Posted on 02/09/2015 10:22:23 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, who tried to stop gay marriage there with a last-minute order, insisted Monday that the federal courts have overstepped their authority by ordering the state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
"The U.S. district courts have no power or authority to redefine marriage," he told NBC News by phone. "Once you start redefining marriage, that's the ultimate power. Would it overturn the laws of incest? Bigamy? Polygamy? How far do they go?"
"A lot of states in this union have caved to such unlawful authority, and this is not one," he said. "This is Alabama. We don't give up the recognition that law has bounds."
Gay couples began marrying in Alabama on Monday after the Supreme Court declined to block a federal judge's order requiring Alabama to license same-sex marriages.
On Sunday night, Moore forbade state probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Marriages went ahead anyway, and at least one probate judge told NBC News that Moore's order was without merit. "I have a duty to follow the United States Constitution," said Judge Alan King of Jefferson County Probate Court.
Moore said that the federal rulings were invalid because the party representing the state, Attorney General Luther Strange, has no authority over probate judges, who issue licenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Marriage is what marriage is, just like up is up and down is down, because that’s how God made it in the very beginning.
The natural moral law is an absolutely indestructible, immovable object, and no man, or collection of men, is an irresistible force. They can attack it if they will, but beyond any shadow of doubt, they will only dash themselves, and those who are foolish or ignorant enough to follow their example, to pieces.
The irony is that Supreme Court rulings do not kill the opposition as those who worship the high guard in court robes. For example, the pro-life movement probably hit its upswing after Roe V. Wade, not after.
It doesn’t, and the 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government belongs to the States or to the people.
The State of Alabama defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. A federal judge says the State can’t do that. It is up to that judge to show exactly where the Constitution enumerates the power of defining marriage to the federal government.
Can’t be done, because it’s not in there.
If they try going the “equal protection” route, then they have to say that a brother Constitutionally has to have the right to marry his sister “equally protected” also. A mother’s Constitutional right to marry her son has to have equal protection. Etc. If “equal protection” means that everybody has to be allowed everything, with no definitions, then the government has no right to define disability eligibility, and everybody’s “right” to receive disability has to be protected, regardless of whether they fit any definition of “disabled”. Etc.
This is about whether the Constitution allows any definitions to exist. Kind of like Obama’s amnesty decree is about whether the Constitution allows a BORDER to exist.
When post-modernism (everybody creates their own “truth” or reality) takes over the courts, everything is up for grabs. When that happens, the nation cannot continue to exist.
Communism and Socialism see no God and put man and government at the pinnacle of power.
Marx's Marxism is at the core of the value system which fails miserably on an economic level when implemented by voters promised more free handouts from government.
We are entering a period where the rights of certain individuals and categories or groups of people are trumping the rights of the majority. Gay rights is the current example.
The nature of man will in time see the gains of the Left turned back towards the right as the courts, finding the rights of small individual groups (Gays today, blacks tomorrow) secure, and that push back in the legal system will require these groups (secure in their rights) respect the right of other majority groups such as Christians.
Man or government when giving the power to others, in the form of rights or even racial preferences, will carve out a large group that will eventually destroy the majority.
When Government runs this country full circle everyone will have been marginalized economically and will essentially have no discretionary income to support churches. Belief in God will fall to families as was the example Moses in Exodus. When the country falls apart and government can no longer meet the needs of the people, the only ones to survive are those with the foundation of God's community.
Basically if equal protection covers everything, differences in state laws disappear because state laws disappear. The ability of a state to define their own laws disappears.
On the plus side it will mean I can carry anywhere I want, open or concealed.
If equal protection covers the ability to marry, it covers the ability to carry.
I just hope all the folks who said this crap would never happen, admit they were wrong and recognize the left will do this on any issue they are going after.
It’s the use of the Hegelian Dialectic (liberal incrementalism) and the Delphi Principle.
A test case of a many marrying his dog, or his sister, or his mother, or his daughter or his horse should be filed.
Judge Moore is right, but will anyone listen? Will the governor of Alambama push back as chief executive?
“In 2008, Bentley was elected as a Republican Presidential Delegate for Mike Huckabee. At the Republican National Convention he represented Alabama on the Republican Platform Committee.”
The governor of Al is supposed to be a religious conservative. And apparently backed Mike Huckabee. This is Mike’s chance to help stiffen the spine of the the Alabama governor. Mike this is your chance to show if you are the real deal.
If a person can marry a dog. Then why not a child as the dogs mental competence is far less than a child to make decisions.....
The mooselimbs and pedocreeps would love that.
And that’s the lawsuit that needs to hit the books the very day that SCOTUS rules that Equal Protection nullifies State definitions.
We should let SCOTUS know that a BUNCH of people will be coming into Washington DC with open and concealed guns to “celebrate” on the very day that they make a decision that the Constitution nullifies State/local ability to make their own laws/definitions...
Why should any state/county government offices be open? What are they even for, if the feds are supposed to decide/implement everything?
Amen. He’s one of the few who fights the good fights.
“I have a duty to follow the United States Constitution,”
Exactly what part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to define marriage?
You mean:
Exactly what part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to RE-define marriage?
Ultimately, the Constitution should be the 1st citation required in ALL cases. Failing to do so would negate any further discussion, case closed; anything else supporting....It would definitely whittle down the case load I’d suspect.
Unfortunately, we have lawyers and judges (I repeat myself) whom build upon the crap that is known as ‘case law’, on the presumption that the same was valid to begin.
It allows the oligarchy to continue to insert itself without repercussion.
What a mealy mouthed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.