Roy Moore On Marriage
CNN interviewed Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore, this morning. During the interview Judge Moore all but laid out justification for same sex marriage while arguing the opposite. Regrettably the interviewer, Chris Cuomo, chose to debate the word “marriage” and not the fundamental issue of why the Federal District Courts are involved.
Justice Moore argued that the Federal District Court had issued an “opinion” and not a law. Hmmm. His ruling that Alabama Courts did not need to follow the Federal District Courts ruling was based upon the view that the District Court was not the Supreme Court.
Justice Moore than went on to liken the Court’s opinion to “Plessy vs Ferguson” and “Dred Scott” (separate but equal and negroes can be property) decisions. Justice Moore asked whether the Federal Courts should have followed these Supreme Court rulings when today the Supreme Court decisions are viewed as gravely flawed?
Justice Moore quoted liberally the Constitution’s preamble saying the definition of marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so it must be left to the States to decide what definition applies. Hmmm.
What if the fundamental issue at hand is not the definition of marriage? What if the real issue is why are certain rights available to some and not available to others.
Catholic or Protestant churches can define marriage any way they see as correct, and so can the Jewish, Islamic, or Mormon traditions. These are private organizations, like the Elks or Lions Clubs and the State has no role in setting these organizations’ beliefs.
The Constitution, however, does have an “equal protection under the law” provision. So when a State like Alabama enshrines in State law benefits (such as property transfer, rights of survivorship, adoption, etc) which are restricted to only certain male-female partnerships, then the Federal Courts are on solid grounds to call Alabama out and question why different pairs are treated differently.
Arguing the definition of marriage is futile. It is also irrelevant. The issues is why should certain pairs qualify for State benefits while other committed pairs not qualify? Equal protection under the law exposes the error which the traditional State laws passed benefits to married couples (where married meant man and woman).
There is no evidence that a man and a woman love each other more than two men or two women. There is also no evidence (as opposed to a lot of opinions) that a man-woman home is better to raise children. So, tell me again what is so special about man-woman marriage? Why should only this combination qualify for State and Federal benefits?
In a strange way Justice Moore by arguing that the Federal Courts had no role in defining marriage was in fact laying the basis that States had no right to deny citizens the same rights under the law.
Thanks Justice Moore.