Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.

The Alabama justices were defiant. “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

The resistance in Alabama, where states’ rights has always been sacred writ and state supreme court justices are elected rather than appointed, has been compared by many to that state’s resistance to school desegregation orders in the 1963, when Gov. George Wallace (D) stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to prevent the court-ordered enrollment of black students.

“The ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court offers the most forceful and clearly articulated rebuttal to date of the imaginative arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ employed by federal courts,” said a statement from the Liberty Counsel, which challenged the lower court ruling.

What happens next is unclear. Presumably someone will go back to the federal courts to overturn the ruling. But short of a ruling on gay marriage by the nation’s highest court, which isn’t expected for months, the standoff seems likely to continue. The Alabama court suggested that it would be bound by the U.S. Supreme Court but nothing lower than that.

Indeed, the state’s highest court declared itself equally empowered as the lower federal courts to decide whether Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution — stating unequivocally that it does not in what amounted to a broadside against the trend of courts invalidating same-sex marriage bans.

Baldy wrote:What's the big deal?

We don't see you guys hyperventilating this much when Obama nullifies and doesn't enforce written laws he doesn't agree with.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:What's the big deal?

We don't see you guys hyperventilating this much when Obama nullifies and doesn't enforce written laws he doesn't agree with.

Example please

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

tribe_pride wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Example please

Federal Marijuana laws.

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

While I disagree with Alabama, you always go overboard. Send troops for what? Don't be so reactionary.


Bleeding hearts of the world...UNITE!!!

Chizzang wrote:And since when did anybody care what happens in Alabama..?

SDHornet wrote:

Chizzang wrote:And since when did anybody care what happens in Alabama..?

Chizzy FTW.

Chizzang wrote:

SDHornet wrote:

Chizzy FTW.

I was only partially being sarcastic...
Alabama is at the bottom (or near bottom) in every category that matters - as far as "being a state" is concerned, hell if they don;t care why should anybody else...

Every time I check some statistic Alabama is 49th or 50th
battling it out with Mississippi on who can suck the most at being a state

If you're not talking about college football
Then there's almost no reason (ever) to talk about Alabama
Unless you're measuring State-Wide Suckage - which they happen to accel at powerfully

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

AZGrizFan wrote:

tribe_pride wrote:
Federal Marijuana laws.

Border control

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

He'll send troops to Montgomery before he'll send them after ISIS. What a punk.

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

No the fed govt needs to butt out of what is a state issue..

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

No the fed govt needs to butt out of what is a state issue..

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
No the fed govt needs to butt out of what is a state issue..

Like civil rights?

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Like civil rights?

Alabama isn't denying any. Any man can marry any woman in Alabama, and any woman can marry any man. The Constitution says nothing about gay marriage..

Chizzang wrote: Unless you're measuring State-Wide Suckage - which they happen to accel at powerfully

BDKJMU wrote: Alabama isn't denying any. Any man can marry any woman in Alabama, and any woman can marry any man. The Constitution says nothing about gay marriage..

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
He'll send troops to Montgomery before he'll send them after ISIS. What a punk.

We've launched 100's of sorties against ISIS and literally have troops on the ground orchestrating Iraqi Army counterinsurgency efforts.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
We've launched 100's of sorties against ISIS and literally have troops on the ground orchestrating Iraqi Army counterinsurgency efforts.

Yes, but here we are working side by side with Syria and Iran, two of the three most recently described evil empires, to defeat ISIS.

In fact, just a few miles away from our counterinsurgency boys' efforts, about which the press is strangely silent, Iran has its generals directing Iraqi attacks on ISIS.