State Supreme Court Justice Warns He May Abolish Marriage Entirely If Same-Sex Weddings Are Allowed

[DonViejo]

An obscure, two-page opinion by an Alabama Supreme Court justice contains an ominous warning. If marriage equality remains the law in Alabama, Justice Glenn Murdock may vote to abolish marriage in his state altogether.

Justice Murdock’s opinion is attached to a brief order from the state supreme court as a whole declining to offer further guidance to Alabama probate judges regarding whether they must comply with a federal court order holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. In a brief opinion concurring in that order, Murdock hints that, if this federal court order is permitted to stand, then his own court should strike down all marriages within the state of Alabama.

Murdock suggests that, had the state legislature known that its decision to exclude gay couples from the right to marry was unconstitutional, it might have preferred not to permit anyone to be married in the state of Alabama. This potential preference for no marriages over equality matters, according to Justice Murdock, because of a prior state supreme court decision holding that, when part of a state law is struck down, the law may be declared “wholly void” if “the invalid portion is so important to the general plan and operation of the law in its entirety as reasonably to lead to the conclusion that it would not have been adopted if the legislature had perceived the invalidity of the part so held to be unconstitutional.”

Thus, according to Murdock, if gay couples and straight couples must enjoy the exact same marriage rights under the Constitution, the proper remedy might be to deny those rights to everyone, rather than extending them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

more
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/18/3623884/state-supreme-court-justice-warns-may-abolish-marriage-entirely-sex-weddings-allowed/?

[randys1]

1. Hate is all this is, we should consider this man a member of the taliban

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Talk about taking your toys and going home

This is what passes for juris prudence in Alabama.

[truebluegreen]

3. There's a novel approach to enlisting allies! nt

[Xipe Totec]

4. Good. Let's get everybody on the same side of the issue. nt

[Mike Nelson]

5. If he violates the Law...

...he should lose his job and be prosecuted for his crimes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. So a heterosexual will destory marriage rather than allow marriage rights to others.

Everything they claimed was wrong.

[Agschmid]

7. Go ahead... this will go over real well.

FFS.

[treestar]

8. The right to marry is a fundamental right

So even if their legislature passed such a law, it would not survive the courts.

And a judge cannot make law like this from the bench. People say that when the courts make a ruling they don't like, but it's not really true - they interpreted the law. Here though this judge is really trying to order people in the state around in a way the courts cannot generally do.

[tanyev]

9. GOPers want to damn well make sure that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage.

Then they can say "I told you so."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Obviously, he is a Communist who wants to make everybody equal under the law.

Or, something.

[Go Vols]

11. :/

[struggle4progress]

12. Ooooh! Let's groove with the judge!

[stone space]

13. Scorched Earth Politics. (nt)

[Egnever]

14. sounds like he is going for broke

Might be a good time to abolish his position.

After all if one judge is going to ignore the constitution we might as well throw them all out.

[NutmegYankee]

15. I.E. Massive Resistance.

Gee, who couldn't have foreseen that a southern state would try that tactic again?

[workinclasszero]

16. So one judge has the power to abolish marriage?

WTF?

[hifiguy]

18. That was my first thought as well.

One crank. Lotsa luck with that, Justice Jackass.

[onenote]

22. No. But that's what a badly written headline and story will do

I disagree strongly with the idea that the invalidation of the same sex marriage prohibition in Alabama law would require the invalidation of the rest of the statutory provisions governing the licensing and recognition of marriage in the state. But its actually not a novel issue -- it is a pretty common issue in constitutional jurisprudence. And while I wouldn't be surprised if Murdock and some other judges on the Alabama Supreme Court, if the issue is presented to them, reach the wrong conclusion, the reality is that Murdock didn't suggest he could do anything himself. In fact all he did was acknowledge that the issue, if properly presented, would have to be addressed, but that the issue wasn't properly before the court at this time.

From a purely legal standpoint, what he wrote was pretty unobjectionable. What he decides if and when the question actually arises -- that will be an entirely different matter.

[joeybee12]

17. Alabama is not a sovereign nation...

Dipsh*t.

[HereSince1628]

19. It's always amazed me how twisted thinkers get into law school and get elected judges.

I guess the filter doesn't really care what you might do with your brain as long as you show signs of having half of one.

[Katashi_itto]

20. Ok. Go do it.

[Sheepshank]

21. clearly proving that marriage is not a religious institution, as continually touted by the faithful.

It is merely a contractual and legal agreement regarding cohabitation and financial sharing etc established, described and enforced by a government entity.

Just goes to show...give 'em enough rope and they certainly do hang themselves.