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.