Roy Moore’s Hypocritical and Absurd Arguments

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appeared at a rally in Texas with that state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton to rant and rave about same-sex marriage and make several false, absurd and clearly hypocritical arguments. Let’s start with the federalism argument:

“Nothing in the Constitution of the United States,” he claimed, falsely suggesting federal and state court judges are equal, “gives federal courts any authority over domestic policy of family and marriage, in the state of Texas the state of Alabama, or anywhere else.”

So Loving v Virginia must have been wrongly decided, right? You should just come out and say so. But you won’t because you know that position is quite unpopular even in Alabama and Texas. And it would show that if your argument is consistently applied, it leads to bizarre legal results.

“No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis. The definition of marriage, you want it by man? It doesn’t come by man, it comes by God.”

No court has any authority to rule against God’s commands in the Bible? Then we better get rid of the First Amendment, right? After all, the very first commandment forbids the worship of other gods, and yet the Bill of Rights, in its very first clauses, guarantees the right to do so. Clearly the founding fathers were a bunch of atheists out to destroy God’s holy rule, right? Again, apply your “logic” consistently and it quickly leads down roads almost no one wants to go.

Ironically, having now ruled in the public square, he then called for Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves “from sitting on this issue.” He added they will “void” any perception of impropriety if they do not, which of course is false as the day is long.

Yes of course. Any judge speaking publicly on an issue must recuse themselves. Except Roy Moore. And Scalia. And Thomas. And anyone who agrees with them. It’s inexcusable, but only when liberals do it.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theguy

    “Again, apply your “logic” consistently and it quickly leads down roads almost no one wants to go.”

    Don’t be so sure. After all, Moore has argued for the death penalty against gay people.

  • Nentuaby

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure Moore’s one of the people who does NOT think the First Amendment gives you the freedom to worship other gods. They assert that it just guarantees you can be a Christian of any denomination.

  • John Pieret

    Brave Sir Roy:

    While discussing an Alabaman, William Barret Travis, who died fighting with the Texas Army in the Battle of the Alamo, Moore wondered if he too will have to give his life in his fight against gay rights: “He took a stand in the face of an enemy that was far more numerous, but he knew that he had to make a statement for the people of Texas and that he would give his life. I hope I don’t give my life, but I’m going to tell you this is a very serious matter.”​

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/roy-moore-hopes-he-doesnt-have-sacrifice-his-life-stop-gay-marriage

    Somebody get that man a [cough] coonskin cap and a long rifle!

  • busterggi

    Guess we have to get rid of all guns as they are made to kill people and that violates some commandment or other.

  • david

    “No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis. “

    This is true. Courts can’t redefine what is in the Bible. But they can prevent government from establishing law based on the Bible.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    He’d squeal like a burnt bearing if someone proposed enacting laws based on the koran. Fucking christian nationalist dumbarses: that non-establishment of religion is there to protect you from your co-believers. Because not too long ago christians were killing eachother in windrows over your religion.

    Maybe he should join “dead or in prison” Ted Nugent and make an epic redneck stand for, um, something. Or, fuck it, just stand up and be targets.

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    @2. Yeah, he has made the argument that the First Amendment applies only to Christianity. Which, given the wording says “religion,” and not “Christianity,” I think you can only argue that by claiming the Founders were ignorant of the fact that non-Christian religions even exist.

  • dingojack

    Marcus Ranum – ‘Windrows‘ what a cool word!

    I was read it (at first) as ‘windows’, as in the Defenestration of Prague.

    Dingo