An Alabama judge thinks that since the federal government is the one mandating same-sex marriage, they should be the one licensing and performing such marriages, not state and county officials.
Judge Enslen appears to have skipped class when "separate but equal" treatment of groups during the civil rights era was put to rest. But, then, maybe they don't teach that in Alabama judge school.
He also seems to have skipped the part of Constitutional Law about how the 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law in the _states, not just the federal government.
"No governmental institution or program will ever be able to successfully replace the role of the divinely ordained family in civilized society," Judge Enslen maintains. Which is beside the point, even if it's a point one can rationally debate. The point is that you can't just say "We like _those people better than these people because our church says so, so we're going to limit government service to just those people we like" and have that be the way your government works. At least not under the US (and, I suspect, even the Alabama) constitution.
Alabama Judge Refuses To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Demands Federal Government Take Over
One Alabama judge compares the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling to federal civil rights laws from the 1960s, and concludes the federal government must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
I have an even better idea. How about sending him, Kim Davis, and all the other like-minded people to the unemployment line if they're unable to do their jobs? Seriously, this circus has gone on way too long, making our government and legal system look like huge jokes. When exactly did federal laws become optional?
+Marty Shaw Since our Founding Fathers and John C Calhoun taught us that! States rights forever!
Actually, the judge in this case says that there should be a federal law, with federal enforcement, to make this all happen. Which, of course, there is not (and is not likely to be). But there doesn't have to be in this case. The more precise question is, when exactly did paying attention to the Supreme Court's rulings become optional for judges?
It's the politicization of the judiciary at the state level. Just look up his campaign fund… Oh right.