State Supreme Court Chief Justice Says No to Federal Court on Gay Marriage
While the nation is worried about deflated footballs, there’s someone with real balls who is finally standing up to the overreach of the federal courts.
“Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.
“Moore’s office released the three-page letter that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge’s ruling Friday striking down the ban.
“‘As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,’ Moore wrote.”
You may recall that this is the same Chief Justice Roy Moore who was removed from office because he defied a federal court on a Ten Commandment display.
Moore was elected chief justice again in 2012.
I’m sure liberals will argue that refusing to abide by this judge’s decision is unconstitutional. How is it that a single judge can overrule the constitution and the determination of the legislature and the will of the people when the United States Constitution does not say one word about marriage?
If a single judge or a group of judges can nullify any state law, then what use are individual states, their constitutions, and their laws? Why not eliminate states and turn all law making over to the courts.
“State voters approved the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment in 2006, with 81 percent voting in favor of it. The amendment defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.”
One judge has the constitutional right to overrule 81 percent of the voting public in a state on an issue that is agreed on by people of different races and genders?
The next thing that will be said is that refusal to abide by the ruling by this single judge on the issue of same-sex marriage is similar to Alabama upholding laws regarding racial segregation after the courts determined otherwise. Here’s the difference.
The law prohibiting same-sex marriage applies to everybody equally. It applies to men and women, blacks and whites, and people of all ethnic persuasions. No one is excluded from the law, and no one is favored by the law.
Same-sex sexuality is what people do; it’s not like skin color. It neither comports with the law of God nor biology. It is opposed by blacks and whites and men and women. There is no third sex.
If every state that voted to ban same-sex marriage joined with Alabama, the federal government would have a difficult time enforcing its unconstitutional move.
Once again, the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. “Ginny” Granade was based on a twisted reading of the 14th Amendment banning. Like judges before here, she argued that banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with same-sex marriage. The 14th Amendment has become a judicial wax nose that is too often shaped by the worldview of the judges who are interpreting it. They begin with the belief that same-sex sexuality is normal and moral and then find a constitutional way to support that belief.
The media report that people’s attitudes about same-sex marriage are changing. That may be so, but it’s judges that are making the determination and not the people.