Wednesday, March 16, 2016

'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

Officials in several states are not simply "falling in line" with the sexual revolutionaries' demands regarding same-sex "marriage."  For example, Kentucky appears likely to create new marriage license forms that will be absent any officials' names, and Alabama will likely eliminate marriage licenses entirely in favor of simple contractual forms that virtually negate government-sanctioned marriage.

For background, read click headlines below to read previous articles:

Missouri Christians' Likely Big Win vs. Gay Agenda (RFRA)

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' South Carolina; Other States

Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Also read Citizens Reject President Obama's Homosexual Ambassador

-- From "Kentucky Senate approves bill to require two different marriage license forms" by Jack Brammer, Lexington Herald-Leader 2/18/16

Under Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West, R-Paris, one marriage license would designate the “bride” and “groom” and the other would designate “first party” and “second party.” West said couples could use either form, both of which would require applicants to note their genders so historians who review marriage licenses could know their sex.

Opponents declared the bill unconstitutional minutes after the Republican-led Senate approved it on a 30-8 vote.

[Last year,] Then-Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, changed Kentucky’s marriage license form after the Supreme Court ruling to remove “bride” and “groom,” replacing them with “first party” and “second party.” Republican Matt Bevin issued an executive order shortly after taking office in December to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses and urged the legislature to take further action.

The bill now goes to the House, where Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, has indicated the chamber would pass its own marriage license bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Senate approves replacing marriage licenses with contracts" by The Associated Press 3/15/16

Senators approved the bill 23-3 on Tuesday. It would require couples to file a form recording their marriage rather than have county probate offices issue licenses.

Republican Sen. Greg Albritton of Range says the change would end controversy over marriage licenses while ensuring that people can marry whomever they choose.

A few Alabama probate judges have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

The bill now moves to the Alabama House of Representatives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

From "Alabama Supreme Court Rejects U. S. Supreme Court’s Marriage Opinion" posted at Liberty Counsel 3/7/16

Today, in a 170-page ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion by issuing its own Judgment in favor of Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus. In the petition, Liberty Counsel demanded on behalf of its Alabama clients – Alabama Policy Institute (“API”) and Alabama Citizens Action Program (“ALCAP”) – that the state’s probate judges obey Alabama’s Constitution and laws. On March 4, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges to immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today’s opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion ‘illegitimate’ will be remembered in history like the ‘shot heard around the world,’” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker issued concurring opinions openly criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court marriage opinion. Using Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s term of “five lawyers” when referring to the Supreme Court Obergefell opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a blistering 105-page concurring opinion . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama's top judge: 'Same-sex marriage' creation 'lawless'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/4/16

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday dispensed with what probably was the last legal case over the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation last summer of “same-sex marriage,” dismissing several related petitions and ripping the nation’s highest court as “lawless.”

The Alabama court also left undisturbed its determination that the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, are constitutional and should be followed by the state’s probate judges, the only ones in Alabama who can issue marriage licenses.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote in the order dismissing several petitions in the case: “As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence, the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this court that uphold the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as explained above, I concur.”

He said the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling “is completely without constitutional authority, a usurpation of state sovereignty, and an effort to impose the will of ‘five lawyers,’ as Chief Justice Roberts stated … on the people of this country.

Moore wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is “like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade that preceded it, is an immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical opinion.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why the Gay Marriage Legal Battle Just Entered Uncharted Territory" by Nate Madden, Conservative Review 3/9/16

. . . the highest court in the state [of Alabama] has ruled that Alabama’s laws hold on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s ruling only applies to the parties of the case. Now the Alabama order applies to all probate judges in the state, and judges could be held in contempt of Supreme Court order, according to a telephone interview with [founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat] Staver.

Many will wonder how a federal ruling could not apply to all states in the union. After all, this has been the commonly-accepted practice for similar rulings of this magnitude, especially ones involving the 14th Amendment incorporation. This is where it gets really fuzzy. What happens now still “remains to be seen,” according to Staver. This is because the last time the United States saw something like this was in the years following the pro-slavery Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in which several state and circuit courts issued rulings that were in direct contradiction to that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

. . . The fight over marriage has undeniably spilled over into several other different, yet interconnected, legal battles over religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association and, in this case, America’s very understanding of federalism itself. While the futures of the rights enumerated in the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is still up in the air regarding the ongoing and avaricious demands of the sexual revolutions, it would seem that the fate of the Tenth Amendment might not yet be completely sealed on this issue.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible