US Court finds AL marriage laws unconstitutional

[RunInRed 16,399]

@wsfa12news: #BREAKING: US District Court finds "Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment” and “Alabama Marriage Protection Act” unconstitutional

[RunInRed 16,399]

A federal judge in Mobile on Friday struck down Alabama's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that a woman could not be denied her desire for a second-parent adoption to an 8-year-old boy whom she has helped raise since birth.

U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled that the Alabama Marriage Protection Act and the amendment that later enshrined it in the state constitution both were unconstitutional.

It is the first of several pending same-sex marriage cases in Alabama to be ruled on. The decision adds to a growing list of decisions across the country in favor of same-sex marriage.

"Laws that implicate fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and will survive anaylsys only if narrowly tailed to a compelling government interest," she wrote.

http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/01/federal_judge_in_mobile_strike.html

[selias 2,398]

Good. As long as the state continues to subsidize marriage, it should not be blocked to eligible citizens.

[AUDub 11,147]

Good news.

[RunInRed 16,399]

One other point worth noting, tge judge who handed down this ruling was a Bush II appointee.

[AUDub 11,147]

You gotta give W. credit for his judicial appointments. Between her and John E. Jones (of Kitzmiller v. Dover and Whitewood v. Wolf fame), he nominated some fine ones.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Judge made the right decision. Alabama and other states need to learn that the US Constitution trumps state constitutional law. I don't believe government should be able to force individuals or religions to perform a marriage against their beliefs, but two people should be able to marry regardless of gender.

[cptau 169]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

[AUDub 11,147]

If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children. Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.

We had a discussion on this a few days ago. I believe she is correct. The little boy across the street from my dad is in just such a situation. He has two dads, and he's doing just fine.

[homersapien 11,366]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Very reasonable. But really necessary?

Does the resistance really revolve around the term marriage? If so, who gave them an exclusive?

Also homosexuals are presmably just as religious as heteros so they will probably get "married"at a similar rate.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Glad that for once, my home state doesnt look like a bunch of neanderthals.

Now, if we could work on that Education Lottery thingy.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

That's where I am on the issue. I'm fine with civil unions and with same sex couples having the sames rights as straight couples. A lot of the opposition and my own personal view is using the term marriage. I think civil unions are the best way for both sides of the marriage argument.

[WarTim 3,456]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

[selias 2,398]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Very reasonable. But really necessary?

Does the resistance. really revolve around the term marriage? If so, who gave them an exclusive?

Also homosexuals are presmably just as religious as heteros so they will probably get "married"at a similar rate.

Or we could just get the government completely out of the house and let people live...ya know, freedom and all that.

[homersapien 11,366]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

[AUDub 11,147]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

[RunInRed 16,399]

Oh Mike Hubbard, bless your heart ...

[AUDub 11,147]

Oh Mike Hubbard, bless your heart ...

Poor guy. There aren't enough "deal with it" gifs in the world for this.

[WarTim 3,456]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

[cptau 169]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Very reasonable. But really necessary?

Does the resistance really revolve around the term marriage? If so, who gave them an exclusive?

Also homosexuals are presmably just as religious as heteros so they will probably get "married"at a similar rate.

births, christenings, baptisms or confirmations, marriages and deaths were at one time all recorded by the church that was the state church in European countries. In America and now in Europe the state took over control of all of it except baptisms and christenings. The state uses the term marriage, but it has no status with some churches. You still have to be married in the church for the church to recognize it. In fact you can get a civil divorce, but the church you were married in might not recognize it so you are still married per the church. Ask the Kennedy's about that.

Lots of people get married with just a civil ceremony or common law marriage in some states which is completely legal, but it is not a sacrament of any church.

A same sex couple could get a civil union and then if the want, go find some denomination that approves of their request to get married in a church ceremony.

People keep using the term gay marriage, but it is really same sex marriage. Two people could get married just for the purpose of providing financial, health benefits, and to avoid inheritance taxes. Completely legal and will irk politicians seeing that tax revenue slipping away. civil union actually describes that arrangement better.

[homersapien 11,366]

Well - ironically - he is very up-front about acknowledging the religious basis for the law. I'm sure that will help with all those appeals.

[aubfaninga 16]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

Just to throw it on the table, I view homosexuality as a "sin" because of my Faith which definitely effects my world view. "Sin" for me is defined by the scriptures that support my faith. To not bore you with a long explanation everyone sins according to the scriptures. This means that in this WORLD (completely separate from an afterlife), you and I are no better or worse off than a homosexual. We are equals and should be treated as such. I have many loved ones that choose a homosexual life and are perfectly fine with me accepting and testifying that I view it as a sin only because they know me and talked with me one on one.

With that out in the open let me raise the question that truly concerns me. I know people really hate to venture down the unforeseen path but it is still one that must be explored. Language is the beginning and the end of civilization as we know it. How far are we willing to change definitions to the words used in our language? I am not even implying that changing the accepted definition of marriage will be a turn for the worse but are we really ready to go down this unforeseen path in this manner?

This is a very serious subject but I can't help but laugh at the old pot head parable. "What if cat was really spelled dog?" After all, "the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality"

(Feel free to flame away at my faith in the words written in a book but please don't dismiss the question.)

[AUDub 11,147]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

Uh, she's a W appointee. I also mentioned John E. Jones III earlier, another W appointee who overturned the gay marriage law in Penn and presided over the Dover ID trial.

They're conservatives. They're also sane, and thank goodness for it.

[selias 2,398]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

[homersapien 11,366]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)