Alabama chief justice: Same-sex marriage ban still in effect


Alabama chief justice: Same-sex marriage ban still in effect

(CNN)Alabama’s chief justice on Wednesday directed probate judges in the state to enforce the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, seven months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalized gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” Roy Moore wrote in an administrative order.

Moore points out that the Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, was targeted at Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee and that the U.S. Supreme Court did not specifically address the Alabama ban.

In Wednesday’s order – which is not an opinion of Alabama’s Supreme Court, but rather issued in Moore’s capacity as the head of the Alabama judicial branch – Moore said that three days after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, his court invited parties to “address the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision” on the state.


Sounds like someone needs to civics better.


Unfortunately the interviewer was hostile and non-sensical, and thus prevented Moore from explaining his points, so I am unable to understand his legal argument (or even to hear it!).

However, it seems to me that the Supreme Court decision was a judicial decision which stretched the meaning of the constitution one way, so it would be quite fair for another court to seek out any judicial loophole it can find, so as to reject it a particular state.


No one is capable of understanding his “legal arguments” because they are not legal arguments.


My layman’s understanding of US judicial law is that if there’s enough of a will, there is a way.

I would say gay marriage is far more a moral and social issue than a legal issue. If I were to try to defend or attack it, I wouldn’t spend too much time on legal arguments either.


I’m sure it’s just a temporary lack of understanding of civics on Moore’s part until either the AL SC or the federal courts instruct him properly as to the SCOTUS ruling in June 2015.


I think it’s a protest of sorts, and I support him.

The real question is what will clerks do. I guess they currently have legal justification for both options.


Strictly speaking from a Constitutional POV, marriage is left to the states to decide.

One problem in American today is too many people are mysteriously finding things in the Constitution that don’t exist to fit some pretty selfish agendas.

There’s a lot of Americans who arrogantly and foolishly have thrown their freedom under the bus just to get legal "gay"marriage because it’s so :cool:.

They even think it’s here forever, when in reality, all it would take would be a president who doesn’t like it picking SC judges who don’t like it, take a lawsuit against it and it’s all over.

So it can be repealed by the same method it was passed.

Jefferson noted this well when he said “If the government is big enough to give you what you want, it’s also big enough to take it away”.

See, government is fun, cool, righteous and hip when it gives one what one wants, like a gay “marriage” for my “friends”, but it’s a real pain when it keeps going and wants polygamy, girls and boys showering together or pedophilia to be special class.


Thanks for the commentary, SuperLuigi. I loved the Jefferson quote!


When the Federal judiciary makes a ruling outside the powers delegated to them, the ruling null.

Contrary to modern understanding, the Supreme Court’s powers to interpret law is not infinite.


So how do you propose it should work? Should each American just make his own interpretation of the law and go with that?


Really? who cares if gay people are getting married, Alabama is violating their rights :frowning:

so much for no discrimination/freedom of religion(it goes both ways, banning gay marriage also violates the freedom of religion)


The States delegated powers to the Federal government. If the State feels the Feds are going outside their powers, they have a right to nullify. If the Feds push back then:

  1. They will sit down and come to an agreement
  2. The State leaves the union
  3. The State is expelled from the Union
  4. War.


Yeah, that is not correct. The states have no right to nullification.


Many states, even now, say otherwise.


Some people say otherwise. Those people would be wrong. Article VI of the Constitution is pretty clear:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The 10th Amendment is quite clear.

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.

This would make no sense if the Feds had infinite powers to interpret the law.


The Constituion prohibits such bans. Next.


No it doesn’t.


It does according to the Supreme Court, which has the final say in this matter barring a Constitutional Amendment. Also, Moore’s claim is BS. The Supreme Court stated in plain language that the decision applied to ALL States.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit