Texas is pushing a proposed law that would let the state overrule the Supreme Court. There’s just one problem: they can’t actually do that. Alabama judges have decided that they don’t have to obey federal courts either, except that in reality, they do. And Oklahoma politician wants to switch from marriage licenses to marriage certificates, which would accomplish … not very much.
Let’s start in Texas this week, where first time State Rep Molly White has introduced a bill that would require the state to ignore any Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage.
Can she do that? Nope, that’s not how laws work. Or the Supreme Court. Or America in general. For better or for worse, Texas is still part of the United States, so Texas can’t just say “no thanks” when the Supreme Court tells them to do something. White’s only been in office for two months, so hopefully she’ll get the hang of it soon.
Over in Alabama, the state Supreme Court is experiencing similar confusion. They’ve ordered probate judges to ignore the federal ruling that they have to issue marriage licenses. So now it’s state law versus federal law, and nobody knows who will win. Just kidding! Federal law will win. That’s the basis of our entire legal system.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Then there’s South Carolina, where a couple of politicians want to amend the US Constitution to ban marriage equality. This has no chance of happening. But State Senator Larry Grooms says that it’s necessary for “the propagation of our species.” Contrary to what Grooms seems to think, reproduction does not, in fact, originate in the U.S. Constitution.
And in Oklahoma, State Rep Todd Ross has solved the marriage debate with a new bill that stops the state from issuing marriage licenses, and instead requires marriage certificates. And this is different because … well, it’s actually pretty much the same, it’s just slightly less paperwork. So, OK.
Finally this week a new national survey shows support for marriage soaring to 59 percent, with just 33 percent opposed. This means that the freedom to marry is slightly more popular than the Pope.
hyhybt
I feel sorry for the probate judges of Alabama, stuck in the middle of this with nothing they can do or not do that won’t put them in trouble with the courts.
Giancarlo85
Logic and reason are two factors that have always been absent from the anti-gay marriage arguments. They couldn’t even persuade a CONSERVATIVE LEANING, HANDS OFF US Supreme Court to keep DOMA (Defense [Non-Defense] of Marriage Act) in place. It appears they have lost the support of Roberts and possibly Alito. How on earth could I say that about those two conservative judges? Look at the recent decisions to reject the appeals on the stays in Florida and Alabama. 7-2 Decisions by this Court.
Yeah. The writing is on the wall, but for the anti-gay crowd desperate times mean for desperate measures/arguments.
Giancarlo85
@Giancarlo85: Correction: The US Supreme Court rejected arguments to extend the appeal in FL and Alabama, thus allowing same sex marriage obviously.
Again, 7-2 in favor of same sex marriage. Shocking but true. Even Alito and Roberts signed off on it. That’s precedent. It would be illogical to allow same sex marriage then reject it. The Court wouldn’t go that length.
Giancarlo85
@Giancarlo85: *To extend The Stay LOL.
I can’t write today!
srslycris
I love the legislators that are convinced that given the opportunity, EVERYONE would be gay and natural procreation would cease. Ummm… something you need to tell us, Larry Grooms?
jwtraveler
Wake me up when it’s all over.
Realitycheck
Much ado about nothing….. The supreme court will struck down all these
ridiculous laws trying to stop marriage equality……
Just few more months folks and it is all over…………..
Paul Nadolski
All this makes me happy that the US Constitution does not have what the Canadian Constitution does: the notwithstanding clause. If the US Constitution had this little clause, which permits provinces to ignore federal law, then Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina (et al) COULD ignore federal laws. But we don’t have that so they will have to obey federal law. (Too bad so sad).
1EqualityUSA
and in 50 years, when the religion du jour rears its oppressive head, how will the Fed deal with it?
gaym50ish
The idea of eliminating the marriage license in Oklahoma is apparently intended to spare any clerk from violating his or her conscience by issuing a same-sex license. Then the only paperwork required would be the marriage certificate, which is signed and filed by the minister or judge who conducts the ceremony.
So what happens if the JUDGE refuses to perform the ceremony? Another law eliminating the marriage certificate, effectively eliminating marriage as a legal status? As long as we have 1,100 federal laws recognizing people as being married, you still need some documentation.
Eliminating some of the paperwork might be a worthy goal if that WERE the goal, but we all know that it isn’t.
hyhybt
@gaym50ish: Unlike clerks filing the paperwork, officiants, including judges, are generally free not to marry anyone they wish.
Realitycheck
Some heads will fall in Alabama, the Federal judge did order gay marriage license be issued, the Alabama supreme court just went around that, and
any judge refusing to issue a gay marriage certificate will be held in contempt
of court.
This could actually be a great way to scoop the most bigoted judges off Alabama
Giancarlo85
@Realitycheck: I believe all the Justices in the Alabama Supreme Court should be held in contempt and jailed. If I was held in contempt of a federal court, I’d be sitting in a jail cell.