Type to search

Alabama’s Top Judge Faces Ethics Charges Over Gay-Marriage Order

Featured Post National News Politics Top News US

Alabama’s Top Judge Faces Ethics Charges Over Gay-Marriage Order

Share
A same-sex marriage supporter holds a sign referring to Alabama's Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, during a protest outside the Jefferson County Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama February 9, 2015. REUTERS/Marvin Gentry

Alabama’s Supreme Court Chief Justice was suspended on Friday for ordering state probate judges not to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, despite contrary rulings by a federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roy Moore, an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions, faces possible removal from the bench after the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission charged him with violating the state’s judicial ethics laws, according to news website AL.com.

The legality of gay marriage had been at the center of a national debate until the Supreme Court ruled in June that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the American gay rights movement.

Despite the decision and a federal court ruling that made gay marriage legal in Alabama, Moore in January issued an administrative order to state probate judges that they should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to court documents.

“Chief Justice Moore flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority,” the complaint said. “Moore knowingly ordered (probate judges) to commit violations … knowingly subjecting them to potential prosecution and removal from office.”

Moore said in a statement that the commission had no authority over administrative orders or the court’s ability to prohibit probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. “We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail,” he said.

Moore wrote in his order that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was at odds with a decision in March 2015 by the Alabama Supreme Court that instructed probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The conflicting opinions had resulted in “confusion and uncertainty,” Moore said, with many probate judges issuing marriage licenses to gay couples while others refused to do so. [uL1N14R283]

The Human Rights Campaign, the biggest U.S. gay rights organization, hailed the suspension. “Roy Moore is an embarrassment to the state of Alabama,” Eva Walton Kendrick, the group’s Alabama state manager, said in a statement.

Moore, a Republican, has been a hero of conservative causes before. In 2003, he was removed from office after a federal judge ruled he was placing himself above the law by refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument.

He won the chief justice job back in 2012, vowing not to do anything to create further friction with the federal courts.

(Reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee and Colleen Jenkins in Winston-Salem, N.C.; Editing by Ed Davies/Mark Heinrich)

Photo: A same-sex marriage supporter holds a sign referring to Alabama’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, during a protest outside the Jefferson County Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama February 9, 2015.  REUTERS/Marvin Gentry

Tags:

90 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila May 8, 2016

    Somebody forgot to tell Judge Moore that the South lost the Civil War, and that the era of prejudice is now confined to the annals of history…unless you are in a Trump rally.
    BTW, what happened to the family values Governor that was messing around with a married woman? Did he resign or is he positioned to be re-elected by his devoted immoral minority?
    What a bunch of Jurassic Park hypocrites!

    Reply
    1. Paul Bass May 8, 2016

      Please, you disparage dinosaurs!

      Reply
      1. Regina Ingram May 9, 2016

        “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc221ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc221:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsClearlyGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc221…………

        Reply
  2. Phil Christensen May 8, 2016

    Not sure why everyone is surprised. It took a while, but once the State got involved (licenses, joint tax returns) in marriage, this was inevitable.

    Reply
  3. charleo1 May 8, 2016

    The disconnect here of course, is I’ll bet there are dozens of places where Judge Moore believes the government, or the state, has no business at all. Yet in one of the most personal areas one can imagine, choosing the person one decides to pledge their troth, he strongly believes the government not only has a place, but should regulate to the maximin level, and forbid. And he most likely came to his decision very quickly. For the Judge, it is a moral one. His religion forbids same sex relationships, and so he believes, should the state. In his view, the government should reflect the tenets of his faith. And so therefore, has a responsibility for the good of society as he sees it, to step in and tell it’s citizens how to properly conduct their private lives. This, as he pledges his troth to a political Party where every other word out of their mouths is either freedom, or liberty. Ironic, and very peculiar, to the say the least. But this is the kind of discombobulation you get when one attempts to square the idea mingling the authoritarian bent of any religion, with a democratic system that champions the free will of the individual. Religion being about a lot of many worthwhile, and virtuous things. But freedom of thought, and advancing personal expression are not ever any of them. Religion is about submission. In this case, the way Judge Moore views it, the LGBTs must submit, at least those freedoms involving who they may share their lives with, adopt children, enjoy tax advantages, and freedom from discrimination, to a State that by law excludes them from the same Rights, privileges, and protections enjoyed by every other minority. This doesn’t square at all with my idea of everything America is supposed to be about.

    Reply
  4. yabbed May 8, 2016

    Roy Moore is the reincarnation of George Wallace. Alabamians need to get a life and let the rest of us get on with ours.

    Reply
    1. charleo1 May 8, 2016

      Exactly. Different day, same old stuff.

      Reply
  5. 1Zoe55 May 8, 2016

    This Moore needs to be removed from the Bench permanently. Since when does a Southern judge decide he is above the Constitution. I agree with the poster who points out that these conservatives want smaller federal government and fewer regulations until, that is, the choice of whom you marry is involved. This Moore cannot place his religious views before our laws. Remember when John F. Kennedy had to state that our laws prevailed before that of the Catholic Pope? This Moore does indeed remind me of George Wallace standing in the school doorway to prevent integration. Wallace lost that battle and so will Moore.

    Reply
  6. CrankyToo May 8, 2016

    It couldn’t have happened to a nicer Hypo-Christian.

    Reply
  7. PrecipitousDrop May 8, 2016

    I confess. I am a lifelong southerner. Oh, sure, I dress well, have good teeth, and I’ve even passed as normal in New York City and Washington DC. But I talk funny. That always gives me away. I open my mouth and the jig is up! I’m a southerner.

    Roy Moore and this LGBT dust-up is just a cinder in the eye, an annoyance. The much, much bigger problem — the conflagration, if you follow my drift — is one political party’s insistence on theocratic governance. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, all of the former confederate states, and even large swaths of California, Oregon and Washington are, ahem, hell-bent on setting a christian stamp on every scrap of legislation that passes by.

    This just has to stop. Glorify god in churches, temples, synagogues and mosques all through the land! Praise the lord! Just, please, leave god out of schools, courthouses, police stations, statehouses, congress and the oval office. Thank you.

    Reply
  8. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

    The irony of that sign is lost on all the bunghole-marriage supporters.

    Reply
    1. PrecipitousDrop May 8, 2016

      Hey, Otto!
      Good to see you, man!
      How do you disparage lesbian couples? We’re DYING to hear!

      Reply
    2. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

      Please explain the irony to us, if you would . . .

      Reply
      1. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

        Bunghole-marriage is a right because the Supreme Court did not uphold the law, instead it made it.

        Reply
        1. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

          Marriage, bunghole or not, is a basic fundamental right. The SCOTUS simply stuck down laws that bigots had passed that denied this right to its citizens. They upheld the Constitutional protections we enjoy, and that the states tried to take away. They did not ‘make’ any law. They simply said that states may not impose discriminatory restrictions on the right of the people to marry whomever they wish.

          But by all means, whine some more. .. it never fails to warm the cockles of my heart to hear bigots wail in impotent fury.

          Reply
          1. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            The Supreme Court invented a right to bunghole-marriage, despite there being no such thing in the Constitution. Hence the irony of that sign.

            Reply
          2. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            Nice try, but what they did was prevent states from denying a basic right to its citizens. And since there is no mention of marriage whatsoever in the Constitution, I suppose then, that marriages – all of them – are unconstitutional and therefore invalid? Now, THAT would be irony . . . that in trying to defend the ‘sanctity of marriage’, you wound up totally invalidating every marriage in the country, thus creating an entire nation of bastards.

            Reply
          3. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            There is no mention of a right to bunghole marriage in the Constitution, which means laws prohibiting them are not unconstitutional.

            Reply
          4. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            There’s no mention of marriages, period. There is, however, a precedent in the Loving vs Va case where the Court stated specifically that marriage was a basic, fundamental right. Therefore, the SCOTUS held that states could not prohibit same sex marriage any more than they could prohibit interracial marriages.

            Otto, you lost. It’s over. You can whine, bleat, snivel and post all you want. You still lost. All of the excusifyin’ in the world isn’t going to change the face that same sex couples can be married now. But by all means, carry on with your whining, bleating, and sniveling posts . . . they just make me feel SO warm and fuzzy, knowing that you’re fuming and sputtering with bitter, impotent rage.

            Reply
          5. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            No mention of an anus-marriage right, because it was invented by the Supreme Court.

            Reply
          6. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Which, I might add, is a fundamental right.

            Reply
    3. Insinnergy May 8, 2016

      Ahh yes… It was getting so quiet round here before you started vomiting up your usual brief, fact-free excrement.

      I see that you are confused about both your own sexuality (Bunghole-marriage??? LOL), and the role of the supreme court in interpreting the Constitution… most specifically the laws around discrimination and human rights.

      I assume that the position you are therefore taking, my gay friend, is that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution that homosexuals should be discriminated against, and hence are second class citizens… and then the Supreme Court “changed the law”.

      What are you… 5 years old? (and gay)

      Reply
      1. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

        The Founding Father’s thought bunghole bandits should be castrated.

        Reply
        1. PrecipitousDrop May 8, 2016

          They did? Reference, please.

          Reply
          1. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            You realize that the hypothetical law Jefferson proposed would have a husband performing anal sex on his own wife being castrated, right? Or going down on her? And you will note that none of this made it into the Constitution, so it couldn’t have been that much of a concern.

            I suppose you also approved of judicial mutilations as well, such as Jefferson proposed? Or the laws against witchcraft and fortune telling? Or with executed bodies being turned over for dissection, or hung on a gibbet for public display?

            Reply
          2. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            It’s strange Jefferson would support such a law if there were a Constitutional right not only to sodomy, but for sodomy-marriage. Obviously no such constitutional rights exist.

            Reply
          3. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            Jefferson was writing things that were utterly abhorrent. He was a man of his day, and those ideas didn’t get into the Constitution. And what you just said doesn’t make even a lick of sense.

            Reply
          4. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            That was moderate view, most men then thought sodomy should be punished with death, which illustrates the absurdity of claims there is a constitutional right to engage in it.

            Reply
          5. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            It’s a privacy issue. What you do in private with another consenting adult does not require a constitutional right. You do not have a constitutional right to watch television. You do not have a constitutional right to play Mah-Jong. It do not have a constitutional right to pick your toes in Poughkeepsie. And if two (or more) gays want to have a private romp, it doesn’t require a constitutional right. The anti-sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional nationwide because those laws violate your right to privacy.

            Otto, seriously . . . you have a very bad problem with women and you’re totally fixated on gay anal sex. Is there something you’re trying to tell us here? I mean, c’mon, get real. We’ve already figured it out. It’s no big surprise, so go ahead, come on out of the closet, you’ll feel better not having to hide the way you’re doing with all this deflecting and overcompensating.

            Believe me, no one will think the less of you for it. In fact, I rather think it isn’t possible for anyone here to think less of you . . .

            Reply
          6. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            Sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional because the Supreme Court invented a right to sodomy, and there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. It’s comical how you turd burglars always accuse everyone else of sharing your mental disorder.

            Reply
          7. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            That’s what the SCOTUS does – it interprets the Constitution. That’s their job.And they didn’t ‘invent’ a right, they simply interpreted the Constitution and followed its principles.

            Otto, if you disagree, why don’t you just toddle on over to Washington, pop in on the SCOTUS, and explain to them the error of their ways? I’m sure they’ll be thoroughly impressed by your degree in constitutional law that you got from reading Deadbart and The Blaze, and will give you all the attention you deserve.

            Oh, and you’re the one who’s utterly and completely fixated on gay sex, I mean, look at all the loving terms you have for it, and the constant fascination you have and how much you like to talk about it. Seriously, it’s almost an unwritten law that says the more someone screams their rage at gays, the more likely it is that they’re secretly gay and are frantically trying to deflect. Look how many gay-bashing preachers get caught with pretty boys.

            Gays don’t have to talk about gay sex all the time because, well, they do it rather than talk about it. Straight people never carry on about gay sex because it’s something that never even crosses their minds. Only frustrated, closeted gays who never get any because they’re terrified of being found out carry on the way you do. So really, go hit Craigslist, find a hookup, clear your tubes, and maybe you’ll feel all better.

            Reply
          8. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            They invented the right, which is why it is ironic to accuse Moore of inventing law. It’s funny how you project.

            Reply
          9. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            Moore didn’t ‘invent’ any laws, he simply refused to obey the SCOTUS decision in violation of the law, constitution, and his oath of office, and he ordered other to violate the law as well because he feels that the bible has supremacy over the Constitution.. Thus, he has therefore been removed from the bench, is facing a judicial trial, and will probably wind up being disbarred because of it.

            Once again, Otto, you’re a loser whining about losing and how unfair it all is that you’re such a sorry, whining, pathetic loser. Bleat all you like. Nobody really cares, much less a court anywhere in the land. As I said before, if you feel so strongly about it, why are you wasting your time sniveling here when you could be explaining to the SCOTUS where they went wrong, and how you know how to fix everything? After all, if you’re right, they’ll just HAVE to listen to you!

            Reply
          10. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            You seem to care a lot. You’re throwing a hissy fit because I noted the irony of that sign.

            Reply
          11. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            Nope, I’m just having loads of fun pwning you and making you jump up and down screaming and foaming at the mouth. It’s a shameful pleasure, I’ll admit, but right now, meh, what have I got better to do? I don’t make port until tomorrow, and the autopilot is keeping us on course. So I have lots of time to play roly=poly punching bag with you.

            Ordinarily, I’d just ignore a troll like you, but you do far too good a job of showing how demented you are and how well you discredit your own side. Basically, I’m watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, while I generously offer you a larger shovel. Keep digging, Otto, there’s a bone down there SOMEWHERE!

            Reply
          12. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            You’re projecting again. Why do you think your kind do that? I think it’s because on an instinctive level you know you are defective, and you can’t handle it.

            Reply
          13. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            In other words, Otto, you’ve got nothing, you know you’ve got nothing, and are now reduced to :I AM NOT, YOU ARE, NYAA NYAA NYAA!”. Yup, that’s the Otto we all know and . . . laugh at.

            Oh, and you need to wipe the spittle off of your screen.

            Reply
          14. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            You did it again. You’re hysterical.

            Reply
          15. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            Sure did! I see you really love to be pwnished . . . another one of those ‘issues’ you seem to be wrestling with.

            Reply
          16. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            Your ravings are likely an indication you have GRIDS dementia.

            Reply
          17. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            Awwww . . . poor Otto, down to flinging wet, loose, and runny poo. You really might want to think about adding some roughage to your diet so its got some body and heft. That way you can get some range with it as opposed to just having it run down your arm when you try to toss it.

            Reply
          18. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            No need to remind everyone of your kind’s revolting coprophila.

            Reply
          19. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            You’re the one frantically flinging . . . Wiped the spittle off your screen yet?

            Reply
          20. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            “The irony of that sign is lost on all the bunghole-marriage supporters.”

            That’s all it took to trigger your meltdown.

            Reply
          21. Siegfried Heydrich May 9, 2016

            Meltdown? No, laughter followed by more laughter followed by leading you merrily along as you made a complete and utter fool of yourself. Seriously, you’re just the obsessive-compulsive gift that keeps on giving.

            Oh, can I get you a bigger shovel?

            Reply
          22. larrymotuz May 9, 2016

            Hear, Hear!

            I Do think less of him, however; and, I hope to not think at all of him ever … with the pleasant side effect that I won’t recall him at all.

            😉

            Reply
          23. PrecipitousDrop May 8, 2016

            Thanks, Otto.
            Your document was lifted from the papers of Thos. Jefferson. The collection includes letters, essays, agricultural records, and whatever else he decided to jot down. In addition to a litany of proposed punishments for a variety of crimes, the suggested punishment of castration was suggested for men convicted of, “rape, polygamy, or sodomy.”
            I guess you locked your steel-trap noodle on, “Sodomy,” yes?
            Jerk in shame, Mr. Goat. Wonderful, happy sodomy between consenting adults is NOT against the law.
            (Psst! It’s time for your line, “Foiled again!”)

            Reply
          24. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            What intelligent insights.

            Reply
          25. Siegfried Heydrich May 8, 2016

            I rather thought so too.

            Reply
          26. PrecipitousDrop May 9, 2016

            Natch!

            Reply
          27. larrymotuz May 9, 2016

            i add that sodomy back then, and since the 16th century, was technically defined as any form of non-procreative sex act engaged in by couples, married or not. This broad definition included masturbation, for which people were hung.

            In some U.S. states, >i> any conjugal intercourse that differed from the accepted er, less lustful missionary position was also referred to as sodomy.

            Sodomy did not take on its ‘anal sex’ homophobic meaning until the late 19th century and after. Sodomy nevertheless includes anal sex between men and women, and, in some states, still includes oral sex .

            Reply
          28. PrecipitousDrop May 9, 2016

            Uh-oh, Larry.
            Otto’s locked himself in the bathroom.
            Did he hear us talking?

            Reply
        2. Henry Ridgeway May 8, 2016

          Who is this Founding Father of whom you speak and what is this thought which he owned? Possessive? You are so smart we should all listen to you.

          Reply
          1. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            Great job catching a typo.

            Reply
        3. Ran_dum_Thot May 9, 2016

          What the founding fathers thought is not to construed to be the law of the land. That is why the Constitution is a written document. None of the founding fathers were without fault or prejudices. They just had enough sense to try and let people be themselves without government interference. Hence, no state religion. No definition of inalienable rights. They knew these are fluid concepts and left it for the people to decide how to handle. Many of these rights are actually matters of personal choice based on ones culture and upbringing that change with times.

          Reply
          1. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            Why would they support unconstitutional laws? You would have us believe they did not understand the Constitution they had just created.

            Reply
          2. Ran_dum_Thot May 11, 2016

            Listen up Goat. Founding fathers wanted certain people castrated according to you. That is not part of the Constitution. The founding father’s personal beliefs aside, the Constitution sets the laws of the land. What isn’t covered by the Constitution is kicked back to the states, the voters or to the SC to resolve. As human nature is fickle at best, most people have a difficult time accepting others point of view or practices. That does not mean it is acceptable to harm or annihilate those of opposing views.

            Reply
          3. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            Sodomy was a crime in every state.

            Reply
          4. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            So was adultery and mixed-race marriage. What’s your point?

            Reply
          5. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            The point is those laws were completely consistent with the Constitution.

            Reply
          6. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            Otto, put on your smartypants, for chrissake!
            These were STATE laws.
            The Constitution is FEDERAL law. It is unconcerned with trivial state statutes UNLESS they undermine the freedoms and rights set forth in its contents as determined by the Supreme Court.
            Sodomy, adultery and mixed-race marriage have never been prohibited in the Constitution.

            Reply
          7. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            Obviously the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution did not believe those laws were contrary to it. At least it should be obvious.

            Reply
          8. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            How do you know?
            Oh. You don’t.

            Reply
          9. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            None of them ever objected to sodomy laws for being unconstitutional. Some of them, like Jefferson, are on record supporting sodomy laws.

            Reply
          10. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            ALL of the framers objected to limitations of personal freedoms. When state sodomy laws were brought before the Supreme Court, they were deemed to be unconstitutional limitations of personal privacy and liberty. Period.

            Reply
          11. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            None of the framers objected to sodomy laws.

            Reply
          12. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            Perhaps. They’re dead so we can’t ask.
            The point is, when sodomy laws were challenged on a constitutional basis, they failed.

            Reply
          13. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            No, the point is the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution did not believe sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

            Reply
          14. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            And now we do believe that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Lots of things have changed, Otto. We drive cars, not teams of horses. Slavery is illegal. Women can vote and own property. Try to keep up, OK?

            Reply
          15. Otto T. Goat May 11, 2016

            The Constitution hasn’t changed.

            Reply
          16. PrecipitousDrop May 11, 2016

            No. It hasn’t. Our Constitution STILL exists to protect the personal privacy and liberty of United States citizens.

            Reply
  9. FireBaron May 9, 2016

    I found Moore’s reasoning for his rejection of “Obergefell” to be totally hilarious. His justification was as the Federal District Court that oversees Alabama had not rendered any decisions regarding gay marriage (either pro or con) that Obergefell had no standing in that district. Therefore Moore could allow continued discrimination against marriages. Given his personal background, he would also likely oppose “Loving”, too.

    Reply
  10. Beethoven May 10, 2016

    I am embarrassed to say that I know Roy Moore personally, and worked with him many years ago, before he became a crusader for “Christian” fundamentalism. It looks like Roy Moore will go down in history as the first state supreme court chief justice to be twice removed from office for his blatant refusal to obey an order of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Reply
  11. Travis May 22, 2016

    Actually, it is the SCOTUS that should be told their job is not to make the law, but to uphold it. God’s law says marriage is between a man and a woman. Justice Moore is upholding the higher law rather than the lower law, as is appropriate for a judge.

    Reply
    1. PrecipitousDrop May 22, 2016

      Travis, the great state of Alabama and the Supreme Court of the United States of America do not recognize biblical doodles as statutory codes. That’s why Roy Moore has been suspended, AND why he was removed from office in his prior term.
      “God’s Law.” What a rube!
      Jeez.

      Reply
      1. Travis May 23, 2016

        You think that men and women alone get to decide the entire law? If the SCOTUS ruled that child molestation was good, would it then be okay? By what (or whose) law would it then still be wrong?

        Reply
        1. PrecipitousDrop May 23, 2016

          Travis. the men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States of America DO have the final say in decisions regarding all of our laws. SCOTUS will never rule in favor of child molestation because molestation, by its definition, is injurious.
          We are a secular society, Travis, with secular laws. Our civil rights laws, including the right to marry, are not affected by religious rules.

          Reply
          1. Travis May 23, 2016

            Homosexual sex is injurous to the parties involved and yet the SCOTUS has ruled that it is okay.
            Furthermore, suppose that the SCOTUS does rule that child molestation is okay or that exterminating a particular race of people is okay, as Germany did in the 1940’s; if you have denied that there is a higher moral law that even the SCOTUS must respect, on what basis will you then be able to say that they are wrong about molestation or genocide being okay?

            Reply
          2. PrecipitousDrop May 23, 2016

            Stop, Travis. Just stop. Homosexual sex is just as injurious to the parties involved as heterosexual sex is to those parties, no more and no less. Private sexual activities between consenting adults IS not, in itself, illegal. Period. The rest of your post is supposition. I will ignore it.

            Reply
          3. Travis June 3, 2016

            Living a homosexual “lifestyle” significantly lowers one’s life expectancy and increases one’s risk of depression and other mental health problems. I would call that a danger.

            God designed men and women to paricipate in sex only within committed (heterosexual) marriages. Therefore it stands to reason that sexual activity as contrary to God’s design as homosexual sex would have significant negative emotional and spiritual effects on the people involved.

            See the following scientific articles:
            http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
            http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/

            Reply
          4. The_Magic_M June 3, 2016

            > Homosexual sex is injurous to the parties involved

            How exactly?

            Reply
          5. Travis June 3, 2016

            Living a homosexual “lifestyle” significantly lowers one’s life expectancy and increases one’s risk of depression and other mental health problems. I would call that injurous.

            God designed men and women to paricipate in sex only within committed (heterosexual) marriages. Therefore it stands to reason that sexual activity as contrary to God’s design as homosexual sex would have significant negative emotional and spiritual effects on the people involved.

            See the following scientific articles:
            http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
            http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/

            Reply
          6. The_Magic_M June 6, 2016

            > Living a homosexual “lifestyle” significantly lowers one’s life expectanc

            So does smoking. So we forbid smokers from marrying?

            > God designed men and women to paricipate in sex only within committed (heterosexual) marriages.

            So premarital sex should be outlawed, too?

            Do you see where your ideas lead to?

            Reply
          7. The_Magic_M June 3, 2016

            > there is a higher moral law

            And by what authority is that the Bibble (or, more precisely, your denomination’s interpretation thereof) and not the Torah or the Qu’ran or the Mormon Bibble?

            Reply
          8. Travis June 3, 2016

            The Bible is authoratative by the authority of the all-mighty, living God Who wrote it. The prophecy contained in the Bible and the testimony of Jesus Christ and His apostles to its truth show that it is from God.

            Reply
          9. The_Magic_M June 6, 2016

            Other religions’ holy books say the same, so how do we know which one is right?

            Besides, your argument still effectively is “the Bibble is the word of God because it says so” and “the Bibble is right because everything chapter 1 prophesized actually happened in chapter 12” and “the Bibble is right because its fictional characters say it is”.

            Reply
        2. The_Magic_M June 3, 2016

          > f the SCOTUS ruled that child molestation was good, would it then be okay?

          No, but it would be the law.

          Reply
    2. The_Magic_M June 3, 2016

      > God’s law says

      Last I checked, the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the land, not the Bibble.

      > Justice Moore is upholding the higher law rather than the lower law, as is appropriate for a judge.

      If Moore wants the Bibble to be the supreme law of the land, he should quit his job (which is to protect the Constitution, not a fairy tale book) and become a judge in the Evangelical Court, or whatever courts you nutjobs have.

      Reply
  12. The_Magic_M June 3, 2016

    Great! I had totally missed that and always thought “why did he get away with that?” (Actually I thought “why’d he get away with that?” which conservative sources immediately understood as “whitey get away with that?” and called me a racist liberal. ;))

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.