It is clear that under the guise of religious liberty, opponents of same-sex marriage are determined to wage a kind of long-term guerrilla warfare against it, even if it seems futile to the rest of us since not only has the US Supreme Court struck down any bans on it, public sentiment is also shifting in favor of it.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama is in the vanguard of this opposition movement and now he has been suspended from his position because of his actions against implement the same-sex marriage laws.
On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission forwarded charges to the commission, accusing the chief justice of violating judicial ethics in his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Despite a ruling by a federal judge in Mobile making same-sex marriage legal in Alabama last year, and in the face of a United States Supreme Court ruling last year making its legality the law of the land, Moore instructed probate judges throughout Alabama to ignore those higher courts and to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
Moore’s actions led the Southern Poverty Law Center to file complaints with the commission, which acts much in the same way as a grand jury. When it receives a complaint, the commission investigates and decides whether to forward charges to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
The process remains secret unless charges are made, as happened Friday evening. Unless Moore reaches a settlement, he will be tried before that court.
Moore was earlier removed from the position of chief justice in 2003 when, in defiance of a ruling by a federal judge, he refused to remove a ten commandments monument that he himself had commissioned and had placed in the state judicial building. After a couple of abortive efforts to win the Republican nomination for governor of Alabama in 2006 and 2010, Moore was later re-elected to the post of chief justice in 2012 for a six year term.
Given his past intransigence about the monument, it seem likely that Moore will refuse to compromise and will be removed again, in which case his replacement will be appointed by the governor Robert Bentley who is himself embattled and under threat of impeachment.
I simply cannot see what this opposition movement hopes to gain. In the case of the Civil Rights movement, the people who were engaged in civil disobedience were demanding that the rights that were already enshrined in the constitution be extended to everyone and be enforced by legislation. This movement is denying the validity of a Supreme Court ruling, in effect demanding the changing of the constitution. That is just not going to happen, even they do succeed in electing a Republican president and Congress. This is irreversible.
The best they can hope for it to keep some people in a state of perpetual anger. Maybe that is what they actually want.
Why assume they have an endgame at all? They just know they hate people and will do anything to delay or deny them their rights. Not everyone has a strategic outlook.
What do they hope to gain, you ask? Rove V Wade was decided 43 years ago, and ” the US Supreme Court struck down any bans on it, public sentiment is also shifting in favor of it.” Yet the continuous pressure by anti-freedom, pro punish-women movement has reduced the availability of abortion to close to the vanishing point in many areas. That’s what they hope to accomplish.
It makes me want to fuck with them back, by pushing legislation that will jack the religions up. It’d keep ’em busy.
I’m thinking things like legislating that makes it illegal to expose children under 12 to abusive/sadistic imagery or books containing such imagery or accounts of child rape or genocide. See what I just did there? 😉 And, while federal tax codes exempt religion from taxation, I could see a fascinating “states’ rights” approach to local taxes. Hey, right wing assholes -- if you want to asshole, you may get assholed back.
I think their endgame is very local. So much so that judicial bodies like the Supreme Court don’t really matter at all to them. At least for the rank and file who go for this. For them it’s about feeling like their opinions and feelings about other people should force those other people to change their lives and how they live. Essentially an indistinguishable position from the one they imagine for their deity. They don’t really care that Moore is in charge of the state supreme court either, that’s just a perk. What they really want from him is a loud voice telling them they’re correct when they assume they have the authority to casually interfere with other people’s lives. No responsibility of course; if you’re poor they’ll let you starve and rot. But if they don’t like what you’re doing with your penis or don’t think you want to do enough with theirs then that just can’t be allowed to pass unanswered.
For the people like Moore only two things are required. The adoration of a group of people that at least superficially thinks like he does and enough insulation from the critics to avoid feeling like a pariah. His end goal is probably just getting a lot more local praise than local condemnation. When his group of sycophants stops supporting him he’ll shut up.
I agree with lanir, it’s a way to reassure themselves, abating their fear of not being able to persecute those they see as evil.
The cynic in me says “donations”…
More seriously, there’s a huge psychological pay-off in imagining yourself as the plucky underdog fighting a desperate battle for truth and justice against overwhelming odds. In some ways I think the modern conservative / evangelical movement is kind of like a giant LARP game, only with live ammunition…
Or maybe they’re thinking of the rewards they’ll get in the afterlife.
I think you are making a mistake here. These people are wrong on the subject, and they have a lot of awful “reasons” to oppose equality, but telling them, that their struggle is futile is dumb. We would not accept that as a rationale to give up, if it were the other way around. Such thinking lacks symmetrie.
If you keep in mind that these people are the literal descendants (physically, mentally, ideologically, and geographically) of the Confederacy it all makes perfect sense. The story of ‘the noble cause betrayed and lost’ with a side of ‘it isn’t over until I say it’s over’ is the house specialty of the old south. These are not dead-enders, not as long as they keep having children.
I wonder if ol’ Roy Moore has any familiarity at all with any of these:
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Roy Moore:
So if you wear clothes that Roy doesn’t think are appropriate for you, you should have no voice at all in our democracy.
What a loving Christian!
The fight will continue because the truthfulness of the Bible is so important and it never changes -- it is because it provides us with the knowledge of reality as the Creator God made it and it gives us supernatural insight into human nature by explaining the good and the bad. It acts as the reference point (or measure) to determine “right from wrong”, “good from bad”, “moral from immoral”, “lust from love”, etc….without a reference point, you cannot possibly determine these things other than “what you make them up to be”. Human marriage reflects the spiritual marriage between Jesus Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride) who will be married in a future “Marriage of The Lamb” -- hence, if human marriage is changed from solely between a man and a woman, to man-man or woman-woman, then this would break the symbolism of the marriage between Jesus Christ and the Church…..in fact, it would be a complete abomination to think that Jesus would dump the Church and marry another Jesus (there is no other Jesus to marry), or if the Church would dump the Jesus to marry another Church (there is no other Church to marry). So this is why there can be no alteration than a man-woman marriage (only one man marrying only one woman) for Biblical Christians to accept. Even trans-gender marriages are ruled out because Jesus doesn’t pretend that He is the Church or the church never pretends that she is Jesus. See how either same sex marriages or trans-gender marriages completely contradict and make a mockery of the spiritual Jesus-Church marriage? Also, the logical implication of making truth whatever we want it too be (ie. “progressive moral relativism”, is that we all contradict ourselves as we all believe that “my truth is better than your truth”. This is the best proof yet that a Creator God exists and that His Word is truth. As the ultimate Creator of the universe, God then has the authority to do what He wants with creation including laying out the rules for living. I will therefore never be ashamed of my faith in God and my trust in God’s Word, the Bible. Homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn’t align with the natural order of the biological world as God created things and no “wishing” this away will change anything. God warns us of ignoring Him and He displays great pity on those who rebel against Him -- that is why Jesus prayed (and I follow Jesus’ example): “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
@ #12 (assuming you are sincere)
The thing is, I guess you are confused about the “definition” of something, and “determining” that something is a certain way. If God is the definition of “good”, then “good” does not have a meaning on it’s own, and no determination is necessary. If “good” is a real attribute of God, then “good” is a concept on it’s own; we then do not have to believe that God is “good” even if he really existed (which -- IMHO -- he does not). If “good” as a concept has meaning, and God is a really existing person, than one could come to the conclusion, that he is not all good.
Think about it!
Yes, this leads again to the conclusion, that practically nothing is a 100% certain (or objective). Get over it.
One more data point for my hypothesis that there is a little-known version of the Bible containing a commandment forbidding paragraph breaks…
Neil,
Thanks for the comment. If you don’t mind, there is question that puzzles me that I would like someone like you who believes they get their ideas of right and wrong from the Bible to address.
In Matthew, Chapter 15 we have this exchange between Jesus and some Scribes and Pharisees:
It seems pretty clear that Jesus was endorsing the idea that a child who curses his father or mother should be put to death, and he was condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for trying to water this down.
Do you follow that precept and encourage others to do so?
As I am sure that you are aware, the Bible is full of instances where people should be put to death, such as blasphemers, homosexuals, adulterers, woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night, practicing wizardry or serving as a medium (Leviticus 20), someone trying to get you to worship other gods and it does not matter even if they are your sibling or child or your wife or your close friend (Deuteronomy 13:6-8).
Do you go along with all of these too?
Quoting Old Testament Laws is irrelevant because all the Old Testament Commandments are fullfilled in Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:17) and that is why when Jesus was living on earth, He was living under the Old Testament Law but He lived a perfect, sinless life, He then victoriously rose from the dead and defeated death, thereby proving that He is indeed Creator God and Saviour of the World (something that has never been disproven to this day, and everyone who bothered to try and disprove this truth, has become a Christian themselves because they found out that it IS true -- check out Josh McDowell as an example). We are now, as Christians, living under the New Commandment of “love thy neighbour as thyself as Christ loves the church” and all the Laws from the Old Testament are fulfilled in this New Commandment (John 13:34). Quoting Old Testament Laws in an attempt to mock, discredit or contradict a Christian is impossible for this reason seeing as I become “the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus)” (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, it is my faith in Jesus Christ that makes me righteous and NOT my works. Trying to guilt-trip me with Old Testament quotes is futile and only shows that you haven’t bothered to read the Bible properly and so you make yourself look foolish.
As far as saying that “good” is not objective…..well, that just proves my point -- is my “good” better than your “good” or vise versa?….who know?….in fact, I could use your subjective arguments against you and say that everything you say is only your viewpoint, and has no authority over my viewpoint and so I can reject everything you say to be true so don’t even bother telling me anything -- wow!….such an easy way to ignore people using their own logic against them….hahaha….it is human wisdom that dreams up such pathetic attempts to ignore God and to rebel against His teachings in the Bible. As Creator God, He has the right AND authority to state the definition of “good” and everything else in the universe. Therefore, no human attempt to change God’s Will or His Ways will be successful -- the 3000+ prophecies fulfilled to the letter and more prophecies being fulfilled TO THIS DAY show that the Bible is not human writings and the swift destruction of the ungodly is already under way before our very eyes…..but the ungodly are too blind to see the bleeding obvious. Hence, Jesus prayed (and I follow Jesus’ example): “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
One of the greatest Biblical truths is in Romans 1:16-32. No honest person can disagree with the passage because it is being fulfilled before our very eyes (for example: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”, “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened”, “uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts”, “God gave them up unto vile affections”….and verses 28-31 describes most of our politicians perfectly). There is plenty in the passage that talks about “dishonour(ing) their own bodies between themselves” and “for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly”…..hmmm….it’s not hard to work out what it says.
Thanks for reading.
Neil,
Even when I was a believer, I never quite understood what statements like “all the Old Testament Commandments are fullfilled in Jesus Christ” meant. It seems to be vague and lack any concrete implications. Are you taking it to mean that you can ignore the entire Old Testament even though Jesus explicitly said we could not, as I gave references to in my previous response? Can you give me one example of Jesus telling his followers to forget about the laws and the prophets?
And yes, we could argue about whose idea of what is good is better. That is the whole point of the social compact, of how our ideas of what is good have evolved over time as the consensus has shifted. We have evolved from times when slavery was considered acceptable to seeing it as an evil. We are far more humane in our views now than we were in Jesus’s time and that is because as a community our views have evolved.
I am not sure why the Bible should be the standard for what is good, any more than any other religious text like the Koran or indeed the works of Shakespeare or the Harry Potter stories. In fact, the morality advocated by the Potter books are far superior to what one finds in the Bible. Those books consistently uphold values of honor and truth and courage and justice.