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

[Skylar]

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.

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

 

[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?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

 

[Skylar]

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.

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

 

[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?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

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 "

And second, the equal protection clause:

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

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.

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

You claimed the 14th amendment doesn't 'say' that. The court never claimed that the 14th amendment 'says' that. They held that the 14th amendment required it. And cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses as creating that requirement.

But keep pretending that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process clause exist in the 14th amendment.

Its cute.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Are progressive tax rates constitutional, in your opinion?

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

You said,

"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist",

clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.

See how that works?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

You claimed the 14th amendment doesn't 'say' that. The court never claimed that the 14th amendment 'says' that. They held that the 14th amendment required it. And cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses as creating that requirement.

But keep pretending that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process clause exist in the 14th amendment.

Its cute.

You claimed that I said, " The Supreme Court 'says'...". I never made any such statement. Stop lying, because your argument is falling apart.

 

[Skylar]

Kind of random and having nothing to do with the thread.

Why don't you start your own thread on progressive tax rates. It has nothing to do with Alabama's utter capitulation to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

You said,

"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist",

clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.

See how that works?

I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.

Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses as creating the requirement that States issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It's a consistency test. Think you'll pass it?

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

You said,

"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist",

clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.

See how that works?

I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.

Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.

The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?

 

[Skylar]

And where did the Supreme Court claim that the 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples?

The court instead held that the 14th Amendment requires the state to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. And specifically cites the Due Process Clause and Equal Protect Clause as creating this requirement.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

You claimed the 14th amendment doesn't 'say' that. The court never claimed that the 14th amendment 'says' that. They held that the 14th amendment required it. And cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses as creating that requirement.

But keep pretending that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process clause exist in the 14th amendment.

Its cute.

You claimed that I said, " The Supreme Court 'says'...". I never made any such statement. Stop lying, because your argument is falling apart.

Still won't touch Obergefell's citation of the Equal Protection clause or the Due Process clause as creating the requirement of the States to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples?

Huh.

You know that refusing to discuss these facts doesn't change the ruling or its authority, right?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Thank you for confirming what I said. Now, again, the 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage.

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

You claimed the 14th amendment doesn't 'say' that. The court never claimed that the 14th amendment 'says' that. They held that the 14th amendment required it. And cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses as creating that requirement.

But keep pretending that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process clause exist in the 14th amendment.

Its cute.

You claimed that I said, " The Supreme Court 'says'...". I never made any such statement. Stop lying, because your argument is falling apart.

Still won't touch Obergefell's citation of the Equal Protection clause or the Due Process clause as creating the requirement of the States to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples?

Huh.

You know that refusing to discuss these facts doesn't change the ruling or its authority, right?

Nothing will change the fact that the ruling has zero authority to make law in all 50 States.

 

[Skylar]

Its an obvious attempt at a subject change. And a rather awkward one.

If you have nothing relevant to add to our discussion of Alabama's capitulation to Obergefell, just say so.

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

You said,

"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist",

clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.

See how that works?

I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.

Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.

The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?

Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?

Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.

Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The subject isnt, "equal protection under the law"?

The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.

See how that works?

You said,

"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist",

clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.

See how that works?

I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.

Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.

The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?

Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?

Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.

Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.

You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.

How sweet!

 

[Skylar]

Thank you for confirming that you couldn't find a single place in the Obergefell ruling that the court claimed that 14th amendment 'says'' that the states were required to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

We both already knew that the court made no such claim. But your admission is appreciated.

Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Good luck claiming they don't exist.

I never said, "says". Don't start kying, just because your own link is your undoing.

You claimed the 14th amendment doesn't 'say' that. The court never claimed that the 14th amendment 'says' that. They held that the 14th amendment required it. And cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses as creating that requirement.

But keep pretending that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process clause exist in the 14th amendment.

Its cute.

You claimed that I said, " The Supreme Court 'says'...". I never made any such statement. Stop lying, because your argument is falling apart.

Still won't touch Obergefell's citation of the Equal Protection clause or the Due Process clause as creating the requirement of the States to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples?

Huh.

You know that refusing to discuss these facts doesn't change the ruling or its authority, right?

Nothing will change the fact that the ruling has zero authority to make law in all 50 States.

That would be the rulings of the individual federal court districts that cited the Obergefell ruling when overturning state same sex marriage bans within their district.

Exactly as happened in Arkansas with the 8th Circuit Court.

But hey, pretend that none of that happened. It doesn't matter.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Yep just like the Confederacy 'won' the Civil War.