AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[MalaspinaGold]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

So you also are against subsidize marriage for people who are infertile? I hope so.

[MalaspinaGold]

Now they ordered a stop again. I guess they don't understand federal supremacy. Alabama deserves all the ridicule they get.

YES! YES! Rally against the unjust activist judges! Show the supreme court the ridicule they'll receive if they rule in favor of SSM!!!

On what legal grounds specifically do you disagree with the federal district judge's decision?

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation. The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

So you also are against subsidize marriage for people who are infertile? I hope so.

Addressed that in this post:

Wulfric, the Bible is against divorced people remarrying. Why don't you feel equally strongly that remarriage should be illegal? Do you see an inconsistency here?

In an ideal world, that would be banned. However, that's not realistic in my wildest dreams. Banning SSM potentially is, at least for now. And in any case, remarriage is ineffective on the strength of the institution of marriage - it doesn't harm the sacred 'one man/one woman bonded together, primarily to raise children' definition of marriage, SSM is destroying that sacred and essential definition as we speak.

Now, comes the obvious question of "Why allow infertiles to marry?". First off, being required to show an official regulating marriage a significant part of one's medical record is a serious infringement on one's privacy. And secondly, the man-woman definition is still kept intact and is not destroyed. Finally, this sort of prohibition is not needed for rational basis review. Rational basis allows for an imperfect fit - as long as it does not destroy the logic behind the policy, and infertile couples marrying does not destroy the logic of man-woman marriage, which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If an "imperfect fit" allows for the categorization of A into a group that by definition excludes A, then it is not an imperfect fit.

[MalaspinaGold]

On the grounds that the state need only subsidize man woman relationships, as they are most beneficial to the state’s interest in procreation.

That's just a conclusory statement, not a counterargument to the judge's decision. What levels of judicial scrutiny are you arguing should be applied to (1) sexual orientation and (2) restrictions on the right to marry?

The courts are destroying the instution of marriage with this horrible activism.

Destroying? How so? Can you explain in detail what will happen when the institution of marriage is destroyed? Do you mean that people will stop getting married, or what? Has the institution of marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts yet?

Marriage will lose almost all its meaning. It will be seen as little more than a friendship. This is probably already the case in Massachusetts.

One does not spend twenty-something years raising childen with "friends".