What are people's thoughts on the Gay Marriage debacle in Alabama? Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore? Defying Federal Court Orders? Does this bring back any memories for some folks of Gov. Wallace standing in the door at the University of Alabama during desegregation?
I think the gay marriage issue in America is basically over. Just a few rough spots in the road, no big deal, they'll be fixed soon.
This just shows the folly for having elections for judges. They know they can't do anything to stop the inevitable, so they are grandstanding while time is left. Personally, I believe they should be found of being in contempt of court, and placed in jail. That will send a message, and give them the martyrdom that they so desperately want.
I can't understand what their problem is. Do they seriously believe they are going to be able to stop gay marriages in their state?
This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes (which I seem to think about often given all the political turmoil in the US): "At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past." —Maurice Maeterlinck, Playwright
That is for sure. Perhaps the most misguided of the progressive era reforms. Elected judges plus unlimited campaign funding kinda give me the willies. I like that John Oliver took this on recently. This is how these people react to everything they don't like. Scorched earth temper tantrums like fucking toddlers...wait, scratch that. Toddlers grow up and at least you have a chance at using reason with them, unless they grow up to be conservative whackaloons, of course.
the one bright spot are the counties that just stopped issuing licenses to everybody, gay or straight, when the chief justice said that they couldn't issue licenses to same sex couples. Basically, it's everybody or nobody. But I don't think that it will be all that long until it's everybody everywhere in the U.S. You can't put this toothpaste back in the tube! Sadly, I like Alabama, but once again they are on the wrong side of human rights, justice, and history.
Exactly. This was almost as predictable as clockwork based on the system they have down there. The Judges, if they want to keep their seats, must reflect the will of the voting public. Alabama is a very conservative and religious state, and thus as a result the majority of the voting public is opposed to marriage equality. The Iowa Supreme Court Justices ran into this very problem when they legalized marriage equality in their state. There was a major backlash to unseat them from the religious right and conservatives in the state. The reaction would have been worse in Alabama, and I am sure this did not escape the notice of most of the justices on the court. It is likely someone like Roy Moore, who is a conservative media whore, would have acted this way regardless. I cannot say regarding the rest, but they were mostly silent for a long while. It is likely that Moore's overt public actions forced their hand, as people started to wonder why the rest of the justices were being silent. Roy Moore is just enjoying the attention, like the media whore that he is.
Hi, This brings to mind a related thread... In that thread the use of ma'am and sir were discussed and how southern manners and etiquette demand their use to show "respect". Can you do anything in "deed" (deny rights. Racism, discrimination) in the south as long as you prefix it with false etiquette (false respect)? Just odd both threads same time.
If I recall, Florida had similar type issues with the Clerks, but eventually the state capitulated.....
To me its so freakin discordant -- that on one hand many conservatives want government hands off business regulations, taxes, guns, etc. and yet they want government to be hands on in personal lives. @Aldrick, i think you may be right, elected judges have their next election to think of!
Excuse my language but one of the mind-fucking things about America is that we were originally founded by people seeking freedom from oppression based on their different religious beliefs. But when the Puritans became entrenched, instead of truly furthering freedom of religion they became intolerant toward others who did not sure their views. Today's conservative, right wing, freedom-hating, homophobes are following that absurd intolerant Puritan viewpoint instead of following through with the ideals of liberty and justice for all, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc. They are modern day fascists.
The English knew that the Puritans were a bunch of dangerous, intolerant religious fundamentalusts. They were happy to get rid of them. Their attitudes left a lasting undercurrent of moralism (different from morality). Prohibition? Homophobia? Obsession over public figures private lives?
i live in alabama and hear about it every other day on the news like there are some counties that had allowed the licenses to be sold and some that did not
The most disgusting part of this is that Roy Moore knows that Federal courts and law supersede state law where there is conflict, yet he acts as though Alabama can ignore Federal courts and law and do whatever they want to. The last time this did not work was during the last civil rights movement, which ended in national guard troops being Federally activated to implement desegregation at the U of Alabama. Grandstanding media whores seeking elected offices use these kind of events to glorify and promote themselves, the same way George Wallace did at the time, even though they know their positions are untenable and illegal. What this entire circus is awaiting for final resolution is the case the Subprime Court will hear in April and probably post a decision for in June. Assuming it will go as previewed in recent SC actions, this circus should be over by surf season, unless the reaction requires Federalizing the troops to enforce it again. It will be so nice when the Moore generation finally dies off, other than the fact that I am in it.
I think it will be very important not to underestimate the conservative backlash that will take possession of the agenda once same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the US. The rallying cry from these Neanderthals will be increasing calls for "religious freedom"; the mendacity and chutzpah of which will astound one and all...
They are already doing it now, trying to legalize discrimination on a state-by-state basis using the phony presumption that THEY are being discriminated against for their "religious" beliefs when they practice actual discrimination against homosexuals. What we really NEED is Constitutional changes to put sexual orientation right alongside race as a basis for which discrimination is illegal. I doubt we could get that with so many red (neck) states involved in the amendment process, even though the majority of the public probably supports the concept. Thus the process falls to the Federal and Subprime Court to do what the legislature should do, but doesn't have the balls to.
I agree with this. A major part (Id argue the major part) of the "conservative movement" is actually reactionary to the social changes of the civil rights era. Black people, women, gays and other non-white, straight male groups got a little closer to being considered full citizens in the USA makes some people very, very angry. ---------- Post added 6th Mar 2015 at 09:48 AM ---------- Heck, it's been going on at least 150 years, ever since the CSA figured out how to win the second phase of the Civil War.
Why can't we just follow the model in France? There's a marriage by the state and then if desired a religious ceremony. It would make things more palatable all around. It takes out the religious aspect and reduces marriage as a contract between two people. If the couple wants a religious ceremony then they can have one, but it has no bearing on the right to marry. I usually don't admire the French, except for their artistic and culinary skills, but this seems to be an elegant solution. Those faiths that are "offended" by homosexuality don't have to participate. There are plenty of faiths that will marry us so there should be no difficulty. How does this relate to Alabama? Well, the judge who is raising all this fuss would no longer have a leg to stand on, no "moral high ground", it merely becomes a legal contract. No fuss, no muss. He could no longer argue his case based on his religious beliefs, anymore than he could object to a legal merger .
The simple truth is that the states should be issuing "civil union" licenses to everybody who wants to enter into a "marriage" relationship, and that should record and acknowledge the contract and all legal consequences and obligations which flow from the relationship. If religious institutions want to perform a "marriage" ceremony and witness the signatures on the license, and the persons involved want them to do it instead of a notary or court clerk, then that should be an option. The problem is that many/most state laws refer to existing rights and obligations as pertaining, in written black letters, to the people being MARRIED, so to get those rights acknowledged, the parties have to be legally MARRIED in that state, not just in a "contract" relationship. The problem is solved for gays as long as they are permitted to MARRY, then they fall under all those laws and regulations, as currently written. The state should not be in the MARRYING business at all, but it historically has, which is the underlying logical flaw when laws prevent same sex couples from MARRYING and thus achieving the legal rights guaranteed under marriage, thus depriving the gay citizens from equal treatment under the law. Simple, slam dunk, 14th Amendment based decision should be what follows.