In case you missed it, a federal judge and the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that same-sex marriages must be allowed to commence in the state of Alabama. As a result, an Alabama Supreme Court judge, Justice Roy Moore, has issued an decree instructing state agencies to ignore the federal ruling since, in Moore’s opinion, the federal ruling violates the Alabama state Constitution which defines marriage as one man and one woman. Can you see the exciting legal circus we’re heading into here? Grab some popcorn.

Report from ABC News:

Same-sex couples married in some Alabama courthouses today, but many counties still refused to allow the unions to proceed despite rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court, which allowed them to begin in the state Monday.

Where the potential 2016 presidential candidates stand on the issue is hard to know, because most of them are not weighing in.

ABC News reached out to the prospective candidates to ask whether judges in the state should be following or disobeying the federal ruling, and most declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., declined to comment on the specific case in Alabama, but noted that states will have to comply with what the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage this summer. [Emphasis added]

“I’ve just read the headlines about what’s happening in Alabama, so I’m not quite sure what the details are with regards to what the legal arguments the state is using as to why they don’t need to comply with it,” Rubio said.

“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I believe states – through their legal process, through their legislative process – have the right to define it any way they choose, although I would strongly advocate for what I believe should be traditional marriage.”

Dr. Ben Carson, the former neurosurgeon and conservative favorite, was by far the most specific of the possible candidates writing in a statement the issue should be left to the states saying, “The ruling by Alabama federal Judge Callie Granade to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional is an example of why such a matter should be left to state judges.” [Emphasis added]

“While these appointed federal officials certainly hold a great deal of knowledge and the ability to make important decisions, the issue of marriage — an institution that has been so clearly defined and guarded by this nation for centuries — should be decided upon by the state court as it pertains to that particular state’s residents,” Carson said. “Alabama’s elected Chief Justice Roy Moore understands the importance of preserving states’ rights in the modern post-Civil War world in which we live. This should be a state issue rather than a federal issue because judges at the state level must answer to the people in that state. When judges have no responsibility to the will of the people in the state, they do what they want without any consideration or obligation to the people. That is the reason why the United States Constitution assigns civil matters of this nature to the state.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, also said he believes it is a “state issue.” [Emphasis added]

“The Supreme Court will take it up in June,” Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said. “Until then, this is a matter between the State of Alabama and the courts.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he wants to see Congress pass an amendment to the Constitution if the Supreme Court overrules gay-marriage bans in the states. [Emphasis added]

Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, a Republican, also kept it vague, saying in a statement “this is an important conversation that is going on in homes, churches, and communities across the country. I think that the worst thing the federal courts can do right now is shortcut this conversation.”

A representative for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., noted that the senator supported civil unions in Vermont, the first state to pass civil union legislation without being forced to act by a court order, and that when Sanders was a member of the House, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. The senator has not weighed in on the chaos in Alabama.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, also did not directly comment, but his representative pointed to a tweet from the governor last month in which he argued “marriage equality is not a states’ rights issue,” but a “fundamental right that we should extend to every American.”

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has not directly commented on the status of same-sex marriages in Alabama, but on Tuesday, he reintroduced the “State Marriage Defense Act,” a piece of legislation which would require the federal government to defer to the states on whether same-sex couples should marry. [Emphasis added]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, all Republicans, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., did not respond to requests for comment. [Emphasis added]

The list at the end of who declined a comment is most telling. Many of the names aren’t surprising but to see Huckabee and Santorum avoid the topic entirely speaks to how the perception has shifted of gay marriage in politics. However, this issue is red meat for many conservatives who see this as a social issue plus the topic of states’ rights, and religious liberty, all wrapped up in one. It can’t be avoided forever, especially as the campaign rolls on and candidates are asked time and time again to comment on the matter.


  1. I read that Justice Roy says that state judges should interpret the Fed Constitution. What a “Mooron.” State judges interpret the state constitution, and fed judges interpret the fed constitution. If he doesn’t know that, he shouldn’t be on any bench, except in a softball game.

    But think of this:

    The whole federal view is about “equal protection,” and that individuals have a “right” to marry. Just to be devil’s advocate (in this case, Moore is cast as the devil, I guess), if you need a “license,” it’s not a right, right?

    You have no “right” to drive a car, you need a license. You have no “right” to hunt, you need a license. You have no “right” to practice law or medicine, you need a license. “Having license,” by definition, means that you are getting preferential treatment, for some reason. If you need a “license” to marry, it’s not a “right.”

    • I like your contrary discussion.

      Claiming something as a “right” has become entirely bastardized beyond recognition in America in 2015.

      Things like the right to own and carry a gun are explicitly stated in the constitution as a right yet in many cases it is not treated that way.

      Likewise, things which are mentioned nowhere in the constitution all of a sudden become “rights” to which no one can be denied for any reason, such as a college degree or a cell phone.

    • The only “Mooron” here is you, Goethe. For you are suggesting that any Federal Judge can overturn any State’s Constitution because it is not to his/her liking.

      Gee, and I thought you were against Big Brother Society….

      • You really should learn how to read. The JUDGE is the one who said he should interpret the FEDERAL constitution. Nothing to do with state law.

        • And you should learn that our Constitution does not give the right to gays to marry. Thus, there is no “interpretation” possible, just cold facts that a Federal Judge cannot tell a State to amend it’s Constitution to suit his agenda!

          • It’s not a matter of amending a constitution. It’s a matter of overturning an amendment. The United States Constitution is the primary law of the land. If any law, in any location, by any means, conflicts with the US Constitution, the US Constitution has supremacy.

            Now, you may disagree with the issue at hand, but the interpretation is “equal protection,” not “gay marriage.” And you can hate gays as much as you want, but the federal courts are ruling that gay marriage is a right (which I questioned above), and as long as they rule in that way, you can make up all the anti-gay rules, regulations, and laws you want–they shall not stand.

  2. The logical reason why marriage is the union between a man and a woman is obvious — to produce progeny, thus keeping our specie alive.

    Allowing gays to marry is absurd and asinine, for these genetic freaks by their very aberrant nature cannot consummate a marrige that will produce children — all they can do is sodomize each other..

    That’s so sick-and-wrong, but what’s even sicker is allowing these evolutionary dead-ends to adopt kids and turn innocent children into perverse freaks like them!

    No wonder no-one want’s to touch this sickness in politics — since the liberal trash has done it’s worst to brainwash people into accepting this aberrant behavior as “normal”.

    • So is it your view that same-sex couples should only be allowed to legally marry if they promise in writing to adopt children?

      How would this work? How many years would they be allowed to remain childless before they are required to have adopted a child? How would the legally-sanctioned same-sex marriage be “undone” if the same-sex couple does not adopt a child by the expiration of the state’s deadline?

      What about cases in which the same-sex couple already has children? Would they be obligated to have additional children in order to marry?

      • No — you misunderstood. Gays, being evolutionary dead-ends, must never be allowed to marry — for this is a travesty that assaults all moral and biological issues (natural law)! Allowing gays to adopt children is an even worse crime committed against society!

  3. Cornell Law University teaches: Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

    In the cases of marijuana sales in Colorado and Washington, the federal government, operating through the Department of Justice, decided that it was not worth the legal fight. Simply put, the federal government is allowing the marijuana shops to open with federal regulations, but it also retains the right to shut them down at any time.

    When it comes to gun laws and health care, or same-sex marriage it’s a battle
    among the second and the tenth Amendments, the commerce clause, and the supremacy clause. In the
    end, the Federal government and the Supreme Court will have the final say.

    • Wrong again, Tess Liehard.

      States have the right to form their own Constitution, as long as it does not conflict with the original US Constitution and the adopted amendments — and nothing else!

      But being an ultra-liberal, you have no clue of this, instead you quote surmises made by liberal Cornell….

      • Surfisher… Stop trying so hard trying to be on the cutting edge. Comprehension is not your forte. You basically said the same thing as I had written, except the insulting verbiage. I do not think of myself as a liberal but I do respect many of their principals. I dislike war and and I am anti-poverty. I am neither left, nor right. I think it is the moral test of as to how our government
        treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
        By the way, the Cornell student newspaper “We DO Not Apologize” has a Libertarian stance.

Comments are closed.