Gay Marriage

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Is Not Happy Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

He encourages governor to ignore a federal judge's rulings.

|

I don't think it's an Instagram filter. He just naturally appears this way.

On Friday, Alabama joined the lengthy list of states who are well on their way to recognizing same-sex marriage, albeit via forced orders from a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Callie Granade struck down the state's ban on gay marriage recognition, passed by the voters 2006, as a violation of the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The judge subsequently stayed the ruling for appeals.

The decision did not sit well with the infamous Justice Roy Moore, religious conservative chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. People may remember Moore being previously removed from the post as chief justice back in 2003 after refusing a federal order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments out of a judicial building. After a failed run for governor he got re-elected back into his old job by voters in 2012.

Moore has sent a letter to Republican Gov. Robert Bentley telling him to ignore those federal judges and their claims of supremacy and continue to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. He quotes both the Bible and a letter from Thomas Jefferson worrying about federal court decisions stripping states of their powers. Moore concludes, "I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and our posterity. Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority." Read the full letter here (pdf).

The Supreme Court agreed to take up cases from four states where bans have been upheld. When they consolidated the cases and granted the petition, the court said they would be tackling two questions, both connected to the 14th Amendment: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex; and does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?

It's safe to assume that should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the gay couples, Moore will classify it as one of those "unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority." Whether he would ever be in a position as the state's chief justice to actually defy the decision in any meaningful way like he did with the Ten Commandments memorial is another question entirely, though.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

60 responses to “Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Is Not Happy Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

  1. In my experience, the, um, trigger word in all this hooplah is “marriage”, which is “by definition between one man and one woman”.
    Just call it “garriage” for the gays, and more people will support it.

    1. “Instead of referring to you as “married”, you can be… butt buddies.
      Instead of being “man and wife”, you’ll be… butt buddies.
      You won’t be “betrothed”, you’ll be… butt buddies.
      Get it? Instead of a “bride and groom”, you’d be…butt buddies.”

      1. Is there a nice German word for “those who pee with the door open”?

      2. I don’t think that nomenclature will work for the lesbians.

        1. I don’t think that nomenclature will work for the lesbians.

          What? You’ve never butt-scissored before?

    2. Good call, Rich.

    3. Or you could stop being such sensitive little girls.

  2. He’s really stroking that gavel…

    1. That *is* one eerie expression.

      1. He looks like a guy who likes the D.

        1. 3 dollar bill

      2. The remnants of Voldermort are attached to the back of his head.

      3. He’s definitely got “doucheface”.

  3. He just has a reasonable belief that state laws can violate the federal constitution. Totally okay according to SCOTUS.

    1. Andrew S.|1.27.15 @ 5:22PM|#
      He just has a reasonable belief that state laws can violate the federal constitution. Totally okay according to SCOTUS

      Ummm,only asshole fascists like Ron Paul believe that. That’s why he tried to forbid ANY hearings on DOMA, stripping gays of any defense to their constitutional rights.

      SCOTUS has been striking down state laws for centuries. It’s a primary function created at the beginning by the 9th amendment. Where were you when they ruled on DOMA. marriage equality, abortion, several on political free speech, and so many more.

  4. Oh, look… there’s one of those Christian theocrats people keep insisting don’t exist.

    You might remember Ol’ Roy from the “let’s plunk down a 10 ton Ten Commandments sculpture in front of the court house” kerfluffle from a few years back.

      1. Thanks! I had missed that one in the series.

        1. I am nothing without the love and support of my fans.

    1. And is Moore anything other than a laughingstock anywhere other than Alabama?

      1. He’s the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. Scott isn’t taking on some backwater snake-handler.

        Here’s a legal opinion he published where he wanted kids to go to a wife-beater than the lesbian mother:

        “To disfavor practicing homosexuals in custody matters is not invidious discrimination, nor is it legislating personal morality. On the contrary, disfavoring practicing homosexuals in custody matters promotes the general welfare of the people of our State in accordance with our law, which is the duty of its public servants…

        The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle…

        Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child. To declare that homosexuality is harmful is not to make new law but to reaffirm the old; to say that it is not harmful is to experiment with people’s lives, particularly the lives of children.”

        1. The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution.

          And yet when I say I’m suspicious that a lot of evangelicals secretly want to kill homosexuals, I get called paranoid.

          1. I’m pretty sure I’m one of those people. In which case, I may owe you an apology.

        2. I’m not here to defend the guy. I think he’s a loon. And I certainly wouldn’t vote for the guy for dog catcher. But, again, does this clown even have the level of a national following that Joe Arpaio has, or is he basically somebody even the socons roll their eyes over with a “Oh, jeez, that fucking guy…”.

          1. He was re-elected after being kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court, so he must have some sort of following. And he’s tight with Coral Ridge Ministries, which at one point claimed 3 million TV viewers of their services. And Moore mulled a 2004 and 2012 Presidential run under the Constitution Party.

            1. The Constitution Party is only as good or bad as the candidate who wins their nomination. 2008 nominee Chuck Baldwin was(is) more libertarian than 2008 LP nominee Bob Barr, not to mention some Reason editors and contributors.

              1. “more libertarian than 2008 LP nominee Bob Barr”

                That’s a pretty low Barr to clear.

            2. He’s also, amusingly, heavily backed by the trial lawyer lobby in Alabama, because the regular GOP wing that opposes Moore favors tort reform and so forth.

        3. Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it.

          Sigh… just when I start to think that homophobic bigotry is just a convenient strawman, that surely nobody actually thinks like that, I see this.

          Also, something tells me that Judge Moore knows full well how to describe it. I suspect that SF slashfic from the older thread linked above is probably not far from the truth.

        4. Scott isn’t taking on some backwater snake-handler.

          Yes he is. Just one that also happens to be a judge.

        5. Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce,

          ADULTERY? (gasp)

  5. He may not be happy, but is he gay?

    1. Methinkth he doth protetht too much.

  6. “The decision did not sit well with the infamous Justice Roy Moore, religious conservative chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. ”

    Well from a “Criminal” “Libertarian” “Anarchist” viewpoint. Why the fuck should I give a salt encrusted shit what some “Judge” has an “Opinion” on ?

    1. “One more outburst like that, Mr. Pyrate, and I’ll shit you a salt encrusted contempt charge!”

      1. Oh Shit !!!

        I forgot about the whole “Contempt of Court”v thing.

        =)

        1. I have gotten in trouble for asking why I should call a judge “Your Honor”. I am kinda stupid that way.

          1. A lawyer friend of mine when I asked what the most difficult part of the job is; “addressing judge so-and-so as ‘your honor’ “

            1. Just say “uriner” with a straight face.

    2. Roy seems to be saying the same thing.

  7. I’ll just repeat this post from the P.M. links:

    You can tell a cause is just and righteous when its supporters skip boring stuff like defending their case with rational argument, and go straight to blackmail.

    In Alabama, a gay Democrat threatens to expose adultery by politicians who dare oppose state-recognized SSM.

    This is fairly par for the course for Democrats and progs, of course. Vote the way we want, and we cover up your peccadilloes – adultery, sexual harassment, etc. Otherwise, we expose you.

    I doubt this woman is the only political operative in country who is attempting such blackmail – she’s just the most public (and she seems to be unclear on the concept of blackmail if she’s making her threats publicly instead of just secretly sending a couple of private detectives with envelopes full of pictures).

    This story puts a new complexion on all those “principled” Republicans who have suddenly decided to support government-recognized SSM, or at least not to oppose it too much. Whenever such a “courageous” Republican makes such an announcement, it would be worthwhile to ask about his relationship with his 17-year old intern, or his sheep.

    http://www.al.com/news/birming….._legi.html

    1. And now, we can take a look at Republicans who oppose Chief Justice Moore and wonder, “how many of them were caught in flagrate delicto with farm animals, and support SSM in exchange for Democratic promises to cover it up?”

      1. It’s really interesting that you think the real crime here isn’t the fucking of animals.

    2. *Somewhat* OT, but you may find this of interest.

      1. Interesting, thank you.

  8. He quotes both the Bible and a letter from Thomas Jefferson worrying about federal court decisions stripping states of their powers.

    I seem to recall something Thomas Jefferson wrote in one of his other letters that people like Moore are constantly telling us should be ignored because it’s just a letter.

  9. As long as he’s adjudicating based on the law of the land: The Holy Bible.

  10. It’s safe to assume that should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the gay couples, Moore will classify it as one of those “unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.”

    But when Ron Paul says the same thing, it’s more proof of a libertarians moment. Paul carries water for homophobes by calling them “rogue judges” and lying about the Constitution. He also tried to strip gays from their constitutional protection, if Paul could have banned the Court from hearing ANY appeals of DOMA.

    1. Now Ron Paul is homophobe. Do you always insult everyone who disagrees with you on any issue?

      1. Can you read? He tried to strip homosexuals from constitutional protection of their rights — the worst bigotry since slavery. NO other class of people would have been denied access to the courts to defend their rights.

        While lying about the constitution, he provides false cover to the worst group of bigots in America. Calls it federalism, and the goobers eat it up.

        Ron Paul, fascist bigot

        “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

        The man is a moral disgrace

  11. Wow man that makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.BestAnon.tk

  12. The reality is that “gay marriage” is not a Constitutional Right” – its not inherent to your humanity – its an institutional arrangement.

    Marriage predates government and was not created by government. Government should be staying out the marriage business altogether.

    Even more important all those who believe in small government and the Constitution and be against Federal judges making up law and policy on his or her own. So Moore is entirely right about the actions of the Federal judge.

    1. Marriage is a constitutional right as established in US case law. To deny it to gays for no reason other than bigotry or religious objection is illegitimate under US constitutional law. If you believe in treating gays as inferior citizens for no reason, you do not support the constitution as written.

      1. Marriage isn’t denied to gays.

    2. The reality is that “gay marriage” is not a Constitutional Right” – its not inherent to your humanity – its an institutional arrangement

      Read the 9th and 14th Amendments (lol)

      be against Federal judges making up law and policy on his or her own.

      That’s as crazy as Ron Paul. States have NO jurisdiction. You’ve been manipulated. Just tell us where you fantasize state jurisdiction at all.

  13. Once again, Alabama wants to invoke states’ rights to deny a class of people their individual rights. It didn’t work out very well last time.

  14. just before I saw the bank draft four $7417 , I did not believe that…my… sister was like actualie receiving money part time from their laptop. . there friend brother had bean doing this 4 only six months and just paid for the mortgage on there place and purchased a new Honda NSX .
    read this post here======= http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.