It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Roy Moore is a nutbar. A decade or so ago, he so proudly was arrested for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the Federal Courthouse in Montgomery, Al, the state capital.
He's like Alabama's very own Teddie Cruz. But he does have his groupies. If he can find a way to be arrested over this one, he'll probably take it. I think he enjoys the publicity.
The next day, the COJ issued a unanimous opinion ruling that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as alleged by the JIC in its complaint." The COJ had several disciplinary options, including censure or suspension without pay, but because Moore's responses had indicated he would defy any similar court orders in the future, the COJ concluded that "under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."[24] Moore was immediately removed from his post.
After winning the Republican nomination for the Chief Justice position, on November 6, 2012, Moore was elected as Alabama Chief Justice over replacement Democratic candidate Bob Vance.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Annee
If you have a link that would be appreciated.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The Alabama legislature just needs to strike down that ban carried in the state.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The Alabama legislature just needs to strike down that ban carried in the state.
The Supreme Court already did that through nullification.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Well that obviously didn't stop them did it?
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: markosity1973
Annee
Perhaps you misunderstood my wording.
I meant they were able to allow gay marriage via the valid argument of equality.
In other countries, like NZ, the law was changed by parliament rather than a court ruling.
The point I was making is that it's much harder to oppose a law passed by parliament than an interpretation of existing law by a court, even if that court is the highest one in the system.
OK.
Why should Equal Rights ever be voted on?
The Constitution already guarantees it.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
That is a beautiful thing... Very well-said!
originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Annee
It shouldn't need to be that way but as long as you have public servants thinking that religion trumps the secular law of the land, this problem will keep arising.
We are on the same page, it's just I am aware of what should be, but I'm also aware of the unfortunate reality of the situation.
Some people will stop at nothing to stop us from having equal rights.
originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: Annee
Marriage Equality means everyone can marry whomever they like. If you are for an age requirement, you are against equality, if you are for a certain number of people in a marriage, you are against marriage equality. If you believe people that are closely related cannot get married, you are against marriage equality
"Marriage Equality" only means that someone is trying to bully people into believing their personal dogma. When people don't want to convert to your religion, you shouldn't go on the attack, try looking for the middle ground and coexisting
originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: markosity1973
I just don't agree.
I see no reason to make a law guaranteeing Equal Rights when the Constitution already guarantees it.
Besides it's insulting. LGBT are not separate from the Constitution.