Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Alabama judge is right to defy federal judge

I posted yesterday about the same-sex marriage case, and now the US Supreme Court is showing its hand:
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to step in and stop gay marriages from taking place in Alabama. The move sent the strongest signal to date that the justices are on the verge of legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Within hours of the high-court ruling, same-sex marriages began taking place in Alabama, despite an eleventh-hour show of defiance by the state's chief justice. ...

The decision upholding the order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama came just hours after the state's chief justice, Roy Moore — knowing that the nation's highest court was about to rule on the state's request for a stay — issued his own decree ordering state probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
So it is pretty obvious that the US Supreme Court will force same-sex marriage.

Moore's position is not so ridiculous. I don't know about Alabama law, but here is Here is California law:

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
So California (and probably Alabama) should be refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses unless and until some appellate court rules that the opposite-sex marriage law is unconstitutional. That has not happened in California or Alabama.

But as I say, the fix is in. The USA does not believe in Rule of Law when it comes to marriage and family law.

The Third World is at the other extreme:
A Malaysian court on Tuesday upheld a sodomy conviction and a five-year prison sentence for Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the country’s opposition, in the culmination of a protracted legal battle entwined with a high-stakes struggle for political supremacy. ...

This was the second prosecution of Mr. Anwar, 67, on charges of sodomy. He spent six years in prison after a conviction in a separate sodomy trial by a different accuser but was acquitted on appeal in 2004. ...

Mr. Anwar’s defense team portrayed the current case as blatantly political. The accuser testified that two days before the sex allegedly occurred, he met with Mr. Anwar’s political rival, Najib Razak, who was deputy prime minister at the time and who has since become prime minister. It was not made clear in court how a clerk working for the opposition obtained a meeting with Mr. Najib, one of the country’s most powerful men.
Occasionally I get comments saying parents should be arrested for stupidity. If so, Anwar should also be jailed for stupidity because it appears that he was set up, and could not resist the sodomy.


Laughingdog said...

I will always find it very telling that restrictions on gun ownership, which is specifically enumerated as a right in the Bill of Rights, are considered to be acceptable, to a degree at least. But marriage, which isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else, is a right that can't be restrained in any way.

Sara said...

Laughingdog-- what are you talking about that marriage cannot be restrained?
Are you unaware of:
Age restrictions
Biological relationship restriction
Mandatory counseling or blood tests
Requirement to obtain a license

Marriage is well regulated and restrained in all states.
I oppose polygamy but support gay marriage.
Hetero and divorced, gay folks are welcome to roll the dice as far as I'm concerned.