Alabama Cheif Justice Effectly Bans Same-Sex Marriage in the State

Lots of responses here in one post...

originally posted by: Konduit
Why don't same-sex couples just come up with their own wedding ceremony, like many other groups have done around the world, and let the religious "marriage" debate die?

They do. Everyone comes up with their own wedding ceremony already. I'm far from religious and we came up with our own wedding ceremony. In the end, no matter what the ceremony looks like, everyone who gets legally married is legally married. The word "marriage" isn't owned by anyone. It's big enough to go around. We can ALL use it.

There are plenty of marriage ceremonies that don't involve religious iconography like churches, crosses, etc. There was NOTHING religious about my marriage ceremony. Not one word or symbol.

originally posted by: Konduit
I know many LGBT are members of various religions, but I don't understand why they would perform Christian ceremonies when the religion explicitly condemns homosexuality.

The religion explicitly condemns a lot of things. But you don't see each group of "sinners" making up their own word for marriage. For example, adulterers, liars, fornicators, murderers, thieves, and atheists all get married and use the word marriage.

Do you advocate for each of those groups coming up with their own word??? Thank about that. And ask yourself why it should be any different for homosexuals.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Actually, a federal appeals court already denied Alabama's ban in Feb. of last year. This judge is just acting in defiance of that order.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta on Tuesday denied a request to extend a a delay on a ruling striking down Alabama's same-sex marriage ban, meaning gay couples will be able to start getting married on Feb. 9.

Source

Like someone (muse?) said earlier in the thread, "Kicking and screaming".

originally posted by: dismanrc
The only TRUE way to get this settled would be an amendment, which would leave not wiggle room.

It sounds like you might be missing some information on A. The Constitution and B. The SCOTUS ruling. The amendment that guarantees marriage equality already exists (14th). It's the amendment the SCOTUS used to make their decision. The tenth amendment only gives powers to the states that are not prohibited by the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unequal treatment under the law is prohibited by the Constitution (14th amendment), and therefore, the states don't have the power to make those laws.

I think people are confused about my argument. There are many ceremonies that have no religious iconography involved... yet there are many that do to seemingly "spite" the religion in question.

This seems to be what the fundies get so uppity about because of the religious association promoted by the MSM. Example, if you type something like "gay wedding" into youtube or any mainstream outlet, a lot of the top searches depict Catholic/Christian ceremonies which sours the religious folk on the issue. Is it a conspiracy to divide and conquer? Who knows.

Here is one of the top searches in Google Images.



I'm all for same-sex marriage, and I'm also for freedom of religion. But the fact is the underlying cause of the debate isn't the legal interpretations of it, it's religious interpretations, or else there would be no debate.

So I'm just trying to figure out how to keep them both separated.

a reply to: Konduit

Truth is, there are many religious gay people and many churches that perform ceremonies between gay people.

Religious people who are opposed to all this are just going to have to get over it. They don't own the word, they don't own religion, and they don't own the ceremony. They cannot control other people's behavior and that's the reason they're opposed. They want to CONTROL. They cannot control me if I want to wear a cross around my neck, even though I'm not religious.

We live in a free country. If they want a theocracy (and many of them clearly do), they can move. But this country was built on FREEDOM. Not for some, not just for the religious, but for ALL. They don't like that. Too bad. There's no reason everyone else should change their behavior to appease the religious who wish to control others.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Your right. They don't own the religion, the religion owns them.

They will never get over it. This issue will be going on as long as one religious group believes another group is trying to change their traditions. The only compromise I can think of is to keep them both as separated as possible.

This judge is a complete idiot and a symptom of a problem that isn't going to go away.

a reply to: Konduit

I'm convinced that it isn't really religious objection as much as it is plain old bigotry with a religious mask to cover it up. And yes, people are going to have to get over their bigotry when it comes to same-sex marriage licenses from the state.

There are plenty of Christians who have no problem with same-sex marriage, and there are Christian churches that have no problem performing same-sex marriage ceremonies.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I agree, objection is a form of free speech, but trying to pass laws to ban it entirely is pure bigotry and pretty authoritarian.

If a Christian group has no problem performing same-sex ceremonies in their place of worship then that is their decision and should be respected, and if another group objects to performing the ceremonies in their place of worship because they feel that it infringes on their traditions then that decision should be respected as well.

a reply to: Konduit

Because a religious ceremony does not afford you any legal or financial benefits. The entire marriage equality issue has nothing to do with religion for the people who want equality.

a reply to: Konduit

Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: marriage licenses from the state are secular and don't have to abide by religious traditions in any way. Churches should be able to make the decision on whether or not they will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. This is the system we have right now and it works, except for goobers like this judge trying to screw with the system. And goobers like this will lose and keep losing until new generations grow up accustomed to the current system and stop fighting it. It happened with interracial marriage, and it will happen with same-sex marriage.

It takes time, but it will happen.

originally posted by: Konduit
. . .if another group objects to performing the ceremonies in their place of worship because they feel that it infringes on their traditions then that decision should be respected as well.

No officially registered church or clergy is required to marry anyone. They don't even have to give a reason.

A public business that provides a marriage service, if in a state/county that has anti sexual orientation discrimination laws, can not refuse to marry a gay couple. They can not use religious exemption.

originally posted by: Konduit
... and if another group objects to performing the ceremonies in their place of worship because they feel that it infringes on their traditions then that decision should be respected as well.

I feel like I understand your position and I agree with much of what you say. No church should ever be legally required to marry ANYONE they don't want to. It's their house, their rules. But marriage isn't their tradition, and I think that's where the hang-up is. Many religious people think they own marriage and it just isn't true. "Traditional marriage" (between a man and a woman) doesn't belong to religion, either.

Here's an interesting comment about Roy Moore...

Danny Turley, a clerk at Shirley’s Bait and Tackle shop in Mobile, Ala., says he’s not “a big religious fanatic and all,” but he backs Moore’s biblical view of law. “If the Bible’s against it, I mean, if you believe in the Bible you can’t believe this and not believe the other,” he says. “You’ve got to be 100 percent one way or the other.”

"Biblical view of law"? That's some scary crap right there... Inflexible. Black and white. No exceptions.

Source

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh, my oh my, we still have stupid judges trying to over rule the supreme court, yes you are right, he is for rude awakening, and can kiss good by and attempts to political career.

What a moron.

Couples who could not, for whatever reason, legally marry - - - still had ceremonies and considered themselves married.

There was a time blacks could not legally marry, mixed race couples could not legally marry, interfaith could not legally marry, and LGBT could not legally marry.

They still had wedding ceremonies. I'm sure some were traditional wedding ceremonies in make shift churches. Many LGBT had wedding ceremonies in churches that have allowed it for years.

But, this is about LEGAL marriage and Equal Rights. The government contract that allows tax breaks, etc - - not available by any other means.

a reply to: murphy22
*snip*

I really don't get how this guy has kept his job. Do the citizens of Alabama actually like him, or something?

a reply to: kaylaluv

No! ..."There are not plenty of Christians".... It is not "Christian" to even except that notion. That makes them not Christain and false. That's blatantly un-Christian, in scope. It's actually pretty plain in Genesis. God made woman for man....
That's were you lib/progressives error.
Plainly, you need to stop using "Christian/Jesus" as your excuses. It's just not Biblical. Pure, straight and simple. The book is very clear about right and wrong. Very clear!

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: kaylaluv

No! ..."There are not plenty of Christians".... It is not "Christian" to even except that notion. That makes them not Christain and false. That's blatantly un-Christian, in scope. It's actually pretty plain in Genesis. God made woman for man....
That's were you lib/progressives error.
Plainly, you need to stop using "Christian/Jesus" as your excuses. It's just not Biblical. Pure, straight and simple. The book is very clear about right and wrong. Very clear!

Man wrote scripts that were translated, re-translated, translated again, etc etc etc etc.

Then man chose certain scripts, threw out others, compiling a book called the Bible.

There is truth in the bible, but the bible is not truth. If anything --- it's guess work --- influenced by believers.

Christians can think for themselves, even if they believe in a mythical being. People evolve with knowledge. Just as ignorance once thought seizures were being possessed by the Devil. Christians can evolve in knowledge that homosexuality naturally occurs and is not an abomination.

There is no reason any Christian should keep their thinking in ancient ignorance.

MADISON COUNTY, AL (WAFF) - The Madison County Courthouse is issuing same-sex marriage licenses as of Thursday morning.

www.waff.com...

originally posted by: murphy22
Plainly, you need to stop using "Christian/Jesus" as your excuses. It's just not Biblical.

It's really interesting that you said this... Have you applied it to yourself? Because so-called "Christians" are using "Christian/Jesus/the Book" as their excuse to deny LEGAL rights to other people and act with bigotry and hatred. Judging gay people and other people who say they're Christian is just not biblical.

a reply to: Annee

It's great that they're coming to their senses... but most of the counties in Alabama blew off the Judges orders anyway. There's only a few of the 67 counties that were going along with this nut-ball judge's position. Mobile county was one that stopped because of Moore's order.

The Montgomery Advertiser spoke with probate judges or probate court personnel in 56 of the state’s 67 counties. In 41 counties, the offices said they were issuing marriage licenses to all couples; 13 said they were not.

Source

originally posted by: murphy22
...It's actually pretty plain in Genesis. God made woman for man....

That sounds very Cosby-esque.