Parker Snider: Three years after Obergefell
In June of 2015, same-sex marriage became legal in all fifty states. The Supreme Court ruled in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in favor of Jim Obergefell, whose marriage in Maryland was not recognized in Ohio. Unexpected to most, exciting to some and alarming to others, the Obergefell ruling was hailed as monumental, final, and as historic as Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade. It’s been three years now. A lot hasn’t changed: Alabama is still good at football, Tom Cruise is still making Mission Impossible movies, and our state’s U.S. House of Representatives delegation is still legislating. Some things, however, have changed – including the public opinion of gay marriage. From 2015 to 2017, the percentage of Americans that favored same-sex marriage increased from 55 to 62 percent. What was in 2012 opposed by most Americans is now accepted by almost two-thirds of Americans. That number won’t be going down any time soon. The approval rate of same-sex marriage by millennials is just shy of 75% and still increasing. Same-sex marriage faces most of its opposition in those born before 1946, and even that approval rate is nearing the 50% mark. Clearly, same-sex marriage is approaching complete normalization in the United States. What is less clear, though, is the further impact—beyond the legalization of same-sex marriage—this normalization will have on the future. Conservative pundits everywhere asked the “what’s next?” question concerning same-sex marriage before Obergefell, suggesting polygamy and the surely-to-be-legalized ability to “marry a turtle” (a direct quote from Sean Hannity). Regardless of whether these suggestions are likely, I tend to look to Europe to see what social movement might come next to America instead of the musings of political personalities. In Europe, polygamy and animal marriage is still illegal. What is happening in Europe, however, is a disturbing movement against religious liberty. For example, the Council of Europe determined in 2007 that their definition of human rights must supersede “any religious principle”, creating clear problems for both Christians and Muslims who would refuse to officiate a same-sex marriage. France’s burqa ban, a law disallowing Muslim women from wearing certain religious clothing, is still on the books, and the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled that many private employers can ban religious symbols from the workplace. Even more worrisome is the fact that Ireland’s prime minister recently promised that many Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions. Unfortunately, we already see shadows of the European reality within our borders. Attempts to force Christian bakers to create cakes for same-sex marriages, nuns to pay for birth control, and Christian colleges to approve of same-sex relationships demonstrate that Americans must be ready to protect religious liberty. One year after the Obergefell ruling, in the summer of 2016, I stumbled upon Jim Obergefell. He, along with others, was a witness in a House Oversight Committee Hearing I was attending. I was, admittedly, surprised to be in the same room as the man largely responsible for the legalization of same-sex marriage and somewhat apprehensive to the idea of speaking with him. In my interactions with him, however, Mr. Obergefell did not seem to be an anti-Christian warrior but instead a gracious and kind man. To my surprise and confusion, I saw no desire in him to eliminate Christianity or even any animosity towards Christians. Meeting Jim Obergefell showed me something important: most people are not fighting against something, but for something. They’re not angry, they’re hopeful, and genuinely trying to make the world a better place. That reality is a gift for those of us who want a solution. Three years after Obergefell, Americans should expect conflicts between religious liberty and the right to same-sex marriage created in 2015. When they come, we must work not towards a binary win-lose solution but for one that allows these two foundational American principles—religious liberty and individual freedom—to flourish together. ••• Parker Snider is Policy Relations Manager for the Alabama Policy Institute (API). API is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to strengthening free enterprise, defending limited government, and championing strong families. If you would like to speak with the author, please e-mail communications@alabamapolicy.org or call (205) 870-9900.
Bill to remove marriage licenses passes Alabama Senate
The Alabama Senate approved a bill on Wednesday to remove marriage licenses and begin a new process under which probate judges would accept affidavits from couples as an official record of marriage. Alabama Senators voted 19-1 for the bill, which will now move to the House of Representatives. Under the legislation, the requirement of a ceremony to honor the marriage would be erased. The cost would be the same as the current cost of marriage licenses in the state. The bill’s sponsor, Atmore-Republican Sen. Greg Albritton said the passing of this bill would remove the state from any role in marriage ceremonies, which he believes will properly separate churches and the state. Similar bills have been proposed in the Alabama legislature since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015. Since then, a number of Alabama probate judges have refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone due to their personal religious objections to gay marriage. Alabama probate judges are not required by the current law to issue marriage license and many judges have used the language in the current law to opt themselves out of issuing the licenses. The bill would take away any judgement by probate judges, making the only requirement for a marriage to be official being to submit the correct documents to the probate judge. The documents required would include an affidavit stating that the spouses are 18 years of age or older, or are at least 16 with parental consent, that they are not currently married, and not related by blood or adoption. Albritton’s bill states that the shift would not alter any other aspects of marriage in Alabama, including: divorce, child custody and child support. Sen. Phil Williams, who was the sole ‘no’ vote, stated he voted in that manner because he “feared the change would water down the meaning of marriage”.
Panel sends Alabama chief justice’s ethics case to trial
A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or go ahead and remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case will go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and if so, what punishment he will face. The decision came down shortly after the conclusion of a 60-minute hearing in which Moore was alternately portrayed as a politician on a mission to block gay couples from marrying in Alabama or a judge who was merely trying answer questions from confused probate judges. Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time. “We are here to talk about Chief Justice Roy Moore and his repeated refusal to follow the rule of law,” John Carroll, a former federal magistrate representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission, told the court. Carroll said Moore abused his power as chief justice to promote a private agenda against same-sex marriage. The complaint stems from a Jan. 6 memo he sent probate judges. Moore wrote that a March order from the state Supreme Court to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples remained in full force and effect. The order came even though the U.S. Supreme Court had effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide six months prior and a federal judge said Alabama should follow that decision. A lawyer for Moore said the chief justice was only clarifying the status of the state injunction that was issued in March because probate judges were asking questions about it. “The probate judges were flapping in the wind. They were wondering what to do,” his lawyer, Mat Staver, told the court. Moore’s order was merely a legal “truism” that the order had not been lifted by the state court, he argued. Staver, in defending Moore, repeatedly emphasized a section of the January order where Moore told the probate judges that he was not at “liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling) on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court.” Carroll countered that Moore’s intent was clear: to try to urge probate judges to fight against same-sex marriage. Moore acted on his own by sending the order after unsuccessfully urging his fellow justices to take some action regarding the March order in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, something pointing out by both sides in the hearing. The Monday hearing took on some of the theater and spectacle that accompanied the 2003 dismissal with passionate protests outside the court. Moore’s supporters and opponents held dueling rallies outside the court building ahead of the hearing, at times standing within a few feet of each other as they chanted and waved competing signs such as “No Moore” or “Judge Moore is right.” Moore entered the packed courtroom to applause from his supporters. After the hearing, he spoke to a sign-waving crowd outside, saying there is “no evidence” he broke judicial ethics and that he never told judges what to do. “They said I tried to influence them. I said it’s their decision,” Moore said. Moore said the complaint was filed against him by people who “don’t want anybody opposing any agenda of the homosexual movement.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights legal advocacy group, filed the complaint against Moore that led to the ethics charges, and its director said Moore was clearly urging the judges to defy the courts on gay marriage and was now trying to “save his skin by playing word games.” “Alabama is a great state and deserves better than a chief justice who thinks he is above the law. We’ve said it many times. He acts as if he is the ayatollah of Alabama,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said after the hearing. Ambrosia Starling, the stage name of a small-town Alabama drag queen, was among the speakers against Moore. “We lost the war between the states. That means the Supreme Court holds the final authority over jurisdiction of law,” Starling drawled. Linda Chasom drove three hours from Georgia to attend the rally in support of Moore. She said she thought Moore was being persecuted for his conservative Christian beliefs. “My family is being persecuted. Judge Roy Moore is part of my family as a believer,” Chasom said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Senate passes bill taking state out of marriage business
The Alabama Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would abolish the requirement that state probate judges sign off on marriages. To replace the age-old courthouse process, the bill would required a marriage contract to be signed under the witness of two adults. Those contracts would then be documented by the local probate judge. A marriage ceremony would not be required SB143 from Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Range) follows the U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding a ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Some Alabama probate judges have already stopped issuing marriage licenses, claiming that in providing a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple they are violating their religious convictions. Albritton contends that the legislation will do away with such controversy. Some senators voiced concern over the bill, noting that it would add to the current confusion and make it more difficult for military personnel to navigate receipt of marriage entitlements. Rep. Patricia Todd (D-Birmingham), Alabama’s only openly gay lawmaker, opposed the legislation and advocated for county probate judges to do the job for which they were elected. With its passage in the Senate, the bill is now on its way to the House of Representatives.
Committee votes to do away with Alabama marriage licenses
Alabama lawmakers are considering legislation to take the state out of the marriage business in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. The House Judiciary Committee on Monday voted for a bill to do away with state-issued marriage licenses. Instead, couples would bring in a signed marriage contract and file it with the probate office. The change would prevent probate judges who oppose same-sex marriage from having to sign licenses for gay couples. A few Alabama counties have shut down marriage license operations altogether rather than issue licenses to gay couples. Senators passed the bill last week. Legislators could approve the bill this week. However, it requires a two-thirds vote to pass because it’s outside the governor’s call for the special session focused on budget measures. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Getting the state out of the marriage business
This past June, I wrote a guest editorial column published on AL.Com Here’s an idea: Get the government out of marriage all together. In it I posed the question, “Why is the government in the marriage business anyway?” My premise was that while the government has a duty to recognize the contractual obligations of a marriage it should get out of the business of defining marriage and allow churches decide on an individual basis who they want to marry. This week, Sen. Greg Albritton filed legislation that does just that. Senate Bill 377 changes the law dealing with marriage and all references of marriage to “contract of marriage.” While I disagree with the fact in his bill he raises the fees associated with marriage, this bill offers an opportunity to get the state out of the contentious place of blocking same-sex marriages and allows individuals and families to move forward and focus on the many other important things happening in our state. In an interview discussing his bill with AL.Com, Albritton said, “The sanctity of marriage cannot be sanctified by government of men. That is where we have gotten ourselves in trouble.” This week as the U.S. Supreme Court looks at the definition of marriage and seeks to answer the question of whether there is in fact a right to marry, it is a positive step for those in our state who have been caught in limbo that Alabama is looking to change its own laws. Photo Credit: Hal Yeager/AP
Here’s an idea: Get the government out of marriage all together
With the recent challenge to the Alabama law defining marriage between a man and a woman, and judicial actions throughout the nation that threaten other states’ laws on marriage, there has been a lot of discussion about same-sex marriage in recent days. This has me thinking there has to be a solution that doesn’t prolong this fight for years to come. The question most talked about is “Can states constitutionally define marriage without denying due process to same-sex couples?” I’d like to pose another question: “Why is the government in the marriage business anyway?” Two thoughts shape my ultimate conclusion that the current fight to redefine marriage is based on a dated concept that the government should even be involved in marriages. First, I agree with the fundamental principle that marriage is a covenant based on one’s faith or religion. Which is why I believe that if a same-sex couple can find a church, minister or clergyman to officiate a service and recognize their unions as a marriage, who is to say it’s not. Christians from different denominations are split on the issue but since when is the government the arbitrator for matters of faith? The government has no business in religious matters — either forcing mandates on them, such as requiring religious schools or hospitals to provide services they’re fundamentally opposed to — or defining them, such as in the case of marriage. In the fight for marriage equality I think we need to establish what it is couples are really fighting over. You can’t change the hearts and minds of those who don’t support your decision to make a lifelong commitment to one another by law. Voters and legislatures throughout the nation have passed marriage laws. I don’t believe these actions were fueled by hate or fear, as many proponents of same-sex marriage will tell you. I believe that this subject is so complex the reasons that range from religious beliefs or tradition to personal preference. In 2008, I supported and voted for the ban on same-sex marriages in the state of Florida based on religious beliefs. The amendment passed with almost 62 percent of the vote. Are 62 percent of Floridians full of hate? No. Am I? No. Statistics are showing that time and social integration of what has, up until recent decades, been considered non-traditional lifestyles have changed public perception of same-sex relationships. Yet the laws continue to be pushed for a ban on marriages. Taking the marriage debate off the table, I believe, would go even further to healing what is a fractured nation. Acknowledging you can’t change hearts and minds by law, what can you change by law? We can determine what rights and obligations the government currently has related to marriage and transition from the use of the word marriage to calling these unions what they are — which is a very specific type of legal contract. This particular contract has complicated implications on tax liability, assumed risks for decision making, emergency notifications and access, and much more, I realize. But maybe in starting over we can even look at the basics of what is covered and why and have a fresh start. Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract at any other time, so let’s remove the barriers to this particular contract and allow people to live their lives. In summary: Have the government recognize legal contracts for all couples the same way and churches recognize marriages. Practice some good old-fashioned common sense and common courtesy and carry on. Let’s focus on building stronger communities together regardless of sexual orientation. Let us take one more thing from the government and return it to the people and the church. This column appeared first on AL.com. Apryl Marie Fogel is a new Alabama resident who works as a conservative political activist.
