling... it's an accurate usage of the English language, expressing widely-held and correct perspective on such perversion and filth.

Except that it isn't.

Your ilk lost on this issue culturally because too may people knew gay and lesbian couples. And found them to be just folks. Not better, not worse, just people. And watched as they got jobs, raised families, went to PTA meetings, stepped on legos and listened to 'Let it Go' until their ears bled.

And on the other side, there people like you insisting that they were 'perversion and filth'.

Your hateful narrative didn't match the experience of a growing majority of people. And as your generation gets older and inevitably passes on....much of your anti-gay sentiment will pass on with you.

Thankfully.

 

[Kondor3]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Gays won the argument because those who opposed them, like you, had nothing more than namecalling as their counter argument. Like you.

It's not name-calling... it's an accurate usage of the English language, expressing widely-held and correct perspective on such perversion and filth.

Except that it isn't.

Your ilk lost on this issue culturally because too may people knew gay and lesbian couples. And found them to be just folks. Not better, not worse, just people. And watched as they got jobs, raised families, went to PTA meetings, stepped on legos and listened to 'Let it Go' until their ears bled.

And on the other side, there people like you insisting that they were 'perversion and filth'.

Your hateful narrative didn't match the experience of a growing majority of people. And as your generation gets older and inevitably passes on....much of your anti-gay sentiment will pass on with you.

Thankfully.

Thank you for your feedback.

The Pervert Symapathizers' Club is just down the hall, second door on The Left.

Don't get too comfortable with your little victory at SCOTUS...

It's not going to last...

Actually, it seems likely to be headed into the crapper, after January 20, 2017...

Enjoy the time, while you can.

 

[Skylar]

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Gays won the argument because those who opposed them, like you, had nothing more than namecalling as their counter argument. Like you.

It's not name-calling... it's an accurate usage of the English language, expressing widely-held and correct perspective on such perversion and filth.

Except that it isn't.

Your ilk lost on this issue culturally because too may people knew gay and lesbian couples. And found them to be just folks. Not better, not worse, just people. And watched as they got jobs, raised families, went to PTA meetings, stepped on legos and listened to 'Let it Go' until their ears bled.

And on the other side, there people like you insisting that they were 'perversion and filth'.

Your hateful narrative didn't match the experience of a growing majority of people. And as your generation gets older and inevitably passes on....much of your anti-gay sentiment will pass on with you.

Thankfully.

Thank you for your feedback.

The Pervert Symapathizers' Club is just down the hall, second door on The Left.

Don't get too comfortable with your little victory at SCOTUS...

It's not going to last...

Supporters of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing.

How'd that work out again?

 

[Kondor3]

...Supporters of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing. How'd that work out again?

Dunno.

Those folk didn't have 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian sacred writing and teachings on the subject to reinforce their position.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

State courts are only bound to ruling by SCOTUS that are legal.

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.

 

[Skylar]

...Supporters of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing. How'd that work out again?

Dunno.

I'll help you then: its been almost 50 years. And the rulings that overturned interracial marriage bans still stand.

Those folk didn't have 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian sacred writing and teachings on the subject to reinforce their position.

They certainly thought otherwise:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

But try and tell the courts that you speak for god as judge Bazille did. Surely it will work out better for you than it did for him.

 

[Skylar]

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.

And where does the constitution say that a right has to be enumerated to be protected?

Here's the constitution.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Show me. Oh, and check out the 9th amendment when you have a second. You might find it relevant.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

Deflection. You argued that there was no such thing as an illegal law. I proved to you that there is indeed such a thing.

And I also admitted that even an illegal law could be enforced.

Mark

Tom Delay was convicted in ex-post-facto law. That's a perfect example.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.

And where does the constitution say that a right has to be enumerated to be protected?

Here's the constitution.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Show me. Oh, and check out the 9th amendment when you have a second. You might find it relevant.

You link states, "the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples". The 14th Amendment says no such thing.

 

[Debra K]

Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm


The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.


Staver’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. But Staver doesn’t want you to acknowledge that inconvenient fact … no, no, no! He wants you to focus on Justice Moore’s prior unilateral act ordering all probate judges, except probate judges subject to a federal court injunction, to enforce Alabama statutes banning same-sex marriage. Because a federal court order exists enjoining ALL state probate judges from enforcing those unconstitutional statutes, Justice Moore’s order accordingly applies to no one. Thus, it has no force or effect whatsoever. The ACLU’s motion to reverse that order was rendered moot and was dismissed along with Mat Staver’s petition.

Let’s take a look at the alleged “clear victory”:

http://lc.org//PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2016/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf


It says, “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed.”

Justice Moore concurred with that Order and wrote a lengthy dissertation ending with the “clearly wrong” conclusion that his prior unilateral action ordering state probate judges (those who are not subject to a federal injunction) to enforce anti-gay state marriage laws, somehow survives to “uphold the constitutionality” of anti-gay state marriage statutes even though there are no probate judges who are subject to Moore’s order because all probate judges are subject to a federal injunction. The only thing Justice Moore’s writing shows us is that he lacks reason and impartiality shouldn’t be sitting on the bench or holding any public office at all.

On page 107 of the document, Justice Stuart wrote his special concurrence telling the whole world that Justice Moore’s writing explains Justice Moore’s vote only. He is telling the whole word that he doesn’t want to be associated with that writing. He wrote, “Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.”


Justice Shaw’s special concurrence starts at page 146. Justice Shaw noted that all of Alabama’s probate court judges are subject to an injunction forbidding them from enforcing Alabama’s ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Justice Shaw wrote, “[T]he law is well settled that this Court can do nothing to allow the probate judges of this State to ignore a federal court injunction and a Supreme Court decision.” But, that’s the relief Mat Staver requested in his petition for mandamus. He was asking the Alabama Supreme Court to mandate all probate judges to violate a federal court injunction and ignore a Supreme Court decision. Justice Shaw wrote, “Our decision today refuses to grant the relief requested and should not be construed to mean anything else.” (Liberty Counsel Mat Staver apparently didn’t see that when he declared a “clear victory”.)

Justice Shaw rebuked the content of Justice Moore’s arguments. He said, “I charitably say the arguments are ‘unconvincing’ because virtually no one has ever agreed with their rationales.” (See Page 155.) He writes other meaningful stuff … feel free to read it.

CLEAR VICTORY for Mat Staver? Not even close.

 

[Skylar]

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.

And where does the constitution say that a right has to be enumerated to be protected?

Here's the constitution.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Show me. Oh, and check out the 9th amendment when you have a second. You might find it relevant.

You link states, "the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples". The 14th Amendment says no such thing.

You're clearly confused. The court never said that the 14th amendment 'says' this. They said it requires it, and laid out the exact citations of the 14th that create this requirement.

First, the due process clause:

" or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law "

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs....

....Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

And second, the equal protection clause:

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection....

....The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.

And where does the constitution say that a right has to be enumerated to be protected?

Here's the constitution.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Show me. Oh, and check out the 9th amendment when you have a second. You might find it relevant.

You link states, "the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples". The 14th Amendment says no such thing.

You're clearly confused. The court never said that the 14th amendment 'says' this. They said it requires it, and laid out the exact citations of the 14th that create this requirement.

First, the due process clause:

" or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law "

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs....

....Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

And second, the equal protection clause:

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection....

....The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

It says it in the source you posted. Perhaps, in the future, you should actually read it, before you post it.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm


The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.


Staver’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. But Staver doesn’t want you to acknowledge that inconvenient fact … no, no, no! He wants you to focus on Justice Moore’s prior unilateral act ordering all probate judges, except probate judges subject to a federal court injunction, to enforce Alabama statutes banning same-sex marriage. Because a federal court order exists enjoining ALL state probate judges from enforcing those unconstitutional statutes, Justice Moore’s order accordingly applies to no one. Thus, it has no force or effect whatsoever. The ACLU’s motion to reverse that order was rendered moot and was dismissed along with Mat Staver’s petition.

Let’s take a look at the alleged “clear victory”:

http://lc.org//PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2016/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf


It says, “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed.”

Justice Moore concurred with that Order and wrote a lengthy dissertation ending with the “clearly wrong” conclusion that his prior unilateral action ordering state probate judges (those who are not subject to a federal injunction) to enforce anti-gay state marriage laws, somehow survives to “uphold the constitutionality” of anti-gay state marriage statutes even though there are no probate judges who are subject to Moore’s order because all probate judges are subject to a federal injunction. The only thing Justice Moore’s writing shows us is that he lacks reason and impartiality shouldn’t be sitting on the bench or holding any public office at all.

On page 107 of the document, Justice Stuart wrote his special concurrence telling the whole world that Justice Moore’s writing explains Justice Moore’s vote only. He is telling the whole word that he doesn’t want to be associated with that writing. He wrote, “Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.”


Justice Shaw’s special concurrence starts at page 146. Justice Shaw noted that all of Alabama’s probate court judges are subject to an injunction forbidding them from enforcing Alabama’s ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Justice Shaw wrote, “[T]he law is well settled that this Court can do nothing to allow the probate judges of this State to ignore a federal court injunction and a Supreme Court decision.” But, that’s the relief Mat Staver requested in his petition for mandamus. He was asking the Alabama Supreme Court to mandate all probate judges to violate a federal court injunction and ignore a Supreme Court decision. Justice Shaw wrote, “Our decision today refuses to grant the relief requested and should not be construed to mean anything else.” (Liberty Counsel Mat Staver apparently didn’t see that when he declared a “clear victory”.)

Justice Shaw rebuked the content of Justice Moore’s arguments. He said, “I charitably say the arguments are ‘unconvincing’ because virtually no one has ever agreed with their rationales.” (See Page 155.) He writes other meaningful stuff … feel free to read it.

CLEAR VICTORY for Mat Staver? Not even close.

Are progressive tax rates constitutional, in your opinion?