* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MOBILE, Ala. — A federal judge here ruled on Thursday that the local probate judge cannot refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, potentially adding some clarity to a judicial quarrel that has roiled Alabama for most of a week.
The order by Judge Callie V. S. Granade of Federal District Court came after a brief hearing and prompted cheers and crying in the halls of the probate court here, where several couples obtained licenses and were married before the license office closed.
While Judge Granade had declared Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on Jan. 23, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, insisted in his own order Sunday night that Judge Granade’s ruling did not apply to the state’s probate judges and directed them not to comply.
The ruling on Thursday was the first in this case with a probate judge as a defendant — Judge Don Davis of Mobile County — and was seen by lawyers for the gay couples who brought the case as a clear signal to probate judges around the state what their duties were.
“This judge knows what his job is and knows very clearly that it applies to him as a probate judge,” said Heather Fann, the lawyer for the four gay couples in court on Thursday. “I don’t know why any other probate judge in the state of Alabama would be any different than he is.”
In a relatively straightforward order, Judge Granade restated her finding that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and concluded that if the couples before her “take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license on the ground that plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples.”
Judge Davis immediately complied. Why did it get to this? Why would probate judges be any different than anyone else? Judge Moore was trying to clone George Wallace, apparently.
I find it strange that many ultra conservatives throw “rule of law” about often, especially when it comes to immigration and school issues. I find it odd that they suddenly feel exempt from the rule of law when the ban on same sex marriage is declared unconstitutional. I am not sure why they feel that this law is one that they can conveniently ignore.
Some of our contributors might suggest that same-sex marriage defies God’s law. If we can simply ignore our civil laws in favor of our religious laws, then what separates us from some of the middle eastern cultures we see with such disdain?
In making this judgement, the Federal bench is requiring citizens (the people of Alabama collectively) to sanction same-sex relationships via a marriage license which violates the moral and religious beliefs of some. Judge Moore’s effort roughly mirrors the actions of our beloved South regarding slavery. The Federal Government required citizens to free human slaves which violated the commercial and economic beliefs of some land owners in the South.
I am not separating the South from any other locale. Humans are humans and they generally react the same way to how moral relativism affects their day-to-day existence.
Also if Judge Moore wants to be Governor Moore or Senator Moore, his pointless (my opinion) actions would bolster his chances among the more religiously inclined Alabamians.
Do our civil laws need to conform to religious directives? Isn’t a civil marriage is different from a religious marriage?
If we need to match our civil laws up to religious directives – imagine what we would need to do. They should have allowed same sex civil unions a long time a go and we would not be talking about same sex marriage now.
@BSinVA
BS,
While I disagree with the comparison, I do agree with your analysis of human motivations.
And as a believer who applies biblical world-view, which includes eschatology I have concluded the following:
-Conservatives, especially Christian Conservatives, will continue to fight against this on legal grounds, and will eventually lose, thus;
– Same-sex marriage will become be legal in every state.
-There will be a clear split within the Christian community, a true schism.
I’ll save the rest of what I see unfolding for discussions amongst other believers, as they involve eschatology, and fit into a much larger discussion of past & current events, and how they relate to the future.
Yes, I had to look up the word.
It’s probably good that you are saving the rest because I would have no idea what you are talking about, in all probablility.
My end of the world thoughts usually deal with an uninhabitable earth, an asteroid strike, or a sun dying. I don’t dwell because I probably wont be around unless there is a catastrophic event either man made like nuclear blast or an asteroid strike.
Pat, on your last point, I could not agree more. Civil unions are a social contract, dealing with legal rights and protections, property and inheritance, child custody, taxation, and is subject to licensure. Religious Marriage is a sacrament, not subject to licensure, and having no legal impact without first satisfying the civil union requirement. The fact that traditionally society has co-mingled both the terms, and the perception, is why we have this issue.
I would like to see all licensed “marriage” turn into civil unions and marriage stay within the confines of churches. I also believe churches should be protected from having to marry anyone outside the faith.
One small correction, marriage is not a sacrament in the Episcopal Church. I believe it is sacred but not a sacrament. Only communion and baptism are sacriments in that church. There are websites that list the sacriments the same as the Catholic church but I have no idea where that is coming from. If Cindy comes on here, she can tell us. Scout might help also. I haven’t been a practicing Episcopalian in many years, although I still consider myself an Episcopalian.
@Moon-howler
“My end of the world thoughts usually deal with an uninhabitable earth, an asteroid strike, or a sun dying.”
That’s why I chose not to delve into this, except to use it as to how it relates to the topic of same-sex marriage, and how the issue is viewed by Bible believers, and why they oppose same-sex marriage. If one truly wants to understand where the other side is coming from, this is important. I’ll leave it there, and save the rest for another time.
When you say “Bible believers” you mean literal interpretation?
For clarity sake, as long as specific religions aren’t required to perform ceremonies, why do you care? I guess I am suggesting that the sacredness comes from within the beliefs of that church rather than from the state or perhaps the Church of what’s happening now (not to be glib).
My eye is giving me a headache. I think you and I agree that civil union and marriage should be separate deals. but they aren’t at this stage of the game.
I don’t know. It isn’t hurting me or weakening my marriage. Why should I personally care if women marry women and men marry men? I don’t care what men marry women.
@Steve, I know what I am trying to say. I do not think same-sex couples have a right to marry in your church. I would defend your right to have that not happen if that were the wishes of your church.
I don’t think the state has a right to forbid them a civil ceremony or a ceremony in a church with fewer restrictions. I also don’t think same sex couples should be dept from the over 600 monetary benefits sanctioned by the state.
As long as I agree to protect your rights within your religion, why should it matter what happens elsewhere?
No. I don’t mean “literal”. I’ll tell you what I mean at another time. I really don’t want to hi-jack this thread.
@Moon-howler
“@Steve, I know what I am trying to say.”
Moon, I think we are in agreement on most of this. I see this as an outcome of the secularization of our society. My reference in eschatology is many, like me see this as both foretold, and inevitable.
Where I agree with you is, as (civil) Americans, homosexuals should be; free from government discrimination, free to associate with whom they choose, as free from violence as anyone else from crime, free to enter into contracts, designate as agents, etc. with whomever they choose.
We also as a society, need to understand is there are people who genuinely believe homosexuality is immoral, and same-sex marriage is wrong, and until quite recently, this view was the majority view in this country. I know the GBLT lobby or whatever they are calling themselves these day feels like they have momentum, now that the courts are weighing in. Where they, IMHO are crossing the line is by going after wedding caterers, photographers, and other small businesses who believe in traditional marriage, for holding true to what their faith teaches. I also think the government is wrong for helping them do so. You want to see some real societal strife? Let someone go after a church for refusing to perform or host a same-sex wedding. I think you and I see this as inevitable, and we both agree that the churches need freedom in this arena.
Those compelled against their will, are of the same opinion still.
Allow me to weigh in on the small business issue. I can agree to a small business not entering into a contract for same sex wedding-ceremonial-festivity contracts if those relationships violate their moral code, codes, commandments, myths. That is IF they also do not take business tax exemptions for any business expenses on the Federal taxes. One shouldn’t get bennies from Uncle Sam if you don’t want to do what Uncle wants you to do.
That seems fair.
I have very mixed feelings about the small businesses. Part of me thinks they should be able to go with their consciences. The other part of me starts thinking “what if the reason was miscegenation. Should they be forced to comply?
BS’s solution seems the fairest.
Churches should never be forced to perform ceremonies for anyone, same sex or opposite sex.
Virginia forbids ministers (with criminal penalties) from marrying people that do not have a marriage license. That seems a much bigger affront to religious freedom than recognizing households that some religion believe have been created in sin.
When pastors do not object to having to first get permission from the state to marry someone in their congregation but then complain loudly and bitterly about how their religious liberty is harmed because a judge will marry someone outside their congregation that they would excommunicate rather than marry, something is really screwed up in their definition of religious liberty.
The apocalyptic vision of End Times is best viewed metaphoric. Every generation of social conservatives feels the end is near when society progresses past their ability to understand change. Indeed the end is near as that generation soon dies. Fortunately God has no problem coming anew to the next generation and the circle continues. For my grandparents generation the end times were near because of divorce/remarriage. And, war in the middle east was the sign of the imminent return of Christ.
Many people believe that certain things have to happen in Israel for the end times to come. I don’t remember what all has to happen because I don’t buy into it. but…you are right.
Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
I agree with you that sometimes religious liberty is seen to work only one direction.
We had a fundamentalist preacher from Georgia move his congregation to Colorado in the 60s. I forget whether he thought he’d be on higher ground in case there were a second flood or whether he thought the Commie threat was going to bring about the Rapture. I sometimes wonder what happened to them after several decades passed without seeing 4 horsemen….
Were they a cult? Where does religion leave off and cult begin? When families start moving to be with a leader, I think we start moving into cult territory.
They were a fundamentalist Church of God sect, I believe, with many members from the same family. There were a few family members in the public schools – girls all wore full skirts, ponytails, white socks and sneakers, no make-up, and didn’t shave their legs. They weren’t like the rest of us average Southern hussies.
I am laughing hysterically. Remember the light pink and even white lipstick from that era? No southern hussies there.
Businesses that are sole proprietorships should have conscience exemptions. When they use incorporation to shield liability they also give up some of the conscience clause protection. I think I’m agreeing with BS here.
If we allow businesses to discriminate then a monopoly could cause real harm to a minority segment. Would we be happy if the gas or electric company refused to provide service to customers who were immigrants from, say, Albonia because the utility directors disliked Albonians?
People can believe whatever they want but they can’t use that belief to punish others who don’t believe as they do. That is what the owners of some businesses want to do to homosexuals: punish them for living an unapproved lifestyle. I don’t think it fair to allow corporations that shield their owners from getting sued to discriminate based on protected class status.
If you have a home business making wedding cupcakes and you decline to make cupcakes for a gay couple the bigotry is personal and not a societal problem. If you are the biggest and only wedding cake company in 50 miles that can make a 20 ft high wedding cake out of cupcakes and you refuse to allow your staff to complete an order because the couple is gay, then the harm to society makes it a crime against the community.
Where this gets dicey is when mega churches essentially become big businesses with monopoly powers on some local business segments like child care. Can the only affordable licensed child care for a community, Mega Anti-Gay Evangelical Church Inc, exclude service to children from gay couples? I hope not.
I don’t know why they would WANT services.
Ed, you have given me much to think about.
My apologies to all. I sincerely did not intend for this to become an “end-times” debate. My point was only that for a certain set of Christians (to which I belong), one of the (many) signs of the return is a shift from “God-centered” cultural morality, to a “man-centered” one. With marriage being one of the conerstones of Christian doctrine (as well as that of other faiths), seeing somewhat recent government sanction of same-sex marriage, as well as the on-going efforts to “drive God from the public square” the POV of these Christians is understandable. A reasonable person might say “while I don’t agree with them, I can see why they feel this way”.
Whether or not this is a “sign of the times” remains to be seen. I just wanted to point out that some do. I happen to be one of them. That is why I’m not out there carrying signs, starting groups, etc. etc. Whether I approve or not, I believe that the traditional-marriage side will lose this fight. That’s my point.
Steve, I apologize. It is my fault for prodding. I was curious. I have issues I feel passionately about and other issues I feel logically about. This one is the later. Thanks for giving me the answer I was looking for.
Just one more question (well maybe just one more…) do you think most people have as logical of an explanation as to why as you do?
How many people are just grossed out “that queers want to get married?” I understand that there is also an intellectual, fairly non-confrontational argument to this issue, (I would place you in this Venn circle). There are others who fall into the ” I saw it in the bible therefore it is so” category, and then the first one I mentioned. Then there are people like me who think it will evolve just because it is logical from a civil rights point of view. Then there are the folks who feel passionate about it, usually because it affects them personally.
Again, thanks for an explanation.
Some of us think that the “drive God from the public square” is a carefully crafted lie intended to cover up the primary objective [of those using the term] of using the power of government to impose a theological framework and morals upon their neighbors in violation of the establishment clause.
I can’t disagree with you, Ed. I have no problem with people bringing their God along with them to help them out. I just don’t want to have to deal with someone else’s god who might not be my god. We all think ours is best. Otherwise, our god wouldn’t have chosen to be our God. Not sure where this is going.
Amen, Ed.
To you it’s a canard. To others its truth. I guess begins with one’s world view. Not trying to start a debate. Just trying to explain one perspective.
I suppose my guard goes up because there are so many different belief systems.
Let’s face it, we would all be up in arms (literally) if suddenly we were expected to worship Allah. I would rather keep religion out of the public square. That way we can each go do out own things in our own places of worship, or not, if we choose, without trampling on the sensibilities of others.
I don’t think your belief system, from what I understand of it, is a canard. I guess the best way for me to describe it is that its sort of like mine except on extreme steroids. I certainly don’t mean that offensively. If I were you, I would see it as a compliment.
Well I should probably just say it…sigh…liberal Christian here without being a congregant. Not that I am liberal but that my church background is liberal Christianity. The deeds vs faith crowd. Feed the hungry and the poor and behave yourself set of values.
When I grew up (small town South), people went to church on Sunday and synagog on Saturday and generally minded their own business. The churches had their manger scenes on their own property. The Catholics allowed us heathen Presbyterians o play bingo during the week. We kiddos would occasionally go to church with our friends of different faiths. Religion wasn’t out there in the public square. I think the “Moral Majority” was a political ploy which introduced the “My church is better than your church. I’m more a Christian than you” meme into our public life.
The kid who lived behind me in Atlanta did the pew-packing thing and always invited others to church. My mother would never let me go. She was worried about soul snatchers I think. I meant that very seriously btw.
In NJ I went to a non-denominational church. We were considered heathens because it was a heavily Catholic area. We were near a heavily Jewish population also. (Morristown area). What is funny now is that the area, Ironia, to be specific, is now quite the upscale area. It was very rural when I lived there.
@Censored bybvbl
Censored,
And I agree that this was a mistake, on the part of the churches. Do you remember any carols being sung by the school chorus or glee club? It was common in my public school system. We had half days on wednesdays, so the catholic kids could attend CCD. There were mangers and menorah on the public green. These things I remember.
Carols were sung in schools until about 25 years ago. I think there used to be a manger by the old court house.
Going back further, to Charlottesville, I remember mangers being in Lee Park. (right next to Robert E. Lee as a matter of fact)
It didn’t bother anyone that I am aware of, but then again, I was the majority religion so why WOULD I notice.
@Steve Thomas
The public school system indeed was the worst offender when it came to religion. When I was in the ninth grade, the school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance and a mandatory reading from the Bible. The Jews in our classes were told they could stand in the hall if they wanted to. I think by the next year, the mandatory Bible reading had ceased although I may be wrong about that. Christmas carols were part of the chorus’s repertoire. The school holidays were also based on Christian holidays. But the big difference was that everyone knew who went to what church or to the local synagog, but there was no proselytizing except by itinerant preachers at tent revivals. People knew not to discuss politics or religion. They valued an individual’s right to his or her opinion without having to tell them they were wrong or going to hell or were a fool. The fundamentalist Baptists I knew didn’t tell their friends that they were going to hell because they danced.
Religion as well as politics suffers from swings or equal and opposite reactions. People are tired of moralist busybodies at this point.
Censored, you just set off a bomb in my brain. You are right. People didn’t discuss their religion. We made fun of Richard Wood in a good way because he was smelling his Biff-burger on Friday nights until midnight. Then he ate it. That was about it. If you made fun of someone’s religion it was done in YOUR house behind closed doors. It was considered rude to do it in public. Most importantly, I was raised to not talk about my religion. It was considered showing off.
Churches that sold their souls to the devil of political power via Moral Majority are now are complaining about reaping the rewards. The wages of sin…
I remember how much I liked Focus on the Family as a Christian program until they ruined it by converting it into a platform for anti-gay and partisan politics.
My children sang and played Christian carols at the winter concert this past season at a public high school. This is not something only in the past. What would eliminate those songs is an obnoxious Christians object to sharing the season with songs from Muslim, Jews and atheists traditions. Then we would have to eliminate all religious songs and stick with secular songs. Some “…reason for the season…” activists refuse to share the season insisting on Merry Christmas instead of the more inclusive Happy Holidays and when their efforts “drive God from the public square” they refuse to take responsibility for the impact of their refusal to share.
@Censored bybvbl
Censored,
Never any bible readings in school, but I was schooled in Boston. And yes, religion and politics were rarely discussed, mostly out of politeness, I guess. I will also agree that culture, religion and politics due oscillate between the extremes, and I guess if you live long enough, you notice the changes more.
And one last point, before I take my leave for the weekend: I do not want to live in a theocracy, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jedi, Neo-Pagan or otherwise. I am not going to condemn anyone for their faith, faith-traditions or lack thereof. I am always happy to share “why I believe” when asked, but I’m not going to chase anyone down and say “you have to believe, and believe what I believe”.
Stay warm, everyone…and I mean everyone.
Steve, that is probably your best attribute. You don’t share your beliefs at the end of a sword.
ps don’t you think 74 degrees is a little TOO warm?
Imagine if a politician advanced a bill that banned same sex non married couples from living together. Co Habitation is against many religions. I thought that was going to end society at some point.
Then birth control. Same as the HPV vaccine is going to make girls somehow think that sex is ok – like the bad outcome of sex is cancer, never mind the pregnancy.
@Steve Thomas
Yes, there are routine swings. A lot of peeps didn’t realize that those swings apply to house prices and the stock market as well. Live and learn…
I’m dropping in late. As often, a lot of good comments in this thread. As for the “driving religion from the public square” issue, it is an entirely manufactured fear tactic, very much of a piece with Fox News’s annual “War on Christmas” hysteria. I always thought the better phrase for whatever people think they are talking about on the Public Square discussion is to talk about a tendency to “Drag God Through the Public Square”, a trait I much lament. It cheapens religion and turns it into a base and degraded tool for pols looking for fear points. God lives within each of us to the extent our spiritual awareness evolves and matures to allow Him in. When a God-filled, God-purposed person walks the public by-ways, God is very much there, cannot be excluded, even if we are talking about how to pay for filling potholes. We protect the “other world” nature and profundity of religion in this country by making clear that Government keeps its hands off religion. No taxpayor-supported Hosannas for red-blooded Americans. Too bad we can’t get politicians to leave religion alone and not use it for cheap thrills at the voting booth. No one has to worry about God being excluded from public life, particularly in this country.
Standing ovation @Scout.
Steve you’ve made some great points here -I appreciate your ability to articulate so clearly.
@Moon-howler
Second that. Well stated.
@Steve Thomas
“Religious Marriage is a sacrament, not subject to licensure, and having no legal impact without first satisfying the civil union requirement.”
Well if that is the case, why does the minister have to sign the license?
Standing ovation for Scout and Censored.
Polygamy is practiced frequently by Fundamentalist LDS via ecclesiastical marriage, not state marriage.
Moon = way back up the thread at #6, you asked about our Anglican/Episcopalian view of sacraments. The answer is in Article XXV of the 39 Articles of Faith. Only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered sacraments in the Anglican tradition. Article XXV acknowledges that other ceremonies, like confirmation and marriage, are considered commonly to be “sacraments”, but that only Baptism and Communion are grounded in Scripture as such.
As noted before, a lot of confusion on the marriage issue is caused by the fact that there is both a civil legal status called “marriage” and a religious rite which, in English, commonly goes by the same name. They are actually two quite different things. The confusion is compounded because, as an administrative matter, most states (perhaps all) permit religious officiants fold in the civil status sub silentio during the religious ceremonies. The religious minister is delegated by the state to sign the documents memorializing the civil status (re George’s question).
I lived in France for a while and it was common to see couples in wedding dress on the city hall steps following their civil ceremony. It was up to them after that if they wanted to go have a religious ceremony also. We kind of smusched those two events together, and that smusching is one of the reasons opportunistic pols can get folks all fired up that the issues concerning civil marriage somehow affect the sanctity of religious marriages, which, of course, they don’t.
To validate that vows were exchanged – otherwise the license is just a piece of paper. Can also be validated by specific non religious people.
The clergyman is acting pursuant to a deputization from the State when he signs the civil papers. It makes the trip to city hall (or the country court or whatever) unnecessary. One-stop shopping and all that. But, it goes back to the smooshing together of these two distinct aspects of marriage – civil and religious. There probably would have been less political turmoil if we had kept them distinct.