Royce E. Van Blaricome #wingnut christiannews.net

Sisyphys:
How was judge [Roy] Moore upholding the Constitution, by attempting to inject his pet ideology into law?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By doing exactly what he said. I can't say it anymore succinctly and clearly than he did. Your characterization is just a blatant admission to your blindness and bias. Has nothing to do with "pet ideology".

Sisyphys:
The laws of Alabama he is trying to uphold, have been determined to be unconstitutional.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By your ilk, maybe.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to make final determinations of law.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.".

In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

Since SCOTUS can NOT "make" Law and they didn't address the current Law on the books, it'll be interesting to see if what would happen if a challenge is brought by Moore, AL, NC or another State. At best, they could rule that the entire Marriage Licensing Act/Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act is/are void, which would mean an immediate cessation of marriage licenses.

Then a state could pass a law stating that marriage can only be used for unions of man and woman. It would no doubt be challenged and possibly overturned by some liberal activist judge or District Court.

This might open the door for another case on SSM to be considered by SCOTUS and if something were to happen to Ginsberg or Kennedy or one of the other Liberal Activists on the Court, I'd say there's a good probability that the original dissenters and Constitutionalists like Gorsuch would revisit the issue.

It's not like it's not happened before. If Obergefell were to be overturned, it certainly would NOT be the first time.

Ambulance Chaser:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

No, the Constitution is the final word on all laws. And when it's ambiguous, the Courts clarify it.

That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.

As with many laws that start with "uniform," the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act isn't a law at all. It was a model that states could choose to adopt or not adopt as they saw fit. Only 8 states did: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and Washington. None of those states ever relied on it to limit the genders of people who were allowed to marry. The "man and woman" language was just there as a common convention of what the definition of marriage was.

I have no idea what the Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act is. The only reference I found to it was an unlinked comment on a bodybuilding forum.

In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

So what? Obergefell states,

"The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold and it now does hold that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

They're not required to go through every law in every state that they're striking down. Their intention is made perfectly clear.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
What a load of gobbledeygook.

17 comments

Confused?

So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.