DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court: Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, Alabama counties refuse

Judicial defiance in Alabama: Same-sex marriages begin, but most counties refuse

By Sandhya Somashekhar
February 9 at 8:52 PM

MOBILE, Ala. — On the day that same-sex unions became legal in Alabama, local officials in dozens of counties on Monday defied a federal judge’s decision and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, casting the state into judicial chaos.

Gay couples were able to get licenses in about a dozen places, including Birmingham, Huntsville and a few other counties where probate judges complied with the judge’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled early Monday that it would deny Alabama’s request to put the marriages on hold.

But in the majority of counties, officials said they would refuse to license same-sex marriages or stop providing licenses altogether, confronting couples — gay and heterosexual — with locked doors and drawn windows.

Many of the state’s 68 probate judges mounted their resistance to the federal decision at the urging of the firebrand chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. He is best known for refusing more than a decade ago to comply with a court order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court’s offices.

In Mobile, about 10 gay couples who had expected to be granted licenses first thing in the morning found the marriage license window closed indefinitely.

“We’re disgusted with it, but we’re dealing with it,” said Jim Strawser, 51, who with his partner, John Humphrey, had mounted the successful legal challenge against Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage.

A federal judge in Mobile ruled in their case last month that Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, striking down its ban and setting the stage for it to become the 37th state, plus the District of Columbia, to permit such unions and the second in the Deep South. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April over whether there is a constitutional right for gay couples to marry nationwide.

Gay rights supporters likened the actions of Moore and the probate judges to those of Alabama leaders who in the 1960s defied orders to desegregate schools.

“History is repeating itself,” said Christine Hernandez, an attorney for one of the plaintiff couples in the case.

Some social conservatives cheered the actions of the defiant probate judges. Mat Staver, chief executive of Liberty Counsel, said the probate judges are not under the jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore were not compelled to comply with the federal judge’s order to allow same-sex marriages.

“I think the probate judges acted appropriately,” said Staver, whose group is representing at least eight of the judges.

Their actions show that pockets of deep resistance to gay marriage remain despite the gains made by advocates, who have seen support for their cause spike nationally. Backing for same-sex marriage in Alabama stood at 32 percent in 2012, a smaller proportion than all but two states, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank that studies gay issues.

The conservative profile of Alabama perhaps made it even more notable that scores of couples were able to get licenses Monday.

“It’s about time,” smiled Shante Wolfe, 21, as she left the courthouse in Montgomery with partner Tori Sisson. They had camped out in a blue-and-white tent to be the first in the county to receive a license.

About 200 couples were able to get them in Huntsville, at least 100 in Jefferson County and large numbers in Montgomery County, said Amanda Snipes, campaign manager for Southerners for the Freedom to Marry.

About 40 percent of the state’s population lives in counties that went forward with the same-sex unions, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Couples who ran into difficulties in their own counties were free to marry somewhere else in the state.

“It’s disappointing, but once again, many couples who wanted to get married today are getting married today,” Snipes said. “Although we’re not in a statewide resolution yet, that day will come.”

In Mobile, the decision by Probate Judge Don Davis not to open the marriage license windows incensed the dozens of gay couples and supporters who had gathered there in hopes of celebrating a milestone moment. For hours, lawyers met in backroom meetings with members of the probate judges’ staff.

The lawyers initially had reassured the crowd that the windows would open. But as hours passed with no communication from Davis’s office, couples who had planned to tie the knot became disheartened.

Kim and Regina Gebauer had come to Mobile rather than try the probate office in their home county of Baldwin, expecting a more welcoming environment, Kim Gebauer said. The two have been together for 22 years and had originally hoped to get a license Monday ahead of a beach wedding later in the month. But as they waited in the lobby of the probate court, the pair had decided instead to get married and “seal the deal” sooner rather than later. In the end, even that plan was thwarted.

“We will celebrate with our friends another time,” said Kim, 51.

Attorneys for the challengers asked Monday that a federal judge find Davis in contempt for not opening the window, but that request was rejected. The lawyers have filed separate legal actions on behalf of at least six couples who were turned away Monday, seeking damages.

At least 12 counties denied licenses to same-sex couples, according to AL.com, an Alabama news site. More than 40 stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether Monday, though at least 20 of those were still accepting applications for marriage licenses. Nine counties agreed to marry everyone.

A letter late Sunday from Moore, the chief justice, advised probate judges to follow state law and refuse to give licenses to gay couples. Those who violated his order would face a reprimand by the governor, Moore wrote.

“Effective immediately, no probate judge of the state of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent” with a constitutional amendment and a state law banning same-sex unions, he wrote.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) said Monday that he will not punish probate judges in the state who do or do not issue marriage licenses.

“This issue has created confusion with conflicting direction for Probate Judges in Alabama,” Bentley said in a statement. “Probate judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I support them. I will not take any action against Probate Judges, which would only serve to further complicate this issue.”

Some legal scholars said the probate judges are unlikely to prevail and faulted Moore.

Moore “may sincerely believe state law takes precedence over federal law,” Ronald Krotoszynski, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said Monday. “And if that’s so, it’s unfortunate because it’s plainly wrong.”

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s request to stay the same-sex marriages until the justices rule later this year on whether there is a constitutional right to gay unions. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, dissented, saying they would have granted the stay.

“I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question,” Thomas wrote.

And they say this is by no means analogous to civil rights/school segregation...

Nope. You'll notice that 46 of Alabama's 67 counties have stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone, whether they are gay or straight couples.

I'm pretty sure they wanted to close all schools in an attempt to halt school integration?

Wow.,.,though personally, I have no issue with gay marriage, I do think that states shouldn't have the federal government forcing them to comply with their laws..

States should be able to do as they and their majority population choose regardless of any federal "law."

The odd thing is that people keep saying that it's a "state's rights" issue, but we have federal courts often forcing gay marriage onto states, often against the wishes of the voters in those states.

I always found that a little odd.

How do we the. Ensure each individual gets their unalienable rights as given by the constitution?

So in Alabama it is immoral to have a same sex marriage, but sleeping with your cousin is acceptable?


On another note. Same sex marriage is legal in Alabama, of all places, but in Ohio?.........

The same state which the court can appoint a lawyer for a fetus.

3 cheers for forced theocracy!

So, marriage shouldn't be a federal issue then.

I happen to agree with you since there is not a single mention of it in the Constitution.

What we have is the SCOTUS trying to legislate from the bench and the Alabama counties that are either not licensing at all or not licensing same-sex marriages are 100% correct. It's about time some local authorities begin to poke the SCOTUS in the eye.

Nobody is denied anything.

There is nothing religious about it. Nice try.

really!?!?

Yes, really. That you think so makes you look like a fool. Oh wait! I change that view. Pro-abortion folks do have a religious fervor about them, don't they?

my exact thoughts. Almost sprayed my laptop reading that sentence.

Call me naive, but I don't get all the hubbub about gay or lesbian marriage.

What two consenting adults do doesn't effect me so why should I care?

True love is damned hard to find. Good luck to those that have found it regardless of where and with whom.

One of my favorite sayings on the subject.

"If you are against gay marriage, dont get gay married.

Well I'm not going to say you're a fool, but I'm not sure your opinion is shared by a majority of our population.

It's exclusively religious.

This is a civil rights issue, not a states right issue.

And for anyone paying attention...SCOTUS not staying the issue is a direct sign that they will rule in favor of gay marriage. Which was a no brainer, as no rational mind would rule in favor of 'because Bible'

IMHO

-This is America and you have the freedom to do as you please in the privacy of your own bedroom.

-Homosexuality is a sin. I will not support it.

-Abortion is murder. I will not support it.

-Caesar says Gay Marriage is now the law of the land just like abortion. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

-This is another moral battle we can not win except within ourselves.

No one is asking you to support it. They're asking you to stay out of their lives.

My thoughts (not someone else's saying) is: Don't try to change the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

I think I covered that within my post.

However I will not stand by while babies are butchered. I have and will continue to fight the slaughter.

that means don't tell people who they can and can't marry.

I don't tell them anything. Caesar has decreed it against my will. I am forced to live with it. I will not support it.

It's not religious at all because, if it were, non-religious folks couldn't get married. If you want to speak about abortion, then I recommend you do a search with the keywords 'atheist' and 'pro-life'.

You'll find that your viewpoint has fatal flaws in it.

And marriage has ALWAYS been a state's issue when in regards to government authority. It has NEVER been a federal issue.

You seem to be marginally intelligent, PDR, so you either know that you're lying or you aren't as smart as you sometimes appear. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that it's the former.

That isn't true to Alabama residents. As residents of that state, they're being asked to support it with their tax dollars.

"What the hell do you mean she's not my property? Did you guys change the meaning of the word again?"

Damn gay tax.

Thanks, Obama.

I state the same as I did before, I know you try to come off as smarter than this response and I tend to think that you're simply pushing an agenda and are using falsehoods to do it.

The argument against gay marriage is athat it is a sin or immoral, a notion that is rooted in religion.

Federal historically trumps the wishes of the state when it comes to civil rights issue.

We fought a war over it.

SCOTUS just more or less telegraphed they're going to allow gay marriage. It's a matter of time at this point

If a taxpayer of Alabama has a problem with their tenth of a cent funding pens, paper and the hourly wage of a court clerk, I'd advise that they keep it low on the list of persuasive arguments on banning gay marriage.

I have moral qualms with my tax dollars going towards blowing up brown people, but that doesn't make a convincing case to ban war.

Not Brown, Olive.

Nicely done.

When it was made a legal term. It was changed. They miss on the separation of church and state on occasion

thats some of that backward ass thinking.

the way you post leaves me to believe that you would've left slavery, women and minority voting, segregation, and other civil issues "up to the state".

as in, you wouldn't had cared about it.

Forced theocracy? Yea, we are racing toward being a theocracy at warp speed. We are on the verge of becoming the Christian version of Iran with our illegal porn, our stoning to death of homosexuals, our repressing of womens rights, our preaching from the government pulpit... oh wait, we're moving away from all of that at warp speed.... Nevermind...

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Yes Iran is an actual theocracy with many more examples of religious laws, but how would you describe a law designed to follow a religious belief even though the law is only one of diminishing number of religious laws?

A state forcing people to obey a religion based law is still a theocracy.

I also believe Christianity is the prevailing belief (I could be wrong) in our country, but most of the Christians I know don't support the idea of officially denying marriage to gay couples.

An interesting discussion may be the rights of businesses to deny service compared to the rights of gays to access services. I think that may turn out to be interesting.

Again I'll avoid any comments about your intelligence.

1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.

2.
Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
See also traditional marriage (def 2).
this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage.
3.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock:
They have a happy marriage.
Synonyms: matrimony.
Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.

4.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities:
to officiate at a marriage.
Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.
Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

5.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction:
trial marriage.

6.
any close or intimate association or union:
the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation.
Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
7.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

8.
a blending or matching of different elements or components:
The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

9.
Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle.
Compare royal marriage.

10.
a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.

11.
Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.