Alabama Legislature Takes A Stand
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “What is the truth of the matter? The truth of the matter is that the Alabama legislature was correct. The Alabama Supreme Court and the Supreme Court justice that said the legislature was correct and he was not going to enforce the law, they were correct. It was the federal judiciary that was defiant. It’s the federal judiciary that is defiant of the eternal law of God, which is promulgated under this statute in Alabama.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: What is the truth of the matter? The truth of the matter is that the Alabama legislature was correct. The Alabama Supreme Court and the Supreme Court justice that said the legislature was correct and he was not going to enforce the law, they were correct. It was the federal judiciary that was defiant. It’s the federal judiciary that is defiant of the eternal law of God, which is promulgated under this statute in Alabama. Same thing in Virginia, by the bye, with your constitutional amendment. It’s the exact same deal. You are in compliance. It’s the federal judiciary that attacked you that’s defiant. They’re the ones that are defiant. Of course, I can’t expect anyone in broadcasting or anyone else in media to understand this, much less promote it and enunciate it. I hope that they will because this story is written backwards. The headline is written backwards. It should say “Alabama Supreme Court Rebuffs Defiant Federal Courts.”
The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order [Mike: You can just feel, this whole thing is just dripping with anger, rage.] allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating [Mike: Let’s use the proper terminology, Washington Compost, defying.] Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.
Mike: Alabama’s ban is not a ban on homosexual marriage. It is a statement that marriage as defined by Almighty God will be part of the rule of law in that state. It doesn’t ban anything. It makes possible and makes probable then proper marriages. You see how this is all written wrong? I digress.
The Alabama justices were defiant. [Mike: Again, no, Judge Granade was defiant. I want you to listen to the verbiage of the court’s ruling.] “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”
Mike: In other words, we have a law here. It comports with two centuries’ worth of tradition, two centuries’ worth of unchallenged Christian tradition, and the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it. You have a job, mister federal judiciary, thanks to the Constitution. So since the Constitution is silent, you should shut up, too. Of course, the broadcast and other media and other prognosticators and other promoters of homosexual marriages are going to have to now start throwing real bombs at Alabama. Of course, they’re going to link this decision with what? Can you guess? Of course you can. You probably already figured it out, racism. [mocking] “This is just the same as the racism cases. This is just the same as George Wallace strapping himself to the doors of the University of Alabama. There’s nothing new here. These people are a bunchy of racist, bigoted, hick hayseeds.”
The resistance in Alabama, where states’ rights has always been sacred writ and state supreme court justices are elected rather than appointed, has been compared by many to that state’s resistance to school desegregation orders in the 1963, when Gov. George Wallace (D) stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to prevent the court-ordered enrollment of black students.
“The ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court offers the most forceful and clearly articulated rebuttal to date of the imaginative arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ employed by federal courts,” said a statement from the Liberty Counsel, which challenged the lower court ruling.
Mike: What if they say they’re not going to recognize you overturning them? You don’t have any jurisdiction. By the bye, ladies and gentlemen, if your precious alleged conservative majorities in the United States Senate and the United States Congress represented by the Republican Party, if they wanted to do something constructive on this, they would seize on this moment here. They would pass resolutions that say: The Alabama court is correct; the federal courts are wrong. We’re ordering you, you do not have the jurisdiction to hear any more appeals. You can’t hear any more appeals to statutes enacted in the states that have anything to do with marriage, the institution of it, the legality of it, how it is promulgated, how it is treated, how the liberal welfare social state treats it, etc., etc., none. You can’t hear them. Of course, they’re not going to do that, and I doubt any of them even have an inkling that they have that power and that authority. Isn’t that a shame? I digress again.
The Alabama court suggested that it would be bound by the U.S. Supreme Court but nothing lower than that.
Mike: I don’t know why you suggest that. If the law is clear, if the truth is known, and if the Supreme Court chooses to violate it and chooses to be in defiance of it – they would be the ones in defiance of the Truth – then your ruling should stand and you should say no. You should represent, as the government of Alabama, and so should the state of Virginia. All the other states should do the same. Can you just imagine the sea change in the way the national system of edicts would then begin to change? If people were apprised of how the U.S. Constitution is actually supposed to be applied and not how it is farcically applied, some things may actually be altered. Wouldn’t that be amazing?
Indeed, the state’s highest court declared itself equally empowered as the lower federal courts to decide whether Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution — stating unequivocally that it does not in what amounted to a broadside against the trend of courts invalidating same-sex marriage bans.
It accused other courts of employing “sleight of hand” to confer “fundamental-rights status on a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding.”
“Throughout the entirety of its history, Alabama has chosen the traditional definition of marriage,” the court said in a per curiam opinion, issued in the name of the court rather than a specific justice. “… That fact does not change simply because the new definition of marriage has gained ascendancy in certain quarters of the country, even if one of those quarters is the federal judiciary.”
“Marriage has always been between members of the opposite sex,” it said. [Mike: Listen to this. Can you believe that this actually comes out of a state supreme court? I’m going to read this to you. I still remain in shock. It’s a good shock but I remain in shock.] “The obvious reason for this immutable characteristic is nature. Men and women complement each other biologically and socially. Perhaps even more obvious, the sexual union between men and women (often) produces children. … In short, government has an obvious interest in offspring and the consequences that flow from the creation.”
That reasoning has been rejected by roughly 60 state and federal courts around the country in the past few years. [Mike: Let me state for the record then that roughly 60 state and federal courts are in error. An error has no rights. They are in defiance of the truth and we can know the truth of this matter.] But the state supreme court said that “state courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from, and even contrary to, federal courts” until the point where the nation’s highest court has weighed in.
That should happen in a few months. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 9 refused to stay the Alabama decision allowing same-sex marriage until it does rule, an action that was taken by court dissenter Justice Clarence Thomas as a signal on how the high court will eventually resolve the issue.
Many thought the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the lower court decision invalidating the ban meant that Alabama had to, or ought to, comply and issue marriage licenses. But that was not to be. About a third of the state’s 67 counties began issuing licenses, but the other two-thirds refused, citing a letter by Alabama’s firebrand chief justice Roy Moore . . .
Mike: He’s not a firebrand, he’s a constitutionalist. He’s a federalist. Now just think about this. Now if you’re a federalist and a constitutionalist and someone that is standing for ratified intent, a federal system in the administration of the laws and the immutable law of God, now you’re a firebrand. No, you should just be John Q. Doe is who you should be. That should describe every citizen. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.
Six of the court’s nine justices concurred in yesterday’s opinion. A seventh concurred in part and there was a single dissent . . . [Mike: Of course, Justice Moore recused himself. He didn’t rule.]
David Kennedy, one of the lawyers who represented the Mobile couple who successfully challenged Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban, told Alabama.com last night that he does not think the state supreme court ruling would survive a challenge in federal court. “I don’t really think that they can do that. I’m not surprised, but I’m somewhat appalled,” he said. Kennedy said he believes that probate judges act “at their own peril” if they choose to obey the state court.
Mike: In other words, you will obey. Those of you that stand in defiance of the ascendency of very public homosexual marriages and homosexuality and homosexual acts in public, those of you that stand in defiance of that – by the bye, by the same token, yes, they should also stand in defiance of heterosexual acts in the public square and in public. This is the other part of the argument when you’re trying to get to the truth that I just can’t imagine why everyone doesn’t make that part of the argument. I’ll tell you the reason why. It’s because they have not studied any of the magisterium on moral law and moral philosophy, what the truth is. That’s why. You can’t enunciate it, you can’t promote it if you don’t know it. Now we have to deal with these flimsy secular terms that are indefensible and can be mowed down by emotions. That’s exactly what happens. That’s exactly what has happened.
End Mike Church Show Transcript