Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Rationalinsanity: Yeah, but the courts have no power to enforce anything. It's quite possible that this particular clerk will keep his job even if he continues to flat refuse the court order.
Remember, we had stuff like Mississippi-was it?- passing a state law that federal agents who came in to enforce some law or another would be arrested.
Courts may command the executive branch (law enforcement) to arrest and prosecute those who defy its orders.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Implicit in the separation of powers in our Constitution is the fact that the judicial branch cannot enforce its rulings without action by the executive branch. If legislators and executives combine to reject judicial decisions, then the only remedy is intervention at the federal level. If the refusal occurs at the federal level, then the Court's decision is irrelevant, but this could lead to very bad things and so is almost never done.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My big concern right now is that the Alabama legislature is considering a bill that will abolish marriage licenses altogether. Instead, couples will have to obtain "contracts" from the same officials who are refusing same-sex couples now. This is what they're planning instead of working on a desperately needed budget that will allow the state to function.
It's okay if you don't believe it, as it is incredibly stupid. I'll add a link when I find the article. And here it is.
edited 13th Aug '15 12:28:16 PM by Morgikit
It's like literacy tests but for gay people!
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des UrsinsIt is not clear that attempting to abolish marriage as a whole is unconstitutional per se, but the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates that Alabama recognize marriages granted by other states even if they won't marry people in theirs.
Plus, if they create an institution analogous to marriage that happens to exclude gays, then it's still unequal treatment no matter what they call it.
Edit: That article does not make it seem as if they're trying to abolish marriage, but rather to remove the license-granting portion of the process.
edited 13th Aug '15 12:41:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What matters, I suppose, is that the tangible fact of having a "marriage license" entitles one to the benefits of the institution whether or not a civil or religious ceremony is undertaken or a contract signed; ergo, Alabama may be setting its citizens up to be unable to receive the benefits of marriage from other states and/or the federal government.
That this makes no sense is patent, but the anti-gay-marriage movement never did to begin with, so...
What they seem to be focusing on now is preventing individuals with "sincere objections" from being forced to grant legal rights to gay couples.
edited 13th Aug '15 1:43:33 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They do realize that this shit is likely to do far more harm to the institution of marriage than allowing Gays to wed ever could, namely any harm. I mean look what happened to France. In order to stave off allowing Gays to marry they created "civl unions." now, not only are the gays using it, but over half of straight couples are.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.The idea of civil unions was floated to allow LGBT couples to have the same legal rights as married straight couples, but without calling it marriage, to appease the zealots. It was killed in the courts because of the "separate but equal" implications. No matter what you call it, you cannot have a "right" that implicitly discriminates against or leaves out a class of people.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Easy, make preforming a marriage ceremony or entering into any kind of religious union a crime. Of course that would be unconstitutional, but I'm sure most people who would seriously pass such a law consider it to be an old rag that should be thrown out to make room for a more enlightened form of government.

Well they did defeat the Iraqi military and brought Saddam down. That they accomplished but nation building on the other hand was not since the civilian administration on the US thought that, Democracy, uh, finds a way and tried to leave as that without paying attention to all the conflicting groups in Iraq.
edited 13th Aug '15 11:41:42 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges