Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was returned to the top judicial post in the state after he fought with bureaucrats over the message of the Ten Commandments, is now adding his voice to a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage.
“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.”
The campaign is alive online under the “I Stand With Judge Moore” headline and proposes the Constitution be amended to state: “Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman, and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
In addition to the online presence, the campaign mailed letters to governors of all 50 states urging them to get their legislatures to call for a convention to add that amendment to the Constitution.
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.”
He pointed out that if same-sex “marriage” becomes the norm, the next steps might not be so attractive.
His warning aligned with the red flags raised earlier by several key leaders.
For example, Elaine Smith, deputy presiding officer in the Scottish Parliament, warned about her country’s move toward approval of same-sex “marriage”: “Whilst the government has said that it has no intention of allowing polygamous marriages as part of this legislation which changes the essential nature of marriage, it has not explained in any detail and with research analysis its reasons for taking that position.
“Further, if the government is sincere about its support for ‘equal love,’ then it appears to have a contradiction on its hands,” she said.
There would be no “logical reason” for not allowing polygamous arrangements if the redefinition of marriage is based only on “love,” she said.
In a recent column, WND Founder and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah raised the issue of marriage rights for polygamists and others.
“So why is one ‘lifestyle’ affirmed by the popular culture, the political class and the judiciary and the other is ignored – even to the point of jailing those who dare to practice it? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want an answer from someone who believes the right, just, moral course of action is to redefine marriage as an institution between any two people, regardless of their sex. It’s a question that deserves an answer as we march, without thought, into a brave new world of sexual revolution, casting aside 6,000 years of human tradition inspired by God’s law and an institution that has formed the cornerstone of civilization,” he said.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted several years ago what appears to be developing now.
London’s Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would have further consequences.
Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.
And a California Supreme Court justice, Marvin Baxter, issued a similar warning when his court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2008.
Voters later that year overruled the decision, adopting a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. But a homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 in 2010.
Baxter dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex marriage for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision were not thought out.
He wrote: “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
Carey’s warning was nearly the same.
“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he said. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”
About 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow homosexual “marriage,” about half imposed by a lone judge and the rest mostly by legislative action.
Moore cited U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, officials in California, and even Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring as those who swore an oath to uphold the laws – but then quickly reneged on that promise and attacked definitions of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
“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 … .”
Holder’s move on Monday was to order that government operations treat same-sex duos the same as married couples.
How far can it go?
Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.
Officials with the Christian Institute also explain that in the Netherlands, there are arrangements “for three or more people to be in a civil union.”
And polygamists in Utah were handed a victory just weeks ago when a federal judge effectively decriminalized plural marriage in the state.
The Dec. 13 decision elated Kody Brown and his four “wives.” (He is legally married to one and lives with the other three and their collective 17 children.) The Browns, who star in the TLC reality show “Sister Wives,” challenged the law in July 2011, charging that it violates their rights to privacy and religious freedom.
“Many people do not approve of plural families,” the family said in a statement after the ruling was announced. “We hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”
Under way is an appeal of the decision that takes its cue from a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court edict striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law. At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a thundering dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, charging it “decrees the end of all morals legislation,” including laws banning “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”
Former U.S. senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum also warned in 2003 that if the “Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”
After December’s polygamy ruling, Santorum tweeted: “Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true.”