State Supreme Court Justice Warns He May Abolish Marriage

[Eric]

Can't make this up lol.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... s-allowed/

State Supreme Court Justice Warns He May Abolish Marriage Entirely If Same-Sex Weddings Are Allowed

An obscure, two-page opinion by an Alabama Supreme Court justice contains an ominous warning. If marriage equality remains the law in Alabama, Justice Glenn Murdock may vote to abolish marriage in his state altogether.

Justice Murdock’s opinion is attached to a brief order from the state supreme court as a whole declining to offer further guidance to Alabama probate judges regarding whether they must comply with a federal court order holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. In a brief opinion concurring in that order, Murdock hints that, if this federal court order is permitted to stand, then his own court should strike down all marriages within the state of Alabama.

Murdock suggests that, had the state legislature known that its decision to exclude gay couples from the right to marry was unconstitutional, it might have preferred not to permit anyone to be married in the state of Alabama. This potential preference for no marriages over equality matters, according to Justice Murdock, because of a prior state supreme court decision holding that, when part of a state law is struck down, the law may be declared “wholly void” if “the invalid portion is so important to the general plan and operation of the law in its entirety as reasonably to lead to the conclusion that it would not have been adopted if the legislature had perceived the invalidity of the part so held to be unconstitutional.”

Thus, according to Murdock, if gay couples and straight couples must enjoy the exact same marriage rights under the Constitution, the proper remedy might be to deny those rights to everyone, rather than extending them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

In the unlikely event that a majority of the state supreme court adopts this approach, that could cause a largely academic matter that has divided federal judges to suddenly become hugely important. Though the overwhelming majority of federal judges to consider the question after the Supreme Court’s most recent gay rights decision in 2013 agree that the Constitution does not permit anti-gay marriage discrimination, these judges have split on rationale. Some judges have held that denying equal marriage rights to gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals deprives them of their right to equality under the law; while others have held that denying such rights to these individuals violates a “fundamental right” to marry. (Other judges have embraced both rationales in favor of marriage equality, or they’ve embraced a hybrid of the two rationales.)

Currently, this distinction between legal rationales has little practical impact on couples asserting their newly recognized right to marry. If Alabama attempted to abolish marriage altogether, however, the distinction could suddenly matter a great deal.

The Constitution’s promise of equality is just that — a promise of equality. In the gay rights context, a state complies with this constitutional requirement by treating people of all sexual orientations the same way. Thus, a state could potentially meet its obligation to treat all couples similarly by denying the same right to all of them.

If marriage is a fundamental right, on the other hand, that could lead federal courts to conclude that states have an obligation to provide marriage rights to their residents whether they want to or not (although they may need to overcome one Supreme Court decision to do so). Under this rationale, Justice Murdock and his court would be forbidden from destroying the institution of marriage.

The federal judge that ordered Alabama to provide equal rights to gay couples, for what it is worth, held that “the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” although this rationale will not necessarily be adopted by either the federal appeals court that oversees Alabama or by the Supreme Court.

[Julius Seeker]

They're just jealous that gay couples can get married in most states and most hetero Alabama couples cannot due to close relations...

There's actual worry among most bumpkins that gay marriage is a slippery slope, and that next will be legalized marriage between men and animals like goats, wheels, and pigs.

[Shrinweck]

Yes and the fact that that's a logical connection to make for them is truly frightening/sickening/horrifying. There are reasonable arguments to make against legalized marriage between homosexuals, but in the end they're arguments to not get married on an individual basis, not to make the entire thing illegal. This is just another stunt, kind of like the county in Georgia where it's illegal to not own a firearm.

[Replay]

There are reasonable arguments to make against legalized marriage between homosexuals

Like what, Shrinnie?

[Julius Seeker]

The religious objection is an incredibly weak argument.
1. Not all denominations of Christianity disagree with gay marriage, and gay weddings do occur in churches.
2. There is also no explicit biblical objections either, just implications; in the New Testament they are alongside passages that are specifically referencing how divorce should be handled and if polygamy is alright, and not about homosexuality at all; in addition, Jesus seemed far more concerned about opposing marriage between two humans who didn't love each other and weren't willing to fully commit to one and other. The old testament objections don't really mention marriage, but homosexuality, and they are alongside passages about how to correctly savrifice a bull, pigs and shellfish consumption being an abomination, and the objection of wearing clothing of two different threads.
3. In the New Testament, there is FAR more emphasis on loving your neighbours, loving unbelievers, and how Jesus supported the goal of the old testament scriptures, but how enforcing their specifics and breaking the commandment of "love thy neighbour" was what was truly sinful.
4. Given what we know about Jesus from the gospels, it is logical to conclude he would have no objection to gay marriage, and would likely harshly criticize those who did, just like he harshly criticized the Pharisees for oppressive behaviour going against the spirit of love and forgiveness that they justified with scripture.
5. Points above are moot, separation of Church and State. Due to freedom of religion, people are allowed to hold whatever sort of ceremony or standards that they wish, so long as it follows legal standards.

Biological objection is also very weak, Men can't reproduce with men, nor women with women, and therefore why should they have marriage?
1. What about an infertile man and a fertile woman?
2. What about a fertile man and an infertile woman?
3. What if both are infertile?
4. Most people in marriages fall into one of the three categories above since biologically speaking, women are incapable of reproduction after a certain point in their lives.

The important part about marriage is the love aspect, in my opinion. I am not in any way religious, and never have been, but I agree with the bible on this portion: if two people aren't willing to give themselves 100% to each other, then marriage probably is not for them; and also that it is an equal partnership, not one where a person dominates or has any special privileges. A marriage union doesn't need to strictly be one man and one woman to achieve that.

[Shrinweck]

Basically, yeah, Seek. All of its pretty weak shit in the long run but it's easy to see where they're coming from.

There's also the idea that marriage is a societal construct made to bind people by law and imply a certain degree of ownership. In the end it feels like marriage is to satisfy the government and other people, so why even bother, if you're of that mindset. I don't really care either way about marriage, so I don't have a dog in that race of whether marriage is legitimate in the first place.

In any case I'm closer to just letting people do whatever the fuck they want. Consenting adults and not hurting others and all that. The weird part here is that if you asked any of these people if they believed in the ideals of "religious freedom" they would say yes, but apparently that doesn't include other people's freedom to not have their religion make impositions on their life by way of federal law. Mind boggling.

[kali o.]

Meh, marriage is a concept important on a legal level. It carries a number of important rights. So it doesn't matter to me what you call it...

...of course, it is important not to concede to religious nuts and call it "same sex unions" or whatever. Religions have no ownership of the concept or word Marriage.

And finally, on the other hand, societies should be free to not recognize or legitimatize same sex unions on a non-religious basis. No one is granted the right of blanket approval, as far as I am concerned. I would of course have to argue being gay is a choice...which I am happy to do, at least from the standpoint of acting on being gay is a choice. Not that I agree that is the right approach, but it seems legitimate - albeit unfair to a minority.

[kali o.]

I'm surprised no one challenged my stance

[Julius Seeker]

Well, I am unsure if I disagree with you on anything to any really strong degree.

I would argue that being gay is really only a choice for bisexual people. Straight people could make that choice too, I suppose, but it would be completely against what is instinctual to us, kind of like trying to breath while under water - you would need to force past a huge psychological barrier that is deeply engrained. I can only imagine it is similar for gay people facing the choice of being straight.

As for acting gay, I am 100% in support of freedom of expression. People should have the right to act however they want, and it shouldn't be controversial as long as no one else is abused or harmed in the process... And I am talking physical harm or mental bullying rather than someone's sensibilities being harmed because they saw a nipple.

As far as certain cultural groups: socialist communes, religions, groups like the scouts, or other communities... I have no problems with them making their own rules even if we think they're stupid, anti-social, or morally wrong. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, I feel its their right to do whatever they want.

When it comes to democratic societies, it is really important that freedom of speech and expression be properly allowed. Democracies shouldn't limit that. That said, after a bit of thought, I have no problem with Alabama's marriage for all or marriage for none. It's the legal status of marriage for some, but not for others, that I think is a violation.

[Replay]

Who you are attracted to is never a "choice". Whether or not one pursues that attraction is the only real choice.

Who wants the government in the love business? The government's role in sexuality ought to be restricted to kicking groups like NAMBLA to the curb - and they don't, so you may surmise from that how many people with sexual secrets, even dark ones of the NAMBLA sort, work in Washington at any given time.

Given that, who in our era other than the religious fundamentalists actually feel the government has the authority to prevent the issuing of any kind of marriage license between consenting adults?

Our marriage policies literally go back to the World War II era and were designed to encourage more (straight) people to get married so they'd have more kids. Suffice it to say that with overpopulation now on everyone's minds, the government selectively deciding who deserves a love license and a tax break doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it's the government's role to fuck with birthrates; in that direction lie all the eugenics programs of history, none of which have a very good reputation.

Get the government out of regulating love between consenting adults and back in the business of prosecuting and imprisoning rapists, abusers, thieves, and murderers.