The Alabama legislature’s attempt to do some kind of “end run” around a possible nationwide marriage equality victory at SCOTUS has died in a House committee vote.
The legislation would attempt to do away with state-issued marriage licenses and be replaced by “contracts.”
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted down a bill that would abolish the requirement that couples obtain a marriage license from a probate judge before their wedding.
Instead, couples would have had to bring in a signed marriage contract witnessed by a minister, lawyer or other authorized person and file it with the probate office.
Republican Sen. Greg Albritton of Range said the intent of his bill was to avoid chaos over the issuance of the licenses.
Opposed committee members said they were hesitant to make such a major change to state marriage law.
According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University, 56% of American voters say they are in support a U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of nationwide marriage rights for same-sex couples. Only 38% of voters opposed such a ruling.
Additionally, voters are generally more supportive of same-sex marriage than opposed by a similar result of 56% for and 36% against.
When asked whether he would accept the Supreme Court’s ruling if they legalize same-sex marriage later this year, he said he would “fight it.”
“I think it’s important to understand that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word. It has its word. Its word has validity. But it’s important for Congress and the president, frankly, to push back when the Supreme Court gets it wrong,” said the presidential candidate on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.
He went on to say that the country is not “bound by what nine people say in perpetuity” and that he’s continued his fight against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion, because he thinks “the court got it wrong.”
When asked whether he thinks states should ignore the ruling if the Supreme Court does legalize same-sex marriage, Santorum responded, “I don’t advocate civil disobedience. I do advocate the role of an informed citizen to try to overturn when a court makes a mistake and gets an issue wrong.”
I can only imagine what Santorum would view as “push back” would be to pass an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
On Thursday, Dennis Hastert, ex-GOP Speaker of the House of Representatives, was indicted on charges he paid off a man he sexually abused decades ago.
This brought to mind former GOP Speaker of the House Tom DeLay, who has had his own run-ins with the law (in 2005 he was indicted for criminal charges of conspiracy to violate election law).
DeLay stopped by Houston radio host Sam Malone’s show to tell the listeners that Americans should “rise up” against any ruling by SCOTUS that favors the LGBT community:
“The Supreme Court is about to put out a ruling on marriage and they have no jurisdiction to do so, they shouldn’t have even heard this case, they have no right to redefine marriage and hopefully the American people will rise up and really undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
It goes without saying that the Supreme Court’s role in the government is to rule on any laws that are found to be unconstitutional. That is literally what the founders of the US created the judicial branch of government to do.
We all were pretty sure the anti-gay bill Texas House Bill 4105, filed by state Rep. Cecil Bell, was dead in the water. The legislation would attempt to thwart a possible SCOTUS ruling in favor of same-sex marriage by cutting off any state funds used to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples.
When Republicans in the state House couldn’t get the legislation to the floor before deadline last week, it was almost a done deal. I say almost because the one sliver of a chance for the anti-gay marriage legislation to get to a vote would be if it could somehow be attached as an amendment to another bill still in play. BUT – it would have to be “germane” to the active bill.
Yesterday, state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., a Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage, attached Bell’s bill to a non-controversial bill, House Bill 2977.
Now, the author of THAT bill, Rep. Garnet Coleman, says he will kill his own bill before he allows the anti-gay legislation to pass.
A Democratic state senator has dredged up anti-gay marriage legislation that advocates thought was dead this session, attaching the language to an uncontroversial county affairs bill under the noses of his fellow Democrats. While gay rights advocates decried the move, the bill’s original sponsor in the House said he would never let his legislation pass with the anti-same-sex marriage language in-tact. “I’m the author of the bill. I will resolve the bill,” said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D- Houston, a staunch gay marriage advocate.
House Bill 2977, as Coleman originally filed it, was an uncontroversial county affairs placeholder bill, meant to act as a vehicle for lawmakers to ensure important local issues can be passed late in the session. As the bill was headed to the Senate committee for approval this week, however, Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. attached a number of other bills to Coleman’s legislation, including one that would seek to block a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage.
If the bill passes in the GOP-dominated Senate, which Coleman expects it to, it would need to return to the House, where the lower chamber’s members would have to concur with the changes. Coleman said if he can’t strip the anti-gay marriage off his legislation, then he would withdraw it completely. “If I can’t get it off, then the bill goes to bill heaven,” Coleman said. “I don’t support that legislation or that language.”
This weekend Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg officiated her third same-sex marriage.
Attendees were left wondering if she coyly tipped SCOTUS’ hand on which way the court will rule on marriage equality as she pronounced the two grooms married.
Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.
The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.
But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional. But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way.
Professional anti-gay nutjob Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association warns that there will be violence and civil unrest of the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.
Texas state Rep. Cecil Bell’s bill to “really really really” ban same-sex marriage died tonight without a vote as the deadline passed without the bill coming up for a vote.
While the legislative session continues on to June 1st, it becomes difficult to introduce new bills at this time. Bell would have to find a Senate bill currently in play that would be “germane” to blocking marriage rights for LGBTs.
Major Texas-based corporations have denounced the bill, including BP, Dow Chemical, American Airlines, and Dell. As in other states that have considered such discrimination born out of animus, money often makes the loudest statement.
Official count: Anti-gay marriage #HB4105 came 23 bills from a vote before midnight deadline fell. #txlege— Chuck Lindell (@chucklindell) May 15, 2015
#txlege House Democrats kill anti-gay marriage bill, and 200 other measures, w/ 15 hours of delaying tactics http://t.co/L7IfdVDRUC— Chuck Lindell (@chucklindell) May 15, 2015
That's a wrap. Several bills, inc. #HB4105, which would've prevented state/local funds to issue same-sex marriage licenses, has died #txlege— FOX 7 Austin (@foxaustin) May 15, 2015
When pressed by CNN host Alisyn Camerota regarding the upcoming ruling from the Supreme Court on marriage equality, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was not willing to say that the state would follow the Supreme Court if it decided to rule in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage later this year.
Camerota pushed further asking what Paxton suggests that gays and lesbians in love should do.
Here’s the exchange:
“They have — they can do whatever they want,” Paxton shrugged. “But the reality itself right now in Texas was defined by the people of Texas overwhelmingly as between a man and a woman. And that’s the law of Texas, it’s in our constitution, it’s in our statutes.”
“I mean, they can’t really do whatever they want as you’ve just said,” Camerota shot back. “Do you understand why gays in Texas would feel that is discriminating against them?”
“They can feel how they want,” Paxton replied. “The reality is the voters of Texas have passed the law as it is.”
Check how vague and uncomfortable it gets at the 3:45 mark when Camerota asks if Texas HAS to conform to federal law, meaning the Supreme Court ruling.
Newly-minted GOP presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson tells Newsmax that, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of marriage equality, the federal government doesn’t have to recognize that decision:
“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”
