Woman held after trying to perform same-sex marriage

[DonViejo]

Source: The Montgomery Advertiser

PRATTVILLE – An Autauga County woman was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct Tuesday morning after offering to perform a same sex marriage inside the probate judge's office.

Anne Susan Diprizio, of the 300 block of Cambridge Street, is charged with disorderly conduct, said Dave Hill, chief deputy of the Autauga County Sheriff's Office. She was being processed in the Autauga Metro Jail after her arrest and was unavailable for comment. Courthouse records show she doesn't have an attorney.

She was being held on a bond of $1,000, Hill said. Deputies were called to the probate office, which is located one block from the courthouse, about 10:30 a.m. Probate Judge Al Booth asked for assistance, Hill said.

"Judge Booth said there was a lady in the office who wouldn't leave when he asked her to leave," Hill said.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/progress/2015/02/10/woman-arrested-wanting-perform-marriage-ceremony-autauga-probate-office/23172127/

---

Minister Arrested While Marrying Gays

A minister was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct on Tuesday after she offered to perform a same-sex marriage inside of an Alabama probate judge’s office a day after nuptials for gays began in the state. Anne Susan Diprizio is being held on $1,000 bond after she refused to leave a Autauga County probate office, where Courtney Cannon and Morgan Plunkett had received a marriage license. Diprizio offered to conduct the ceremony inside the office but was eventually handcuffed and led across the street to a local jail.

###

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/02/10/minister-arrested-for-same-sex-marriage.html

[dbackjon]

1. They need to arrest the judges

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Are we approaching our third civil war?

The second one occurred from the end of WWII until George Wallace got himself shot and Nixon folded the racist southern democratic right into the republican party.

[RKP5637]

5. SOS again, different people, difference times, different cause, but in essence, the SOS! n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. No civil war is necessary.

Just a 72-hour notice for the sentient to get the hell out of the state.

[Action_Patrol]

3. She was arrested on purpose.

It's a publicity stunt that worked.
She didn't have to do this inside the office.
I support her wholeheartedly in her desire to both perform the ceremony and raise awareness.

[randome]

21. You called it!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[DonViejo]

40. Civil disobedience is now referred to as "a publicity stunt"?...

Thanks for the heads up!

[Action_Patrol]

50. Don't be a dolt

She specifically defied an order to vacate the office. She performed the ceremony in the office. She was arrested for refusing to leave. It got her publicity.

There's your 'heads up'.

Don't bother replying. You aren't interested in discussion.

[DonViejo]

52. You win! Insulting and calling me names ends any chance of discussion! Be PROUD of yourself!...

FYI, the Reverend did NOT perform the ceremony, she was stopped from doing so.

An Autauga County woman was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct Tuesday morning after offering to perform a same sex marriage inside the probate judge's office.

And you're right, she was arrested after being asked to leave. I recall some young people being arrested at a lunch counter after being asked to leave also. Don't much care for civil disobedience, huh?

[Action_Patrol]

56. Go throw snark someplace else

I'm not interested in your baited garbage.

[RKP5637]

4. Alabama, a place we all avoid, too much of a wayback machine. n/t

[nichomachus]

9. Years ago, I was driving across the south

We stopped for gas in western Alabama. As we started to pull away the kid who had pumped the gas came running after the car waving his arms. We stopped. He said he just wanted to warn us that we were going to be going into Mississippi soon and, because we had "Yankee tags," we needed to be real careful of the cops. He told us not to go anywhere near the speed limit or they would pull us over.

So, I guess even Alabama has someone to look down on.

[steve2470]

11. when was that, roughly ?

Not trying to be abrasive, simply curious, thanks.

[nichomachus]

12. It was 1980. You could probably tell because someone pumped gas for us. n/t

[steve2470]

13. ah, when people had jobs pumping gas and doing windshields, etc

Thanks for answering!

[RKP5637]

14. Some states I won't even drive in. I've talked to some truckers that fill up so they

don't have to stop in some states for anything.

[PatrynXX]

24. cept thru the power of the net

I know people there. ie imagine Alabama has same sex people who want to marry.

[happyslug]

6. The Probate Office issued the Marriage License, which is all it was required to do.

From the Article:

The Autauga County Probate Office stopped performing all marriage ceremonies on Friday. Booth then said the decision to stop performing the ceremonies was related to work flow, not a recent federal court order lifting the state's ban on same sex marriages.

It appears that such ceremony had been done in the past, but do to "Work Flow" the Probate Office Stopped permitting such Ceremony on Friday.

The Federal Court Order required them to issue the License, an order the Probate Office obeyed. They then told the couple to go elsewhere to have the ceremony done. If this was a rule adopted do to "Work Flow" or even in anticipation of increase "Work Flow" do to request for same sex licenses it would be legal. The rule applied to ALL such Ceremonies NOT just same sex Ceremonies.

Now, if the rule was adopted to avoid having such same sex ceremonies done that is a different ball game, but then Alabama has NOT ban discrimination based on Sexual orientation and neither has the Federal Government. The Court Order is based on the Equal Protection of the law requires same sex couples to be treated the same as opposite sex couple and as long as members of both groups are treated the same, it is Constitutional.

Sorry, this fine will be upheld on the grounds that the Probate Office is treating everyone the same. Yes this is different how marriages were treated in the past, but Government Agencies can change rules without violating the US Constitution of equal protection of the laws, as long as the law is uniform and has a valid reason for the change.

[upaloopa]

7. At most places I worked at they put on extra

help when the work load increased. They never stopped all work because they got busier.
I don't think they stopped marriages because gay marriages increased the work load. Sometimes what you are legally permitted to do is not the right thing to do.

[happyslug]

23. In government offices that option is often NOT an option

Most Government Officers will NOT put on new people if the workload increases, for they will try everything else first. The offices, in most cases, can NOT hire new people without additional funding from the County Government. No Money no expansion, even if the office is a money maker for the County.

[DonViejo]

33. You don't have to make excuses for them,...

they know how to do that very well, with years of experience. Different type equality struggle perhaps, an equality struggle nonetheless.

[upaloopa]

57. I happen to work for county government.

True we budget for FTE's in advance but we also have lots of budgeted vacant positions and we can hire extra help.
There is always something that can be done if the situation warrants it. Closing down never happens.

[DonViejo]

19. Sorry, your statement is not necessarily true...

Sorry, this fine will be upheld on the grounds that the Probate Office is treating everyone the same.

If it can be proven the change was enacted so officials won't have to marry ALL people, a case could be made and win.

[happyslug]

22. Given you have to rely on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th how?

The Federal Civil Rights acts do NOT apply to Homosexuals, Congress has REFUSED to add them to the list of Protected groups. The same for Alabama. Thus the FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE that is the only line of attack. Are two different groups being treated DIFFERENTLY TODAY? The answer is no.

The Classic case on this is the case involving a Park given to a City for White People Only (Evans v. Abney 396 U.S. 435, a 1970 Case). The US Supreme Court ruled that since the Park had been deeded for use as a Park for Whites only, when the City could NO longer keep non-whites out, the family that donated the Park had the right to reclaim the Park. That the result would be denial of said parks to African American was NOT a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/396/435/case.html

In simple language, if a City could close down a Park and give it back to the Donors of the Park do to a COURT ORDER saying they could NO LONGER KEEP AFRICAN AMERICAN OUT OF THE PARK and NOT violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, how can a Clerk deciding NOT to permit any further marriage ceremonies violate the same Clause? The short answer is the Clerk is no. You may disagree with the actions of the Clerk, but as long as she treats everyone the same she is on solid legal grounds.

[joshcryer]

25. "if the rule was adopted to avoid having such same sex ceremonies"

Yeah, because "work flow" is really the reason it was done.

Just such a silly coincidence.

[happyslug]

27. The Courts do NOT care if the rationale is true, but that it MAY BE TRUE.

Thus my comments was NOT if this action was right or wrong, but that it was legal.

[joshcryer]

28. Not legal, difficult to prosecute.

If one is morally sound they'd come forward and testify. All it takes is one witness, really, a jury would see through it rather easily.

[happyslug]

43. An Alabama Jury????

Remember that is where the jury is going to be pulled from, whatever Federal District that county is in and remember since this can NOT be brought under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the burden of proof is NOT on the County to show that its Actions were legal, but on the plaintiff to show that the action was illegal.

Thus one witness may not be enough if all the witness says is that is was discussed and citing to much work was discussed as being an acceptable excuse. The Plaintiffs have to show actual discrimination of an ONGOING nature under the 14th. That the reason for the adoption was to avoid seeing homosexuals couple wed may NOT be enough to show an ONGOING discrimination required under the 14th. The key is everyone being treated the same? And the Answer will be yes, no one get married in that office any more. That it was adopted to avoid seeing homosexuals wed would be irrelevant. The only question for the Court would be on going discrimination and none is occurring for ALL MARRIAGES were banned not just Homosexual Marriages.

[joshcryer]

48. If there was a witness?

Someone testifying to the scheme? Yes.

Alabama isn't Russia.

[Adrahil]

38. MAY be true is not really a legal defense.

Any civil litigation would be determined by the preponderance of the evidence, not the possibilities.

I'd say that the "coincidental" nature of the date they chose to stop performing ceremonies is pretty damning. If I was a judge, I'd want the county probate office to present justifying evidence for their decision, not this bullshit hand-waving they are doing.

[happyslug]

42. Preponderance of evidence that the act was NOT otherwise done.

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, if someone does something that hurts a member of a protected group under the act, then the burden of proof is on the side that did the change. Thus they must show by preponderance of evidence they had other good reasons for the change.

Being a Homosexaul is NOT a protected Class under the 1964 Civil Rights Acts OR any similar Alabama Civil Rights Act. Thus the 1964 Civil Rights Acts and its shift of burden of proof does NOT apply in this case.

The 14th Amendment did NOT shift the burden of Proof. It remains on the people ALLEGING that what was done that affected them was intentional and harmful to them. They, not the Local Government Office have the burden of Proof to show by preponderance of evidence that the act was directed ONLY at them. They have to show the change in procedure was NOT for some other good reason. This is hard to show and why the 1964 shifted the Burden of Proof to the person who did the act of what appeared to be discrimination that they were other good reasons for the change.

Remember Discrimination is LEGAL in the US provided it does NOT violate the Civil Rights Act. Given the 1964 Civil Rights acts does NOT include Sexaul Orientation in the list of protected Classes of people, the only protection for Homosexuals are State or Local Laws (and They are NO such laws affecting the county in question) AND the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause did NOT shift the burden of proof, thus it is up to the people alleging the act denied them Equal Protection of the Law to show that it is a denial of equal protection.

Thus my comment that the County does NOT have to show ANYTHING except that it is treating everyone the same. That in the past the permited Hetrosexual Couples to marry in their office is NOT relevant to a ban on ALL marriages today, unless it can clearly be shown that the ban was adopted to be discriminatory AND such discrimination continues (i.e. the ban on hetrosexual marriages is NOT enforced, but the ban is enforced on Homosexual couples). If the office treats both Homosexuals and Hetrosexual couples the same, no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

This is one of the reason there is a push to get Congress to add Sexual Orientation to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but Congress has failed to do so. Some states and local Governments have added Sexual Orientation to their Civil Rights Acts, but most have not. Alabama is one of those States that have NOT done so. Thus the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its reversal on who has the Burden of proof does NOT come into play in this case and the County has a very strong case that its ban in legal and constitutional.

[Yo_Mama]

29. Well, there probably are a lot of same sex couples heading in

given that it wasn't legal before.

But I think this was done so that anyone who had conscientious objections wouldn't risk losing his/her job over not marrying them. That's just a guess.

[joshcryer]

31. They should've just let her officiate.

It wasn't even a big deal, let the woman officiate (make sure she is properly ordained) and move on.

Hell, tell the woman she can do all the officiating for the day if she wants, brew a pot of coffee, and go back to whatever you were doing.

[Yo_Mama]

32. I am pretty sure there is a legal problem with that.

Maybe no one would have complained over it, but the reality is that government property can't be turned over or made available for a religious use (marriage by a minister). She could have stood outside and invited them for a ceremony at her place, or even performed the ceremony outside, but I think giving space in public offices for a religious rite is a no-no unless every religion gets to use the same space, and even then it may be very questionable. The "non-establishment clause" as explicated by the SC.

And then, given that there appears to be some controversy over this, maybe someone would have complained over it. The ceremonies offered by justices of the peace or local clerks are civil ceremonies. An ordained minister offers a religious rite of some sort.

[joshcryer]

34. Fair point.

Maybe give her the civil ceremony paper then and have her read it off exactly and not interject anything religious.

I know the underlying reason is they're probably trying to protect people from objecting to a gay marriage and not doing their job, but it feels like to me that the problem was mostly solved, someone was there who could do it, let 'em.

Someone probably would have complained though.

[Yo_Mama]

46. There is a need to maintain separation of church and state. Always. n/t

[Adrahil]

39. I dunno....

My wife and I were married in the court house. The court gave us the option of having the ceremony done by the judge or bringing our own official.

[Yo_Mama]

47. Yes, but that's okay I think because it's non-entangled and open to all denominations or none.

You are making the choice; you can bring any one of your choice or use the JP. This puts all denominations and atheists/non-denominational on an equal footing.

This lady was a minister, which must mean that she was ordained by some religious group. So allowing her and only her to officially marry would raise several constitutional issues.

I think if the local office opened it up as you have described it would be legal. But it can't be legal to have one minister from one denomination standing in there unless every denomination could send someone in, and I can imagine that would be chaos. And if the civil authorities pick and choose which ministers are allowed to celebrate marriages inside the office, it's definitely unconstitutional.

[yellowcanine]

49. I call BS on the "Work Flow" excuse.

This guy freely admits he doesn't want to do same sex weddings, that he used to do heterosexual weddings and that he enjoyed doing them. All of a sudden he is too busy to do them? Bullshit.

Also, did he allow others to perform weddings in the probate office in the past? If so I think the case could get thrown out. It also seems to contradict the "work flow" excuse. If someone else does a ceremony in the waiting room of the office it has zero effect on workflow.

[happyslug]

54. My reading of the 14th Amendment cases says he is on solid grounds.

What he did in the past is NOT relevant in 14th Amendment Cases (and that is what this is, a case under the Equal Protection of the laws Clause of the 14th Amendment). This is NOT a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for Sexual orientation is NOT included in that act at the present time (efforts have been made to include it, but so far Congress has failed to add it).

This is a problem with Equal Protection of the Law cases, they look at how things are done NOW not how they were done in the past. Last Friday is not today and as long as he performs NO Ceremonies or permit NONE to be performed, he has a solid legal defence as to violating the 14th Amendment.

[yellowcanine]

58. maybe but it is still a chickensh*t excuse to cite "workflow" when it is quite clear that is not the

reason. Law or no law he should be called out on that.

[happyslug]

60. I have no problem with you calling him anything, but just pointing in he has a good legal defense.

n/t

[OldRedneck]

8. Vote in the poll

Go to this link:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/progress/2015/02/10/woman-arrested-wanting-perform-marriage-ceremony-autauga-probate-office/23172127/

Read the story, then, at the bottom of the story, vote in the poll: Whom do you support: (1) Judge Roy Moore), or, (2) The US Supreme Court. When I voted, the Supreme Court was leading 80-20.

[RKP5637]

15. That's good to hear, thanks for posting it!!! n/t

[DonViejo]

18. Chief Justice Roy Moore: 17% The U.S. Supreme Court: 83% eom

[Exhibit A]

36. Voted. It's now 15-85. n/t

[steve2470]

10. shades of 1957

[RKP5637]

16. Yep, I recall those times quite well, and IMO quite similar now. Different people,

different times, difference cause, but underneath the SOS.

[longship]

17. This is going to go to court!

And hopefully it will be upheld for Diprizio.

R&

[Yo_Mama]

30. Well, no one has the right to go into public offices and just stay there.

I would think the charges would be quietly dropped in a couple of weeks, but who knows?

I am pretty sure that they had the legal right to tell her to go, and the legal right to arrest her if she refused to leave.

[DonViejo]

35. British officials had the legal right to tell Gandhi to go, also.

Cops telling some customers at a lunch counter "to go", was also legal.

[happyslug]

45. In 1957 it was LEGAL for the Cops to tell certain people NOT to sit on Lunch Counters

Separate but Equal treatment was made the law in 1954 but only to actions of Government and then to schools alone. It took the 1964 Civil Rights Act to outlaw segregation. Till then if a lunch counter wanted to discriminate they could (and in many states, mostly in the South, required to do so by State Law). If you went to the wrong lunch counter you were trespassing and could be arrested by the police.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act changed all of that, but only for those people listed as one of the protected classes in that act. If you are outside of one of those protected classes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act does NOT apply. People like citing "Brown vs Topeka Board of Education" as ending segregation, it did not. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the big push to end segregation followed by the 1974 Federal funding requirements for local schools to get Federal funds. It took 20 years to get on the books the laws that were needed to undo what was legal and in some states required to be done in race relations.

[WillyT]

26. K & R !!!

[brooklynite]

37. Let's be clear: NOBODY was arrested for "performing a same-sex marriage"...

...several same sex marriages were held without incident. The person arrested performed the wedding in an office that wasn't hers.

[DonViejo]

41. If you want some clarity, let's go for it....

The Reverend was arrested after offering to perform the wedding and then ordered out of the office by the Judge. It was merely a coincidence that a Judge decided to change the rules in his office last Friday, a day before Justice Moore issued his fiat prohibiting judges from performing the marriages, and a day or so before the Federal Judge declined the State AG's application for a stay against performing gay marriages before the Supremes issue their decision. Yep, just a coincidence. Just out of curiosity, can you think of any other folks that may have been arrested for performing acts of civil disobedience, e.g., sitting at a lunch counter where they weren't "allowed" to be; sitting on a bus in an area designated for a different color of folks?

[brooklynite]

44. As long as the Judge, ethically or otherwise, wasn't holding weddings for anyone else...

There's no discrimination. Add to that, the office wasn't a necessary component of the wedding. There was a valid marriage license and a legal officiant.

I'm not absolving Alabama and it's officials for their religious bigotry. I just don't believe in making up additional claims when there's enough to criticize them for already.

[happyslug]

51. The the US Supreme Court said a City can close down a park opened to non-whites.

I cite the a case above, written by Justice Black. It is a 1970 Case. When the Supreme Court ruled a Park for "Whites only" had to admit African-Americans, the City the Park was in closed down the Park and returned it to the family of the man who had donated the land for the park. This was clearly to prevent non-whites from using the Park. This was NOT a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1970, so the only law that applied was the Equal Protection of the Law Clause of the 14th amendment.

That Equal Protection Clause is the same Clause being used to rule it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for States to permit Heterosexual couples from marrying, while forbidding Homosexual couples from marrying. Thus the fact that something was done in the past, but is NOW ruled to be unconstitutional, does not mean people can NOT change the rule in question. In the 1970 case the US Supreme Court ruled that a white Only Part violated the 14th Amendment, but then ruled that closing the park to all people did meet the Equal Protection clause of the 14th, even if it was clear the intention was to keep non-whites out of the park.

The test, in cases involving the 14th Amendment only, is ONGOING treatment not past treatment. Thus what was the rule last Friday does NOT matter in 14th Amendment cases that involves something that occurred today (Past actions do come into play in cases covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but that act does NOT cover sexual orientation at the present time, thus the only law that applies is the 14th Amendment). What matters in 14th Amendment Cases in ONGOING treatment NOT what people did in the past. In this case what was the rule on the day the incident happened, and the rule that day was no marriages ceremony for anyone was the rule in that office that day.

This has been a problem with Civil Rights Cases, Zoning Cases, and even gun control cases. If someone wins under Federal Law or the Constitution, all the local government needs to do is change the law just enough to comply with what the court ruled to be unconstitutional. i.e change from Heterosexual only ceremonies may be permitted, to any any all ceremonies will NOT be permitted. The change may NOT be the the change the side that prevailed in the court wanted but if it addressed the issue in litigation, the courts on review will uphold it.

That is what happen in case involving Baconville Park in Macon Georgia. The person who brought the action wanted the Park open to Non-Whites, which the Court ruled was the law as to any Park opened to the public. When that ruling came down, the City of Macon said they could comply by treating non-whites and whites the same, by giving the park back to the Family that have given Macon the Park. The Plaintiff took the case back up to the he US Supreme Court which ruled that all the 14th Amendment required was equal treatment, and while the Plaintiff wanted the Park open to everyone, equal treatment also included closing the park to everyone. That the Park existed and was open to Whites Only before that restriction as to Whites only was ruled unconstitutional had NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE THAT EQUAL PROTECTION INCLUDED CLOSING THE PARK TO EVERYONE. Thus Closing the Park rather than opening it up to non-whites complies with the Equal Protection of the Law Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The same in this situation. That such marriage ceremonies were held in that office before last Friday has no bearing on the issue that Homosexual couples are being discriminated when a rule is adopted banning ALL such ceremonies, a rule that applies to both heterosexual and Homosexual couples.

Remember this is NOT a 1964 Civil Rights Act case but one under the 14th Amendment. The burden of showing a violation of that Amendment is on the Couple that wanted to have the ceremony in that office. There have to show the rule was only applied to them as of that date. prior performance of such acts are NOT relevant. The test is the rules as those rules were enforced on the day of the incident. As long as the Office can say it is a rule they adopted and enforced from last Friday forward, there are NOT in violation of the 14th Amendment.

[DonViejo]

53. Please keep coming up with cool rationales and excuses to condemn the Reverend's act

of civil disobedience!

[LanternWaste]

59. No doubt, there's a long a storied history of opposite-sex couples being arrested too

No doubt, there's a long a storied history of opposite-sex couples being arrested too for performing weddings in an office that wasn't theirs...

[Bluenorthwest]

55. If it were not for Diprizio and the Cannon-Plunkett family I'd just rant about Alabama for a while

because there is nothing easier to do than to make a greatest hits list for Alabama, but this is a wedding day, and I wish them well in their marriage. And what more fitting gift than the gift of civil disobedience, the very thing that has made such wedding days possible in the first place.