Moore: Marriage Equality Destroys the Constitution!

Judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has launched a campaign to ban same-sex marriage at the federal level with a constitutional amendment and, naturally, the Worldnetdaily is helping him promote it. I present to you a whole bunch of really stupid arguments:

“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”

He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

Exactly! Like when the Supreme Court upheld the right to travel freely between states and the right to send one’s children to private religious schools, neither of which is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. So those make the court illegitimate, right? Of course not. To be fair, though, Judge Moore likes those unenumerated rights so they totally don’t count.

Moore told WND the high court has emphasized several times the importance of marriage between a man and a woman.

In 1885, he noted, the court said ,”Family consists of and springs from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony …”

A couple years later, he said, the court said marriage of a man and a woman is the sure foundation “of all that is stable and noble.”

And if allowing gay people to get married had any effect whatsoever on those marriages and families, this might have some relevance. But “marriage is good” is not only not a good argument against same-sex marriage, it isn’t an argument at all. It doesn’t even attempt to engage the issue.

“If marriage falls,” he said, “the institution of family upon which it is based falls.”

Then, he said, “We no longer have a Constitution. We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means … .”

Again, if same-sex marriages had any ability to make “marriage fall” — whatever that could mean — this might be relevant. But it doesn’t, so it isn’t.

"Thank you for confirming my assessment of you: more lies, the "p" word- twice, the ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."
"I thought he was in it to see just how far he can work his ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"You can see actual pictures of the Groper in Chief lusting after her daughter. President ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."
"He will find it in his heart to exemplify Christian mercy by forgiving those poor, ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • marcus

    As someone born and raised in Alabama I would like to apologize to the rest of the world for the fact that this ignorant piece of shit was ever allowed to crawl out of the swamps and don judicial robes. What an arrogant cretin.

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    Surely only if they tear up every copy to use for confetti.

  • matty1

    “We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means”

    You’ve always had that, the piece of paper was never making decisions on it’s own. He’s just pissed that his view on what the constitution means isn’t shared by those in power.

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    Oh and isn’t “individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means” a reasonable description of the SCOTUS? (Of course you do need to take ‘men’ as unmarked.)

  • noastronomer

    You have to admit that the SCOTUS can be downright insane at times.

    Mike.

  • dhall

    Seems like the court has had to change its collective mind a few other times over decisions made in the 19th century. The Dred Scott decision comes to mind, along with the whole slaves = property concept, women owning property, women voting . . . etc. Then there was the decision regarding ‘separate but equal’ that was later reversed too; obviously none of that was specifically enshrined in the Constitution either.

  • roggg

    Judiciary imposed same sex marriages? If the courts are forcing people to gay marry, then I agree with Moore…it is a travesty and violation of the constitution,

  • D. C. Sessions

    Ed, you’re not being fair to a great legal mind:

    He [Moore — dcs] said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

    Which Moore then illustrated:

    Moore told WND the high court has emphasized several times the importance of marriage between a man and a woman.

    In 1885, he noted, the court said ,”Family consists of and springs from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony …”

    A couple years later, he said, the court said marriage of a man and a woman is the sure foundation “of all that is stable and noble.”

    It makes a great deal of sense if you read those as examples of “judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

  • Big Boppa

    re: dhall @ 6

    I have no doubt that Roy Moore would be all too happy to reverse every one of the decisions you mentioned – and more. What I don’t get is why regressives like this don’t just come out and say that what they really want is to establish the true, old testament style definition of marriage. You know….marriage is between one man and as many women/girls/children as he can seduce/purchase/rape/kidnap.

  • dingojack

    Has Roy Moore considered joining the Thomas More Law Centre? Just wondering.

    Dingo

  • matty1

    @7 Moore is just unhappy with the courts choice of husband for him.

  • caseloweraz

    WND: [Moore] said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

    So Judge Moore is against the Citizens United decision which effectively redefines corporations as natural persons?

    No? Well, blow me down!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    In 1885, he noted, the court said ,”Family consists of and springs from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony…” {emphasis mine}

    Who knew divorce was unconstitutional?

  • Wylann

    I present to you a whole bunch of really stupid arguments.

    FTFY

  • Chiroptera

    Well, you have to admit, if anyone knows anything about destroying the Constitution, its Judge Moore.

    “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

    He’s talking about himself on the Alabama Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court, right?

  • bryanfeir

    Judge Moore, I present to you the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • zenlike

    So here we have a sitting judge who is actively campaigning outside his courtroom to change the laws.

    Can we call him an activist judge yet?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    “If marriage falls,” he said, “the institution of family upon which it is based falls.”

    Then, he said, “We no longer have a Constitution. We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means … .”

    I missed the part where the constitution mentions anything about marriage being between one man and one woman. Frankly, I missed the part where the constitution mentions marriage at all.

  • matty1

    I missed the part where the constitution mentions marriage at all

    It’s in the special version, right after to ‘no Muslims or Atheists’ clause and before the bit stating that anyone named Obama is automatically not a natural born citizen.

  • Michael Heath

    “It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”

    He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”

    Please notice how the denialist Judge Moore ignores the existence of the 14th Amendment. That while defaming those judges who acknowledge its existence and therefore rule accordingly. Exactly like creationists lie about biologists, exactly like AGW denialists defame climate scientists, and exactly like Christianist revisionists lie about American history. All peas from the same pod.

  • http://essaressellwye.tumblr.com Hershele Ostropoler

    I wish I knew which of the dozens of cases the Court decided in 1885 he was referring to, and when “a few years later” was, and which case he’s referring to there.