Roy Moore says probate judges have duty to enforce same-sex marriage ban
Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 04:13 PM - Edit history (3)
Source: AL.com
By Mike Cason mcason@al.com
on January 06, 2016 at 12:09 PM, updated January 06, 2016 at 1:11 PM
Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an order today saying that a ruling issued last March by the Alabama Supreme Court remains in effect and that probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary" to Alabama's law and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
In a four-page administrative order, Moore said the conflict between the state court ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June has caused "confusion and uncertainty" among probate judges.
Moore said he issued the order today in his role as administrative head of the state court system. He quoted a state law that says the chief justice is empowered to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state."
Moore wrote that since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that many Alabama probate judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, while others are issuing licenses only to opposite-sex couples or not issuing licenses at all. ... "This disparity affects the administration of justice in this state," he wrote.
Read more: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/roy_moore_says_probate_judges.html
Hat tip, Joe.My.God: BREAKING: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore Issues Order To Block Same-Sex Marriages
Another link:
Alabama top justice orders judges not to issue gay marriage licenses
I wonder if this had anything to do with his temper tantrum:
Ala. judge goes after same-sex marriage after son indicted
TROY, Ala. - Just as news emerged that his son pleaded not guilty to drug charges, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore demanded the state's probate judges don't allow gay people to marry -- yet again.
Moore made headlines last year in his efforts to block same-sex marriage in Alabama after the landmark Supreme Court ruling made it the law of the land. It appears he has not abandoned the cause.
CBS affiliate WIAT in Birmingham reports Moore issued an administrative order statewide Wednesday on marriage licenses that stated: "Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect."
It is a very similar order issued last year by Moore after Alabama's anti-same-sex marriage laws were ruled in federal court to be unconstitutional, and it's not clear what practical effect the order has had previously.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I like that 
This is the same old shit from the Civil War. We know how well that worked out.
States' Rights/Tenth Amendment versus Supremacy Clause/General Welfare Clause (x2) in the U.S. Constitution.
And we know who wins every time.
<--this is the kind of crap that makes we legal types bang our heads in frustration.
Here is the actual Order:
http://www.alacourt.gov/docs/160106-AdminOrder.pdf
In summation, Justice Moore pointed out that the US Supreme Court ruling technically only applied to the litigates involved in that case, and Alabama was NOT a party to that action. Moore pointed out the Alabama Supreme Court PRIOR to the US Supreme Court ruling had BANNED same sex marriages based on a US Supreme Court Case from the 1880s. Based on that case, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a court order banning issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couple.
All of the above was BEFORE the Federal US Supreme Court Decision that technically did not APPLY to Alabama for ALabama was NOT a party to that action. . Moore REFUSED to say that Alabama law as to marriage still BANNED same sex marriage. MOore's order only said that issue is working its way through the courts of Alabama and when it reaches the Supreme Court of Alabama the Court will decide that issue then. Moore's order only stated that until a Court rules otherwise the old Court Order of the Alabama Supreme Court is still in place and must be followed.
Nevertheless, recent developments of potential relevance since Obergefell may impact this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that Obergefell did not directly invalidate the marriage laws of states under its jurisdiction. While applying Obergefell as precedent, the Eighth Circuit rejected the Nebraska defendants' suggestion that Obergefell mooted the case. The Eighth Circuit stated: "The Court invalidated laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee -- not Nebraska." Waters v Ricketts, 798 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In two other cases the Eighth Circuit repeated its statement that Obergefell directly invalidated only the laws of the four states in the Sixth Circuit. See Jernigan v Crane,796 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2015) ("not Arkansas"
; Rosenbrahn v Daugaard, 799 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir 2015) ("not South Dakota" .
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas was even more explicit: "While Obergefell is clearly controlling Supreme Court precedent, it did not directly strike down the provisions of the Kansas Constitution and statutes that bar the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses ...." Marie v Mosier, 2015 WL 4724389 (D. Kan. August 10, 2015). Rejecting the Kansas defendants' claim that Obergefell mooted the case, the District Court stated that "Obergefell" did not rule on the Kansas plaintiffs' claims." Id.
The above cases reflect an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction: a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court. "A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings." Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 (1989). "o court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party ... no matter how broadly it words its decree." Alemite Mfg. Corp. v Staff, 42 F.3d 832, 832 (2d Cir. 1930). See also Rule 65, Fed R. Civ. P., on the scope of an injunction.
Whether or not the Alabama Supreme Court will apply the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, or some other legal analysis is yet to be determined. Yet the fact remains that the administration of justice in the State of Alabama has been adversely affected by the apparent conflict between the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in API and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell.........
IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT:
Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.
DONE January 6, 2016.
This reminds me of the US Supreme Court Case upholding the Jailing of Martin Luther King for violating an ILLEGAL Court Order. The US Supreme Court ruled that it did NOT matter that the Court Order was illegal when King violated the Court Order, what matter was King disobeyed a Court Order.
The US Supreme Court Ruled that what King should have done was file an appeal of the illegal order NOT violate that illegal order. Since King violated a Court Order the Judge who issued that order, had the right to jail Martin Luther King jr., for contempt. The Appeal of that Conviction for Contempt was appealed but the US Supreme Court upheld that conviction, for the proper procedure was to APPEAL the illegal order NOT to disobey it. People MUST obey Court Orders, even if the Order is illegal.
The same in this case, until a court rules that the existing Alabama Court Order prohibiting probate officers from issuing same sex marriage is unconstitutional, the prior Alabama court Supreme Court Order has to be obeyed UNTIL that Court Order is thrown out by the courts. That is all Moore is saying by his administrative letter, i,e. obey the existing Court Order till a Judge rules it is unconstitutional.
the Redneck Judges can ignore completely "
T)o protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
