Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Chief Justice Roy Moore: "Confusion In Alabama"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

USA Today is reporting that at least one Alabama judge began issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples yesterday, defying a directive from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that to do so is in violation of the state constitution.

Judge Moore explained in his 6-page letter that a federal judge's decision to strike down the state's ban on same-sex "marriage" was not binding on state courts.

Judge Moore says that the federal government's intrusion into the state's constitution has caused "confusion" in the state.

The New York Times casts Judge Moore as "defiant" for seeking to uphold state law and the state constitution, while celebrating those who violate it.

Indeed there is "confusion" and this issue in Alabama should cause concern for every citizen who values state's rights and the growing intrusion of federal government--- as well as the relentless assault against the institution of marriage.

In this case, it is both. It is an assault against natural marriage and the will of 81% of the people in the state.


USA Today does what the media usually does when far left progressives are making "progress": They tell the stories of several people who have suffered, but now rejoice, even though the will of the people has been grossly overridden and state law ignored, to say nothing of undermining the oldest cultural model of civilized society. Marriage and family.

Judge Moore's directive was immediately defied yesterday morning by Judge Alan King in Jefferson County, setting up a showdown between the state's chief justice and the federal courts.

Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director of Human Rights Campaign---the largest homosexual advocacy organization in the country, called Judge Moore's letter "a pathetic last-ditch attempt at judicial fiat."

Interesting...it is the homosexual activists that consistently call for judicial actions to overrule the will and vote of the people.

Moore noted in his letter, Article 1, Section 36.03 of the Alabama Constitution which states, "No probate judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with Article 1," which refers to the state's 2006 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and the 1998 law doing so.

Why then is Judge Moore "defiant" when he upholds state law?

In June 2006, Alabama voters overwhelmingly---almost 81%, approved Amendment 774, known as the "Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."

Last month, in response to a lawsuit filed by 2 lesbians and 2 homosexual men, US District Court Judge Callie V.S. Granade ruled the state's ban on same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional, therefore same sex licenses should be issued.

Judicial fiat?

The US Supreme Court refused yesterday to extend a hold that effectively upheld the will of the people until marriage is heard by the Court later this year.

This "confusion" is certainly about the assault on marriage, morality and family.

But it is also about the rights of states and the citizens who live there.

The New York Times begins their coverage of this story like this: "In a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary Chief Justice Roy Moore..."

Defiance? Who is defying whom?

While reporting on the "confusion," the Times links Judge Moore's effort to uphold the state's laws with former Governor George Wallace's racial positions 50 years ago.

Ethnicity is not the same as sexual behavior. Blacks generally find the linkage an affront.

Frankly, I don't think most whites believe ethnicity and sexual behavior are equivalent either---except those who seek to use the plight of blacks to advance the homosexual agenda.

Perhaps the most clear voice on racial discrimination and civil rights came from Alabama.

I wrote an article on this last month as America celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's clear that neither MLK nor his family supported so-called same-sex "marriage."

What MLK believed about civil rights seems irrelevant to the Times at this moment. They forge ahead to make their point, "Some legal scholars," they report, "say the chief justice may be correct in his interpretation of the immediate scope of the federal court's rulings and how they apply to probate judges."

However, the Times then quotes Judge Steven L. Reed of Montgomery County as their point of the entire story:

Judge Reed says, "I don't want to see judges make the same mistakes that were made in this state 50 years ago, where you had state officials not abiding by federal orders. The legacy always hangs over us until we show we're beyond it."

Does he really believe that enshrining into law and legalizing sexual behavior that defies nature and every major religion in the world, particularly biblical Christianity, somehow shows that Alabama is "beyond" racial discrimination?

Judge Moore is right. There is a state of confusion in Alabama.

Ironically, Chief Justice Moore and the people get it right. The confusion seems heavily weighted on the side of those who deny the Truth and values of God---the same God who has given us both our rights and His model for marriage.

If those who are working to redefine marriage in Alabama are truly concerned about their legacy, they should take a very careful look at where the slippery slope of redefining marriage will lead.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


8 comments:

  1. If gay activists do not respect the Laws of God, what laws will they respect? Jesus loves all human beings, but those who rebel against his Lordship and purposes will suffer the due penalties in their lives and bodies.....and separation from Him. Ditto a nation that rebels against Him and His good plans for mankind.....more suffering, more confusion, more loss of joy and health........the wheat and tares all in the same fires of pain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judicial anarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obviously, the judge who decided to begin issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexuals had disorder in his court.

    I just looked up the word court in my dictionary. It talks about an uncovered space wholly or partly surrounded by buildings or walls.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's pray for America's judges.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So I started in on my 1040 EZ, hoping it would be simple again this year, but it seems the heath care thing complicated it enough that right now, I'm not able to get through it.

    But it seemed to me that there was an exemption for those who were a part of some kind of religious organization, that held a belief that health care insurance is some sort of sin, so they are exempt.

    But if a baker will not make and decorate a wedding cake for a homosexual "marriage" because they don't wish to become a partaker in another's most abominable sins, the government doesn't seem to have much interest in protecting them from the wolves (some of them in by something of the state government) that want to take away all that they may have, for some kind of apparent (or non apparent) sin.

    And some want us Christians to get off of our horse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems like government may be about protecting something that resembles bologna, or is absolutely nothing of substance, under freedom of religion, or under some other disguise, but may go against and assault anything that is real. So much deceit and hypocrisy these days. So much corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I heard that Federal law has a clause in it that permits it to trump state law.

    The exercise of that had better be done constitutionally, and in order to protect the constitution. I believe the Federal government should step in at times to prevent damage to the rest of the union when states do harmful things that will affect that state and the rest of the nation. I don't think this should have to happen very often. I believe it should be a very rare occasion. It would be wonderful if it never had to happen at all.

    I believe the gay agenda to be one of those harmful things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe there are ways in which a close friend should be able to visit a patient in a hospital even if they are not family, in an emergency, if the patient has given prior approval. I believe there should be a simple way to accomplish that by having an approved record accessible by hospitals on their computers, something the patient is responsible to keep updated, something a visiting friend may ask them to check on arrival at a hospital.

    Trying to fix a problem like that by pushing for gay "marriage" is the wrong way to go about it, for in addressing one problem, it gives place for a host of others.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.