Today: Dec 07, 2024

Alabama lifts ban on gay marriage: What it means for same-sex couples in America

Vivian Englund – Copy Editor 

A few weeks ago, the battle for same-sex marriage equality made its way to Alabama. The result of the battle was that gay marriage is now legal in the state.

This contributes to the now 37 states where gay marriage is legal. This is an incline of 18 states in the last four months alone.

This increase can be credited to the Supreme Court who declined to hear appeals from decisions acknowledging same-sex marriage.

While many states are moving forward with legalizing same-sex marriage, others are pulling bans on it. Thankfully, many of these states, are appealing the bans and are in the process of repealing the bans.

There is a downside to certain aspects of the new rule in Alabama however. Some probate judges in Alabama are refusing same-sex couples’ marriage licenses. At least 11 out of 67 counties in Alabama are refusing licenses.

To put this issue into perspective, one of Alabama’s judges, Moore has been known for his uncensored stance on same-sex marriage. In a custody case in 2002, Moore called homosexuality an “inherent evil” because the mother identified as lesbian.

Luckily, the Supreme Court made it clear the Moore was essentially powerless in their decision.

While Moore and other judges are solely not issuing same-sex marriage licenses, some judges are refusing to issue opposite sex marriage licenses as well.

Regardless, is the refusal of marriage licenses legal when there are no existing laws against the two parties? Absolutely not.

This is creating a conflict between the state chief justice and the federal judiciary. On Feb. 9, the Supreme Court ruled that they would not hold the order until the issue was resolved. Basically, no matter what the probate judges do, same-sex marriage will carry on in Alabama.

The Supreme Court’s decision to let Alabama carry on is causing speculation of their stance on marriage equality. Typically actions like this are huge signs that they are pro same-sex marriage.

If they were against or indifferent about the issue they typically would table the issue.

According to BBC, one of the first marriage licenses was issued to Dee and Laura Bush in Birmingham. Dee and Laura have been a couple for seven years now and have five children.

The Bushes were among many other couples to receive a license. Many couples camped outside of courtrooms in hopes of receiving a marriage license of their own.

The couples sat amongst both protestors and supporters of gay marriage as well.

Unfortunately, same-sex marriage is still not legal nationally. But maybe these changes of heart in the Supreme Court will means things are about to change.

We are keeping an eye out for future victories and anticipate long awaited justice in the fight for equal marriage rights.

Photo Credit: Mark Hawkins

2 Comments

  1. The right wing tried to make a tremendous and spirited argument that the refusal of some probate judges to issue same-sex marriage licenses was a reflection of the will of the people of Alabama not to be trampled upon by the federal judiciary. Sadly, Alabama has gone down this road before, when it became one of the states to implement a program of “massive resistance” to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). To be known today for one of the state’s less than finest hours does not strike the writer as being particularly helpful to the anti-gay marriage cause — nevertheless, this is the position that organizations such as the misnamed “National Organization for Marriage” (NOM) adopted in the face of the intransigence of some Alabama probate judges to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

    What the hard right does NOT want readers to know is that resistance to US District Judge Callie V. Granade’s ruling rapidly crumbled — from a lopsided majority of probate judges to a lopsided minority of such judges. Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (known as the Supremacy Clause) declares that “[the US ]Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Note the specific sub-clause which mandates that “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    This clearly indicates that state court judges may not invalidate federal law. By extension, a state court may not invalidate the substance of an Article III court which has declared a state statute and / or state constitutional amendment to be violative of any of the provisions of the US Constitution. At the present time, neither the US Supreme Court nor the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over appeals arising from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) have stepped in to place Judge Granade’s opinion on hold. (This is widely viewed by court-watchers as an indication that SCOTUS will reverse the decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in DeBoer v. Snyder, 14-1341 (2014) et. al., thereby legalizing gay marriage nationwide.) This makes Judge Granade’s opinion the highest controlling legal authority in the state of Alabama, and her order is crystal clear (a few days after handing down her initial decision, she expanded its scope to include at least one probate judge who had resisted the granting of same-sex marriage licenses).

    So now we see legal processes unfold as they should — and we also see the hard right becoming increasingly shrill and strident. They recently called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from any cases dealing with gay marriage, because she has officiated at gay weddings, and made a perfectly correct statement to the effect that the American people would not have to undergo a substantial social adjustment were the Court to rule in favor of gay marriage (note that she made no reference as to how the Court would actually rule, although it has become crystal clear to most court-watchers that the repeated and monotonous refusal of SCOTUS to take a gay marriage case for consideration (until it granted certiorari to the Sixth Circuit’s opinion) and its continued refusal to place pro-gay marriage decisions on hold indicate strongly that at least five members of the Court believe that gay marriage should be legalized).

    So ends the whining of the hard right — they die not with a bang, but with a whimper…

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  2. There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. Polyamory, polygamy, open relationships are not for everyone, but they are for some. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality “just for some” is not equality. Let’s stand up for EVERY ADULT’S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from Blog

Don't Miss

Photos from Southern racial justice protest

Photo Credit: Palmer Piana

Students rally against new Trump policies

Dylan Haviland – Managing Editor Haroon Chaudhry, the president of the Muslim