Alabama chief judge defies federal court (again)

[PseudoSABR]

US Constitution has supremacy (if it didn't federalism would fall apart).   Courts tend to resolve any differences between the state law and federal law, by concluding that as along as the federal government has the power to make the law under the Constitution, and the law doesn't commandeer the state, the federal law wins the day.  For instance, in Obamacare the individuate mandate was Constitutional because it's really a tax.  However, the law couldn't command the states to use Medicaid to subside the poor, under threat of taking all Medicaid funding.   The gay marriage issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court, as to which set of laws controls, hence the problematic defiance of the Alabama judge.

[gunnarthor]

I've got a question: The AL Judge has told his judges to rely only on AL constitution. Do AL judges swear to uphold to US constitution, or just the AL one?

 

I'm not in anyway advocating for them to deny anyone the right to marry, but my questions is more a legal question that may lean in this judge's favor. What are AL judges required to do when there is a contradiction between AL constitution and US Constitution? Which has precedence? How far does states rights go? I have no legal training, and as such, no idea what the answers are.

AL judges are sworn to uphold both.  What AL is doing is basically saying that, until the Supreme Court rules on this issue (arguments are set for June), lower federal court opinions on the law are not binding on AL courts if the AL supreme court has a different interpretation of that law.  Its a position that is rarely, if ever, done.  The federal court that ruled didn't have jurisdiction over all of Alabama either, so the state is arguing that the AL supreme court is just making everything simple.

 

What is really interesting (from a legal POV) is the probate judge who was specifically named in the federal lawsuit and has a federal order to issue these licenses.   The supreme court gave him until next week to explain why the federal order should cover more than the 4 plaintiffs he gave licenses to.  Basically, that judge is screwed. 

 

There's a decent write up at the NYTimes - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/gay-marriages-near-halt-in-alabama-after-state-court-ruling.html?_r=0

[Paul Pleiss]

A big thanks to gunnarthor for the information above. It feels like the makings of a good murder mystery novel. I can't wait for the quirky twist at the end!

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Maybe let it be known that if they stay out of politics they are safe from being 'forced' to perform services outside their 'beliefs.'  Foray into politics, and they'll be forced to perform services … and pay taxes.

 

Maybe if that were true, but unfortunately it's not.  Their concerns are legit, as there are plenty who would be happy to force them down this road whether they were there or not...  To be clear, I'm a pretty big advocate of the church staying out of politics.  I'm not always a popular guy for saying as much. 

 

I think it's a free country, one where gays can marry and religious people can say they think it's wrong.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Every time a church has been challenged for an unwillingness to allow their space to be used for a wedding against their beliefs (including many churches who will not marry previously divorced people, so not just gay weddings), it has failed.  

 

The problem ben, is the challenge.  As I said prior, plenty of religious people will be more than happy to compromise here to avoid those challenges.  That's the point I laid out earlier.  Like it or not, it's a legit fear and its a fear precisely because these challenges are made.  They cost money and this threat is used all the time to force people and organizations to do something they don't want to do, simply to avoid the cost.  Grant them protection, and I think a lot of this simply goes away.  But you ask Christian leaders their fears (as I have on many occasions) and this subject comes up constantly.   It doesn't matter that it's failed.  It matters that the attempts continue to come. 

[Hrbowski]

 

To be clear, I'm a pretty big advocate of the church staying out of politics.  

If the church stays out of politics does that mean no more pastors organizing protests (Al Sharpton) against the police?

[biggentleben]

 

The problem ben, is the challenge.  As I said prior, plenty of religious people will be more than happy to compromise here to avoid those challenges.  That's the point I laid out earlier.  Like it or not, it's a legit fear and its a fear precisely because these challenges are made.  They cost money and this threat is used all the time to force people and organizations to do something they don't want to do, simply to avoid the cost.  Grant them protection, and I think a lot of this simply goes away.  But you ask Christian leaders their fears (as I have on many occasions) and this subject comes up constantly.   It doesn't matter that it's failed.  It matters that the attempts continue to come. 

 

I've been one of those leaders, working in churches in the Twin Cities in the mid-2000s before leaving for social work.  I will tell you that the biggest issue most churches are TRULY worried about is the mixed PR and battle that comes from both sides when discussing homosexual marriage.

 

One large church I worked with simply required at least one member of a wedding party to be part of the church in order to utilize any of the wedding services.  That cleared any issues immediately.

 

It's really a cop out excuse.  I've been in the church leader shoes.  There are few places you'll find with better ability to fund a legal fight than a church, so they're not scared of that cost whatsoever.  If it was truly about their beliefs, they'd buck whatever PR they'd get from their legal position if things were challenged.  Especially since most cases simply get thrown out before proceeding to trial now because of the precedent of higher court rulings.

[biggentleben]

 

If the church stays out of politics does that mean no more pastors organizing protests (Al Sharpton) against the police?

 

Was he acting as a pastor or a community leader?

 

You're opening a can of worms completely here.  I believe what diehard was talking about is direct church involvement in politics through church-based funding in politics or preachers using their pulpit to further a political agenda.

 

Whether we as Christians want to admit it or not, pastors are human beings and citizens of the country that they serve.  Their involvement in politics on a personal level is as encouraged (and expected, in my view of citizen rights and responsibilities) as any other member of society.  The difference is whether Pastor John comes out by saying that "I, John Smith, do not support...." or "I, Pastor John Smith of Holy Hills Christian Church, do not support...".  The difference there is incredibly important.

[Hrbowski]

Was he acting as a pastor or a community leader?

I think this kind of infers that he was using his sermon for non-religuos purposes.

 

http://nationalactionnetwork.net/press/rev-al-sharpton-to-deliver-key-sermon-at-the-historic-brown-chapel-a-m-e-in-selma-alabama-to-commemorate-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-selma-to-montgomery-marches-and-signing-of-the-voting-rights-act/

[biggentleben]

 

I think this kind of infers that he was using his sermon for non-religuos purposes.
 
http://nationalactionnetwork.net/press/rev-al-sharpton-to-deliver-key-sermon-at-the-historic-brown-chapel-a-m-e-in-selma-alabama-to-commemorate-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-selma-to-montgomery-marches-and-signing-of-the-voting-rights-act/

 

The point is that pastors on both sides of the religious spectrum do these things, and they absolutely should not.  Similarly, a police officer is encouraged not to appear in uniform or identify himself as an officer when participating in politics, unless it is in his job role.  The other end of things is some churches actually WANT their pastor to be overtly involved in politics, and we should not judge all pastors unless we know for sure that pastor isn't asked to push this agenda by his church, in which case, we need to come down on the church as much or more than the pastor.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

If the church stays out of politics does that mean no more pastors organizing protests (Al Sharpton) against the police?

 

Perfectly fine by me, but to be clear, Sharpton takes hypocrisy to a completely different level. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

What I don't understand is why a couple would want to force a church to marry them, whether homo- or heterosexual.  I've married 3 couples, and two would have had issues finding a church to perform the ceremony, but rather than forcing the issue, they found someone they trusted with the ceremony to preside.  Why push the issue on someone so adamantly against it?  I'm a huge advocate, and while I've not been asked to preside over a same sex union (mostly because they're still not legal here), I would be honored to be asked.  That said, I'd never push the limits to ask to have a church I knew to be against gay marriage to be the space to host the wedding.

 

 

The problem unfortunately is that there are lots of people who aren't like the few of us having this conversation.  To be clear, I think gay marriage should be legal, even though I'm personally opposed to it.  It's a free country.  It's also a free country to be against it, just like it's a free country for people to be racists, idiots, sexists, or whatever other stupid belief system they choose to embrace.  The only catch is that they have to do so without depriving someone else of their liberty (i.e. no force).  Just as I should not be able to force someone to not marry b/c of their sexual orientation, neither should the converse be true.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

It's really a cop out excuse.  I've been in the church leader shoes.  There are few places you'll find with better ability to fund a legal fight than a church, so they're not scared of that cost whatsoever.  If it was truly about their beliefs, they'd buck whatever PR they'd get from their legal position if things were challenged.  Especially since most cases simply get thrown out before proceeding to trial now because of the precedent of higher court rulings.

 

I really don't care if a church has the ability to fund this.  I give money to the church so that it can reach the lost, not defend itself in a lawsuit.  I think you sell a lot of your Christian brothers short if you think they don't mind it.  Most churches I've been in don't have 10s of thousands of dollars to simply throw at legal fees to prevent an even bigger issue. 

[biggentleben]

 

I really don't care if a church has the ability to fund this.  I give money to the church so that it can reach the lost, not defend itself in a lawsuit.  I think you sell a lot of your Christian brothers short if you think they don't mind it.  Most churches I've been in don't have 10s of thousands of dollars to simply throw at legal fees to prevent an even bigger issue. 

 

The other end of that is the amount of lawyers who would line up to do the representation pro bono. I have a good friend who is a lawyer in the Twin Cities who has represented churches in various cases pro bono a number of times.

[USAFChief]

The problem unfortunately is that there are lots of people who aren't like the few of us having this conversation.  To be clear, I think gay marriage should be legal, even though I'm personally opposed to it.  It's a free country.  It's also a free country to be against it, just like it's a free country for people to be racists, idiots, sexists, or whatever other stupid belief system they choose to embrace.  The only catch is that they have to do so without depriving someone else of their liberty (i.e. no force).  Just as I should not be able to force someone to not marry b/c of their sexual orientation, neither should the converse be true.

 

Which churches have been forced into performing same sex marriages? Can two Lutherans litigate their way into forcing a Catholic priest to marry them?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Which churches have been forced into performing same sex marriages? Can two Lutherans litigate their way into forcing a Catholic priest to marry them?

The issue chief is the attempt to do it. Like I said before, you'd get quite a few Christians to jump on board with legalizing gay marriages if their rights to choose not to perform them were also protected. I'd be willing to bet that minus the very vocal 10% on both sides of the argument, it would be largely accepted. That's my point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The issue chief is the attempt to do it. Like I said before, you'd get quite a few Christians to jump on board with legalizing gay marriages if their rights to choose not to perform them were also protected. I'd be willing to bet that minus the very vocal 10% on both sides of the argument, it would be largely accepted. That's my point.

 

I want to think you're right but the truth is no church will ever be forced to do this.  The law in Indiana betrays your point - there are still a LOT of people out there that not only want gays not to marry, they don't want them around either. 

[biggentleben]

 

I want to think you're right but the truth is no church will ever be forced to do this.  The law in Indiana betrays your point - there are still a LOT of people out there that not only want gays not to marry, they don't want them around either. 

 

100% this.  Ask any person who has been part of an ELCA Lutheran church since before 2009 how one of the largest church denominations in the world was split completely on a worldwide scale due to the issue of homosexuality, even though there was nothing that forced any individual church to accept a homosexual marriage, minister, or even member, they were still outraged that it was allowed at all.

[USAFChief]

 

The issue chief is the attempt to do it. Like I said before, you'd get quite a few Christians to jump on board with legalizing gay marriages if their rights to choose not to perform them were also protected. I'd be willing to bet that minus the very vocal 10% on both sides of the argument, it would be largely accepted. That's my point.

I guess it's possible in the future, but there's no precedent, is there?  I honestly don't know...has any church been litigated against in an attempt to force them to perform a marriage?  Any marriage?

[biggentleben]

 

I guess it's possible in the future, but there's no precedent, is there?  I honestly don't know...has any church been litigated against in an attempt to force them to perform a marriage?  Any marriage?

 

Successfully, no.  In fact, when I did the research a handful of years ago, 90%+ of all attempted litigations were thrown out before ever going to trial.  The ones that did were either represented by a lawyer working pro-bono or supported by an outside entity paying for their legal representation, so the churches never paid for it, and none of those cases ever went against the church to force the church to perform the wedding.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I want to think you're right but the truth is no church will ever be forced to do this.  The law in Indiana betrays your point - there are still a LOT of people out there that not only want gays not to marry, they don't want them around either. 

 

Oh I understand where you're coming from.  There seems to be a mentality that with a perceived problem (not saying gays are a problem here, just that people perceive them as such) that if you make it invisible, it goes away.  That's not just with gays, we make laws forcing the homeless to different places too as well as anything else deemed undesirable. 

 

What the Indiana law also betrays though is that people don't want to be forced into who they can and cannot do business with.  It's really a two sided coin there.  I think it would be outright stupid for a business owner to refuse service based on a customer's sexual orientation (and I suspect it's more likely to backfire than anything else), but what you also see is people wanting their rights protected, even if it is their right to be stupid.  The reality is that this stuff goes on all the time as businesses refuse service for various reasons from time to time, but at the end of the day, choosing to do so is going to cost them money, and potentially a lot of it... and that money will flow into the coffers of their competitors who don't have those same values.  I should add that if consumers are allowed to boycott an establishment for various reasons, why cannot an establishment boycott consumers?  This really is more than just wanting the gays to go away (though I agree that this is definitely an undercurrent here). 

 

Here's a really good example.  I've been refused service at a restaurant here in town simply because I have children.  No one there knows my children, and they had never been there in the past, but the restaurant has decided that they don't want kids there as it doesn't fit the atmosphere they are attempting to build.  Is that wrong?  I wasn't thrilled about it, but it's their right... and I voted with my dollars too.  I don't eat there anymore.  Do I need to campaign for a law saying they must serve me and my kids?  Do they really need a law in place saying they have a right to refuse service to me?  Like it or not, this is what comes with living in a free country.  People can do stuff like this.  The practice will end quickly when people decide not to do business with them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Diehard, your analogy would have more merit if you changed "kids" to "women", "Mexicans", or "Catholics". Restaurants choose not to serve children because some are disruptive, not because they exist.

 

As a typical white dude, I struggle to even weigh in on this subject meaningfully because I don't even know what it feels like to be denied service or even face discrimination. Nobody says "I don't want white guys in my establishment" but were that to ever happen, I suspect it would piss me off to no end.

 

I think that's a good thing to keep in mind when discussing these kinds of subjects. How is it fair to support people denying service to others when you know that it will never happen to you? That seems kinda screwed up to me.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Brock, I see your point, and I don't disagree. I think its wrong. I'm just pointing out that there's two sides to the Indiana law. What I find more amusing (living in Indiana), is that all the press about it is happening nationally, not really here.

 

I know lawyers are chomping at the bit for someone to be dumb enough to refuse a gay person. I'm not sure anyone has the stones to do it (I hope not actually), but I'm not sure its the law that will end the practice. Well organized boycotts would likely be far more successful.

[TheLeviathan]

Brock, I see your point, and I don't disagree. I think its wrong. I'm just pointing out that there's two sides to the Indiana law. What I find more amusing (living in Indiana), is that all the press about it is happening nationally, not really here.I know lawyers are chomping at the bit for someone to be dumb enough to refuse a gay person. I'm not sure anyone has the stones to do it (I hope not actually), but I'm not sure its the law that will end the practice. Well organized boycotts would likely be far more successful.

The problem is you don't have a right to be stupid. I don't get to stupidly play with explosives outside a school. We have all sorts of laws against being stupid or a butthole. You don't get to be a racist, sexist, ageist, or anything else as a business. Your right to be stupid ends when it bumps into another's rights.

 

But that law was a great thing actually! What better evidence could there possibly be that it is genuinely hate, not principles of freedom, that drives this movement?

[Bark's Lounge]

I believe Love to be a great thing.

 

I think a commitment between two people who love each other deeply is fantastic - It stabilizes their lives, it is the ground zero for being a fulfilled person... for the majority of us.

 

When we start bringing in superstition and 1,400 - 3,000 year old religious ideas into the equation, we seem to be taking a humongous leap backwards. No matter what your convictions are, if you search deep inside yourself, the common sense and truth is revealed - even if you want to deny that logic.

 

I live in the real world, there is a lot of nasty stuff happening globally, gay marriage and homosexuality is not one of those things.

 

I respect that people have religious beliefs and all the power to you, but when you start denying people of their right to be what they want to be and 100% expressively true to themselves, while making their lives more difficult than the average John and Jane - that is awful.

 

Off the top of my head, I think Indianapolis has one of the larger gay populations in the United States. What a slap in their faces.

 

Shame on you Indiana Politicians.

[biggentleben]

Bark, we'll always respectfully disagree on our personal views of religion and faith, but that was a very well-put statement.  Thanks for stating it.

 

Our world has major problems.  Our country has major problems.  Our local communities have major problems.  Who one person chooses to love is not one of those problems, whether homosexual or heterosexual, black, brown, or white, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above.

 

That said, I think all of us can be action to change all of this.  There are too many sheep that never make their blood, sweat, and tears currency.  I'm proud to say that I've put some of that into what I do every day, hoping to affect change in lives of people who are often overlooked or outright put down by society.  One of the men I respect most on this planet spent time in jail due to legal protests that he participated in that a corrupt governor chose to break up because it hurt his political agenda.  That's putting yourself into action rather than just sharing stories on Facebook or talking about it on TD.  I'm not assuming anyone here is only doing that by any means, but it takes more than just those reading this site to put literal skin into the game and make  your presence felt and voice audibly heard to better our society.

 

My best man in my wedding is about as far from me politically in who we end up supporting, though I think we are closer in actual ideologies than our respective voting records would lead one to believe.  He made a comment about this whole issue that really rings true: why do we always have to legislate common human decency?

 

Sad to say, while I agree with his point, I also understand that without legislating it, we'd have too many who would allow the lack of punishment to be truly deplorable to their fellow man, and yes, I understand many do, but that's why these legislated common decencies must still exist.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Bark, we'll always respectfully disagree on our personal views of religion and faith, but that was a very well-put statement.  Thanks for stating it.

 

Our world has major problems.  Our country has major problems.  Our local communities have major problems.  Who one person chooses to love is not one of those problems, whether homosexual or heterosexual, black, brown, or white, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above.

 

That said, I think all of us can be action to change all of this.  There are too many sheep that never make their blood, sweat, and tears currency.  I'm proud to say that I've put some of that into what I do every day, hoping to affect change in lives of people who are often overlooked or outright put down by society.  One of the men I respect most on this planet spent time in jail due to legal protests that he participated in that a corrupt governor chose to break up because it hurt his political agenda.  That's putting yourself into action rather than just sharing stories on Facebook or talking about it on TD.  I'm not assuming anyone here is only doing that by any means, but it takes more than just those reading this site to put literal skin into the game and make  your presence felt and voice audibly heard to better our society.

 

My best man in my wedding is about as far from me politically in who we end up supporting, though I think we are closer in actual ideologies than our respective voting records would lead one to believe.  He made a comment about this whole issue that really rings true: why do we always have to legislate common human decency?

 

Sad to say, while I agree with his point, I also understand that without legislating it, we'd have too many who would allow the lack of punishment to be truly deplorable to their fellow man, and yes, I understand many do, but that's why these legislated common decencies must still exist.

You know Ben, I have a lot of respect for you, and it is great to have this platform on TD to have these kinds of discussions.

 

Maybe we won't change one another's minds, but I believe it to be a great thing that these conversations can be had. There is always knowledge to be gained from another person's perspective.

 

Certainly, we can agree to disagree on this subject, but I am glad we can have these communications. This is how the world should work and conclusions can be made and finalized... not on this point, but maybe another.

 

Much respect,

 

Bark