Joe Biden signs gay marriage bill
President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed into law the “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill codifying protections for same-sex and interracial marriages. “Today is a good day,” “Biden said. “A day America takes a vital step toward equality, for liberty and justice, not just for some but for everyone.” The signing took place after a ceremony and a string of performances from gay entertainers. The bill, which received support from nearly 40 House Republicans last week to send it to the president, repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As The Center Square previously reported, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., helped lead the effort in the Senate, where the bill was first passed. Her office said the legislation would “require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.” The legislation would also guarantee that “valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 on the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges to make same-sex marriage the law of the land nationwide. That ruling required states to allow same-sex unions under law. The high court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade earlier this year, as well as comments made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns that the court could do the same to the Obergefell ruling. “Passing the Respect for Marriage Act wasn’t just the right thing to do for America,” Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “It was personal to us, to our staff, and to our families.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Robert Aderholt fears Respect for Marriage Act lacks adequate protection of First Amendment rights
On Thursday, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R.8804) protecting same-sex marriage. Congressman Robert Aderholt expressed his concerns in a statement that the bill lacked adequate protections for religious liberties. “The First Amendment to our Constitution makes it clear that Congress shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” Rep. Aderholt stated. “Even after the Senate changes, this bill does not give adequate protection to that First Amendment right. I fear that entities like the IRS will use this bill to target religious organizations. In Alabama, we have already seen how the Biden Administration targeted the Eagle Forum for simply exercising its First Amendment rights. This Administration will use this bill as another tool in its intimidation toolbox.” Congressman Aderholt voted No on the bill. Despite Aderholt’s concerns, the bill passed and was signed into law by President Joe Biden. The bill will codify the nationwide redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples in federal statute for the first time. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that the bill will also heighten the threats to religious liberty that have persisted after the Supreme Court’s controversial Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015. Bishop Robert E. Barron of Winona-Rochester is the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. “We are gravely disappointed that the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate and continue to call for its rejection,” Bishop Barron said. “Pope Francis wrote in 2016 that ‘we can hardly stop advocating marriage simply to avoid countering contemporary sensibilities…. We would be depriving the world of values that we can and must offer.’ Indeed marriage, which is a lifelong and exclusive union, a complete and mutual gift of the husband and wife to each other for their good and for the procreation and education of children, is essential to the common good.” “However, decades of social and legal developments have torn sexuality, childbearing, and marriage from each other in the public consciousness,” Barron continued. “Much of society has lost sight of the purpose of marriage and now equates it with adults’ companionship. This bill fails to include clear, comprehensive, and affirmative conscience protections for religious organizations and individuals who uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage that are needed.” Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, wrote about the religious freedom harms of the bill in a recent article. “This failure to afford space in the public square for those who offer an authentic witness about marriage dishonors the best of American traditions,” Bishop Dolan wrote. “Our country has always served as a demonstration to the world that citizens in profound disagreement can exist in a harmony sustained by a law and culture that cherishes tolerance and compromise.” Aderholt represents Alabama’s Fourth Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell votes for the Defense of Marriage Act
Thursday, Congresswoman Terri Sewell voted to send H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, to President Joe Biden’s desk. This controversial legislation was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 258 to 169. This also repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), upholding couples’ right to equal protection under federal law and requiring states to recognize valid out-of-state marriages. “No American should be discriminated against because of who they love,” said Rep. Sewell. “As the Supreme Court threatens to strip away more of Americans’ hard-fought personal liberties, I’m proud that this Democratic Congress is standing up for the dignity and equality of every American by sending the Respect for Marriage Act to President Biden’s desk. As the representative of America’s Civil Rights District, I will always fight for the equal treatment of all Americans under the law!” Supporters justified the need for federal legislation on marriage, citing a statement made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs abortion decision, called for the Court to similarly reconsider the controversial Obergefell versus Hodges decision creating the right to same-sex marriage. Obergefell overturned state laws, including the Alabama Constitutional Amendment, stating that marriage is between one man and one woman only. The Respect for Marriage Act will take several steps to protect same-sex and interracial marriages. While the Supreme Court has effectively voided DOMA, this federal law still remains on the books. The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal this statute once and for all. The legislation will uphold married couples’ right to equal protection in all areas covered under federal law, such as Social Security, tax filings, and veterans’ benefits. The bill prohibits state officials from denying recognition of an out-of-state marriage on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. Sewell was the only member of the Alabama House delegation to vote in favor of the bill. The final bill now heads to the President’s desk for his signature. “Today, Congress took a critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love,” President Biden said in a statement. “The House’s bipartisan passage of the Respect for Marriage Act—by a significant margin—will give peace of mind to millions of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples who are now guaranteed the rights and protections to which they and their children are entitled.” Sewell was recently re-elected to her seventh term representing Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District. She is the only Democrat in Alabama’s congressional delegation and the only Black woman to represent the state of Alabama in Congress in its history. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
U.S. Senate passes gay marriage bill
The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a bill that would federally codify same-sex and interracial marriages. A handful of Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which passed 61-36 and will now head to the House of Representatives. “This Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act!” Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, “Because no one should be discriminated against because of who they love.” Though neither same-sex nor interracial marriages are currently illegal in any state, lawmakers sought to codify protections in federal law. As The Center Square previously reported, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., has helped lead the effort. Her office said the legislation would “require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.” Notably, the bill would “guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling motivated this legislative effort as some Democrats said same-sex marriage protections the court ruled on during the Obama administration could be at risk. The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges precedent required states to allow same-sex marriages. Under the new law, in the event that Obergfell is overturned, states would be allowed to ban gay marriages but would have to recognize gay marriages that were performed in other states. The legislation repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but state laws preventing same-sex marriage are still on the books in some states and would take effect if Obergefell were ever overturned. From the bill’s official summary: Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations. President Joe Biden torpedoed a similar hope among Democrats to codify abortion protections after the midterm elections, saying his party will not have the votes. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Terri Sewell lone legislator to vote in support of Respect for Marriage Act
Six of the seven U.S. Representatives for Alabama are Republicans, so it is no surprise that all six voted against the latest bill to pass the House. The Respect for Marriage Act aims to repeal and replace laws that would outlaw same-sex or interracial marriage. The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved the legislation with 267 yeas and 157 nays. That means 47 Republicans — almost one-fifth of the GOP lawmakers — voted in favor of the bill. Rep. Terri Sewell was the lone Alabama leader who voted in support of the bill, while Congressmen Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Jerry Carl, Barry Moore, Gary Palmer, and Mike Rogers were nays. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The bill defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. However, the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). With the current conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, and because that court has already reversed the controversial abortion rulings in Roe v. Wade, leaders are trying to protect other rights that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas already asked his colleagues to rule on. Thomas wrote that past rulings from the Court regarding gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered and that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.” Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution. The cases Thomas mentioned were Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled there is a right to same-sex marriage. “Today, I proudly voted to protect marriage equality in Alabama and across the country,” stated Rep. Sewell in a press release. “As the Supreme Court comes after our hard-fought personal liberties, right-wing extremists are now threatening to strip away Americans’ right to marry the person they love. With the Respect for Marriage Act, House Democrats are taking urgent action to enshrine marriage equality into federal law and prohibit states from discriminating against same-sex and interracial couples. We will not go back!” While Sewell described this legislation as needed and urgent, Rep. Moore disagreed, arguing that the court’s ruling on those issues were set precedent. “With inflation at a 41-year high, a new record for border crossings set in June at over 191,000, and violent crime plaguing the country, it is outrageous that Democrats are focused on unnecessary legislation that repeals a law struck down by the courts years ago,” said Moore in a press release. “Despite mischaracterizations Democrats are using to justify their urgency, the Supreme Court made it clear in Dobbs that their decision should not be used to cast doubt on precedents that have nothing to do with abortion.” The bill now heads to the Senate. .
Parker Snider: Beware the rule of the philosopher kings
According to ancient Greek philosopher Plato, it is the great philosophers who are best suited to govern society. Known as “philosopher kings,” they use wisdom, Plato says, to determine how society should operate. Ours is not a country governed by philosopher kings. The Founding Fathers, instead, predicated our government as a government of the people. And it is Congress, the gathering of popularly elected representatives, which is given that weighty law-writing authority. When Roe v. Wade was overturned last month by the Supreme Court, the political left learned this lesson the hard way. For decades, the left duped themselves into believing that America is a nation led by philosopher kings. It is hard to blame them for this. Over and over again, the great thinkers – the philosopher kings – on the Supreme Court awarded the left win after win. In 1973 through Roe v. Wade, the Court created a right to abortion through the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. Even though many states had already banned abortion while others limited it, Roe unilaterally forced the states to allow abortion. It was then considered a constitutional right that could not be overruled by state or federal law as the agenda of the left was accepted not only as legal but as the only constitutional possibility. Following the decision, state legislatures and Congress could not overpower Roe even if such a challenge garnered a unanimous vote. This decision was reaffirmed in 1992 through Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another “philosopher king” decision that decreed the left to be the political victors even though there was no consensus among the American people. The left won in a similar fashion with same-sex marriage. Before 2015, states were split when it came to recognizing same-sex marriages, with no consensus nationally expected any time soon – that is, until the philosopher kings got involved. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that there was a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. All states, therefore, had to recognize same-sex marriage. Surprisingly enough, this was supposedly a right found in the 14th Amendment. Another win for the left, courtesy of the philosopher kings. No legislature could say otherwise. There are more rulings that could be listed here. What’s important to recognize is that, for the left, these victories simply could not be rivaled by legislative wins. Supreme Court decisions, which were seemingly permanent, could silence dissenters who knew the chances of reversal were slim. To the left, the Supreme Court offered a potential final word on an issue, a loss that conservatives could not come back from. Aiming for judicial decisions, many on the left have become democratically lazy. They have not come to divisive policy discussions with hopes of arriving at a consensus. Instead, they argue through the media that their view is the only morally just view, that their positions are not simply opinions but “rights” that should be protected (or created) by the Supreme Court. Their success in this arena has led them to exchange the democratic ideals of consensus and compromise for dictates from the philosopher kings sitting just east of the Capitol. This summer showed us just how bad a value judgment this was for the left. The reversal of Roe reveals that the left never considered what might happen if the philosopher kings weren’t their philosopher kings. It is unsurprising that such a question might not cross the progressive mind. They assumed there was no way the philosopher kings on the Supreme Court, who are highly educated and mostly from liberal Ivy League schools, could not be at least marginally on their side. Now that Roe is overturned, the left is trying diligently to convince Americans that the philosopher kings have simply been switched. The liberal philosopher kings no longer rule the Court, so now the conservative ones do. The left wants you to believe that six conservative justices now make all the decisions for our country. This is not true. Think about this. The conservative justices could have made abortion illegal throughout the nation if they desired. They could have philosophized their way to the desired position fairly easily and used the Constitution to argue their case, using the 14th Amendment again, perhaps. This is exactly what the liberal majority did in Roe, Casey, and Obergefell, all of which made the majority’s opinion the law of the land in every single state. But they didn’t. In overturning Roe, in fact, the majority decided to shed the philosopher king label altogether. Instead of assuming that they were the ones who were rightfully in charge, the Court gave the authority to make decisions about issues not explicitly in the Constitution back to the legislative branches of government. This is how our government was designed to operate. Congress and legislatures are to write the laws, not the Supreme Court. It is a good thing that both liberals and conservatives alike are wary of philosopher king elites. Both groups now have before them the hard work of convincing not nine men and women with law degrees of their position but the majority of the American people. While Plato may not like it, the Founding Fathers would not have had it any other way. Parker Snider is the Director of Policy Analysis for the Alabama Policy Institute.
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.
Two years later, 7 Alabama counties still not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex, other couples
Two years after same-sex marriage became legal throughout the United Sates, such couples still cannot get married in parts of Alabama. On the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriages nationwide, seven Alabama counties have still not issued marriage licenses to any couples since June 26, 2015. Political statistic website Ballotpedia notes the counties not issuing marriage licenses are Autauga, Clarke, Cleburne, Covington, Geneva, Pike and Washington. The remaining 60 counties comply with the Obergefell ruling Before the decision, 15 states had same-sex marriage bans in place or stayed by courts, and many local government officials in charge of issuing marriage licenses did not comply with the ruling. In the immediate aftermath of Obergefell, delays and refusals in license issuing led to protests, one clerk’s resignation and another — Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky — going to jail. Even now, the tension continues in several communities. As of June 2017, Ballotpedia reports that a single county in Texas is refusing to clarify whether they would issue licenses to same-sex couples if such a couple would apply. Other counties in a handful of states, licenses have been issued, but marriage ceremonies were no longer held in the county offices. In 2016, after instructing Alabama probate judges to defy the federal orders on same-sex marriage, Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore was suspended for the rest of his term for violating judicial ethics. Moore later resigned his position April 26, 2017, to run for the U.S. Senate seat now held by former Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. Alabama counties not issuing licenses in subsequent two years justify the decision by saying Alabamians can file marriage licenses in any county, regardless of residence. However, officials in Bibb County, one of the eight counties that stopped issuing licenses, but later reversed course, told Ballotpedia at least one individual from the couple who are applying for the license must be a resident of the county.
Ethics panel wants Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore removed from office
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore should be immediately removed from office for a second time, a state ethics commission argued Friday. The Judicial Inquiry Committee (JIC), an appointed body that oversees the state’s judges, asked the Court of Judiciary to immediately remove Moore for abusing his office by urging the state’s probate judges to defy the federal courts on gay marriage despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming same-sex marriage six months prior in Obergefell v. Hodges. Last month, Moore and his legal team filed a motion to request all charges against him be dismissed. Moore argued he was not telling probate judges what to do, but rather responding to questions regarding the status of a case. The JIC dubbed his explanation “semantic gamesmanship.” “Moreover, because he has proven — and promised — that given the opportunity he would ignore our nation’s founding principals and flout the rule of law again, the only sanction that will adequately protect the Alabama judicial system, and the citizens who depend on it for justice, is an order from [the Court of the Judiciary] removing Roy S. Moore from the office of Chief Justice of Alabama,” the JIC said in their Friday afternoon response. The Obergefell decision effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, thus solidifying the unconstitutionality of Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban. “Reduced to its essentials, the Complaint contains six charges alleging that the Chief Justice’s January 6th Order not only constituted flagrant disregard of federal law by directing every subordinate probate judge in Alabama to ignore a federal injunction and clear federal law,” the JIC said. “But also represented an abuse of his administrative authority, and placed his impartiality into question on a matter pending before the Alabama Supreme Court — all of which violate the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.” In June, the Court of the Judiciary agreed to hear oral arguments from Moore regarding his motion for dismissal. The hearing was set for Aug. 8 by Chief Judge Mike Joiner.
Robert Bentley refugee lawsuit unlikely to gain traction
If past is prologue in his legal battles with the feds, the lawsuit filed Thursday by Gov. Robert Bentley alleging the Obama administration’s noncompliance with the Refugee Act of 1980 isn’t likely to bring the president to his knees. Bentley claims, on behalf of the state of Alabama, federal officials are in violation of the law for not consulting with the states on the placement of refugees from war-torn Syria as provided for in the law. U.S. Supreme Court precedent has held repeatedly that matters of immigration and asylum are the responsibility of the federal government. If this sounds familiar, you may have in mind Bentley’s first tussle with the Obama administration on Syrian refugees, where he joined two dozen Republican governors in declaring they would not accept Syrian asylum-seekers within their states’ borders. It soon became clear, however, governors have no authority to nullify presidential actions on immigration or to pick and choose which refugees they will accept. In light of this some state leaders, such as Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, have rescinded their orders halting refugee resettlement on the advice of legal counsel and in the face of the plain facts of federalism. Not Bentley. His first run-in with the feds was in 2011, when federal judges struck down a bill intended to curb illegal immigration from Mexico. Bentley had vowed to “fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges,” but the law remains off the books. Bentley joins Chief Justice Roy Moore in thumbing his nose at Washington, D.C., from a high perch in Montgomery. Moore ordered 68 probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing uncertainty in the law, though the U.S. Supreme Court was unequivocal that such laws shall be issued in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. “This complaint has no legal merit, and the state of Alabama has no authority under the Constitution to block the settlement of refugees,” said Southern Poverty Law Center senior supervising attorney Kristi Graunke. Or as Wayne Flynt, a former Auburn University history professor, put it: “We arbitrated these issues between 1861 and 1865.” Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
Roy Moore rankles critics with order halting same-sex marriage licenses
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has come under fire from marriage equality groups in the wake of his recent judicial order requiring state probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moore issued the order citing discrepancies among Alabama jurisdictions. The current state of affairs – wherein some counties are issuing the licenses while others refuse to – creates a disparity that “affects the administration of justice in this state,” requiring court intervention. On Wednesday the Human Rights Campaign, a leading national advocate for LGBT rights and interests, heaped scorn on Moore for his “shameful” judicial opinion. “Yet again Chief Justice Roy Moore is flagrantly defying the rule of law, and empowering those who wish to stand between same-sex couples and their constitutional right to marry the person they love,” said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “Regardless of what Roy Moore says, marriage equality is the law of the land,” said Warbelow, referring to last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. “His obstructionist tactics tarnish the reputation of the great state of Alabama, and we urge all of the state’s probate judges to issue licenses to same-sex couples, as is their duty under the law. Moore’s personal opinions are not at issue here. As a judge, he has an obligation to follow the law.”
Alabama, AG Luther Strange join 15-state push to re-enforce religious tax exemptions
Attorney General Luther Strange on Tuesday hopped on board a 15-state appeal to the Republican Congressional leadership to “take steps to prevent the IRS from choosing” to deny religious organizations their current tax-exempt status in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision last month in Obergefell v. Hodges. “The U.S. Solicitor General recently indicated … the federal government might decide based on Obergefell that certain religious organizations may no longer qualify as tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code and also that contributions to these organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions,” read the five-page letter co-signed by 15 state attorneys general addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner. “We take very seriously the religious freedom of our States’ citizens and believe that Congress should take action now to preclude the IRS from targeting religious groups in this way.” By a 5-4 decision in June, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, striking down prohibitions against same-sex marriage in either the state laws or constitutions of each of the 15 states that wrote the appeal to Congress, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arizona, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. Echoing a meme circulating among conservative circles, the letter seized on a comment by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrili, the Obama administration’s chief advocate to the high court that the tax-exempt status of organizations who object to same-sex unions by refusing to accommodate them will “certainly be an issue” for the federal government going forward. The state attorneys general — all are Republicans — sought to prevent the contemplation of any such issues by asking for swift pre-emptive action to signify Congress’ intent to preserve the tax status of all religious organizations currently exempt, regardless of their practices regarding newly-legal marriage licensees. “Stripping tax-exempt status from religious organizations in this way-a severe consequence that could force groups to exit the public sphere-would be an unprecedented assertion of governmental power over religious exercise,” the searing communique continued. Despite the “historic” Obergefell decision, the status of gay marriage recognition in America is not completely settled. An array of tax, family law and clerical issues remain around the nation.
