Roy Moore Doesn't Support Marriage Amendment

Forward ^ | March 1, 2004 | Ami Eden

[g_eames]

Ami Eden has an interview with Roy Moore in which the former Alabama judge declares his non-support for Bush's proposed anti-gay-marriage amendment. His reasoning is that the amendment would trample on states' rights.

"I don't think you can make a constitutional amendment for every moral problem created by courts that don?t follow the law of their states," said Moore, who is currently waging a legal appeal to get his chief justice job back. "If you do, you pretend to do what God has already done and make it subject to the courts. I think it's a problem to establish morality by constitutional amendments made by men when the morality of our country is plainly illustrated -- in Supreme Court precedent and in state-law precedent and in the common law -- as coming from an acknowledgement of God."

Moore warned that an amendment could eventually be mistaken as the source of morality and then be reinterpreted down the road by judges or legislators. For example, he said, the amendment being pushed by conservatives simply defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, leaving the door open to future officials who could argue that the measure does not prohibit incestuous unions.

[g_eames]

It seems Conservatives and Moderate Republicans are backing away from the Marriage Amendment--as if they don't want this issue to get traction. Will President Bush eventually have to back away from this issue, not because of the Left, but in order to hold together the President's base?

[Arthur McGowan]

As always, Moore is right. The proper response to lawless courts is impeachment, resistance, and nullification. That is the proper response to Roe v. Wade, and it's the proper response to the lawlessness that is going to force gay marriage on the U.S.

[longtermmemmory]

Moore already established himself as a kooky kind of guy.

He may have a point but the FMA is the right thing to do.

Lets find other nit picky points in all the other amendments that judges abuse. How about the 2nd? the 4th or the 5th.

Moore comments do not stand the test of time.

The FMA is a good idea and the right idea, regardless of what some other jugde MIGHT do. We can only act on what judges HAVE DONE.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Unfortunately your solution is never going to happen. You have surrendered and accepted Homosexual Marriage.

[longtermmemmory]

sorry but judge moore is wrong on this. This type of nitpicking may or may not happen BUT we know what judges HAVE done. Adopting the FMA is the right thing to do. There are zero valid reason to not support its adoption unless you want homosexual marriage.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I disagree wholeheartedly with Roy on this. Without a Definition of Marriage, gay marriage will be forced in the courts one state at a time. The expense will be tremendous and traditional marriage will be non-existent.

CG

[Always Right]

The trampling of state rights arguement fails on several grounds. One, all states have already defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but it is the courts who are now trampling states rights by usurping the states power. Two, if the states agree and consent to the Amendment, which they must, by passing it, there is no states rights issue. This is the Constutional process, by twisting it into some violation of Constitutional principle, doesn't make any sense. The arguement is shallow.

[longtermmemmory]

The last CBS(!) poll had 59% supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. 64%opposed to homosexual marriage.

This issue IS pulling the base and expanding it. Don't be so moby.

The Democrat party in OHIO said that every second that homosexual marriage remains in the media that is a democrat losss. Some are now openly stating Kerry should SUPPORT the FMA in order to get it off the table.

I know a few old timers who are disgusted that their Party's new claim to fame is being the "Gay" party. (only they used a term which includes the UK word for cigarette)

[Arthur McGowan]

I don't accept homosexual marriage. But I have always thought and still think that it's going to be forced on us, like "legal" abortion. If the Christians of the U.S. cannot come up with a coherent plan to nullify, defy, impeach, and remove the tyrants who have given us 45 million dead babies, then they aren't going to muster the forces and the coherent strategy to stop the imposition of gay marriage, which, btw, will do an infinitesimal amount of harm to society, compared with abortion. If every homosexual in America chooses to get "married," there will be only about 10 million such "marriages." And there will be NO change in the actual sexual behavior of ANYONE.

[Zack Nguyen]

I'd disagree with Judge Moore here. I think an amendment is the only realistic way to stop homosexual marriage.

[philetus]

It's a good thing your mother didn't decide to abort you while we were waiting for the proper responce to Roe VS Wade

[templar]

Will President Bush eventually have to back away from this issue, not because of the Left, but in order to hold together the President's base?

The Presidents base is composed mainly of people who vote for the 'lesser of evils'. There is no need to hold them together, they are a highly dedicated group, even when they say they aren't.

IMO & FWIW.

[Arthur McGowan]

The difference between Moore's "states' rights" position and John Kerry's "states' rights" position is that Moore is not a liar. Kerry opposed the FMA because he wants the states to be defenseless when the USSC decides to force gay marriage on the country. Moore is making a valid point: We, the people, cannot hope to pass an amendment tailored to protect us from each and every new assault on self-government and decency. Any Human Life Amendment is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

It's time for a new strategy entirely, with regard to abortion, prayer in public places, gay marriage, etc. Nullification, disobedience, impeachment, removal from office--aimed at dictatorial judges, and the governors, prosecutors, D.A.'s, and others who obey them.

[Arthur McGowan]

Right on. See #14.

[templar]

I know a few old timers who are disgusted that their Party's new claim to fame is being the "Gay" party. (only they used a term which includes the UK word for cigarette)

The fact that you don't use that term, but only allude to it, indicates the power they have (over you). "Fag" is (usually considered) a derogatory term for a homosexual (as is 'queer') and I see no need to avoid being or appearing derogatory toward them.

[af_vet_rr]

I agree with Moore (although he's a bit nutty for my liking). It is a state issue, the Constitution is pretty clear on that. I don't even think a marriage ammendment would pass, but regardless, leave it upto the states to decide. Some people should stop trying to make everything a federal matter.

[Arthur McGowan]

I don't see your point. What response has there been? On the state level, lots of good laws, chipping away at abortion. But on the federal level: nothing but the futile attempt to get a Human Life Amendment, and some restrictions on some abortions.

You have no idea what kind of activism I've engaged in in my life. Less than some, more than others. I've been to jail, though. Have you?

[Conspiracy Guy]

It didn't work for Roy. It won't work for us. We must get good people into the system who will not cave in. Roy stood and found himself with support only from the GP. The politicos turned their back or stabbed his. Now he has no job.

CG