Sunday, February 15, 2015

AL Chief Justice Roy Moore deliberately vague on how he would oppose a SCOTUS pro-marriage equality ruling

 After pussyfooting around the point during a disastrous interview last week with CNN's Chris Cuomo, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore today confirmed on Fox News something that we already knew he would do should SCOTUS rule in favor of marriage equality later this year.

He would attempt to stand against the ruling.But he continues to be deliberately vague on his course of action.

 According to Raw Story:

Alabama Chief Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore on Sunday insisted that he had a moral duty to defy the United States Supreme Court if they tried to change God’s “organic law” by declaring that LGBT people had an equal right to marriage.

Moore told Fox News host Chris Wallace that if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT had equal marriage rights then he “would not be bound thereby.”

“I could recuse or dissent as a justice from Delaware did in the Dred Scott case [affirming slavery] in 1857,” the Alabama chief justice insisted. “They ruled black people were property. Should a court today obey such a ruling that is completely contradictory of the Constitution?”

 . . .  When federal courts start changing our Constitution by defining words that are not even there, like marriage, they’re going to do the same thing with family in the future,” Moore argued. “When a word is not in the Constitution, clearly, the powers of the Supreme Court do not allow them to re-define words and seize power. The power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”
“This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court,” he concluded. 

Earlier this year, Moore caused chaos when he ordered that probate judges not issue same-sex marriage licenses even after  U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade struck down the state law against marriage equality. Judge Granade had to clarify and demand that her ruling  be followed.

My thoughts is that Moore, even as Wallace noticed, was being deliberately obtuse as to what his actions would be should SCOTUS rule in favor of marriage equality.  The lgbt community would need to keep one eye open for him and lobby for the utmost penalties should Moore decide that his personal opinion and religious beliefs are above the law.