“The Very Definition Of Tyranny”: Roy Moore Calls For Justices To Be Removed For Voting For Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme CourtJudge_Roy_MooreIt appears that the Senate race in Alabama between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones is now a dead heat.   The tie in the normally reliable red state reflects controversial views of Moore who was twice removed from his job as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying federal court orders.  One of his most alarming recent statements concerns the Supreme Court.  Moore told followers that he would support the impeachment of any justice voting in favor of same-sex marriage, a position that would destroy the integrity and traditions of our legal system.

 

Moor was introduced at the speech by Abraham Hamilton who heralded Moore for putting his faith above the Constitution and call him “the tip of the spear in what we need to usher America back into its place in submission to our holy God.”

Moore then took the microphone and declared that Congress should have impeached the Supreme Court justices who affirmed the right of same-sex couples to get married:

“Somebody should be talking to the Supreme Court of the United States and say, ‘What gives them a right to declare that two men can get married?. . . Tell the Congress: Impeach these justices that put themselves above the Constitution. They’re judicial supremists and they should be taken off the bench.”

So Moore believes that he should not have been removed from the bench for putting his personal religious beliefs above the Constitution, but justices should be removed if they interpretation the Constitution in a way that contradicts his religious beliefs.  This, he insisted, would “solve the problem.”

The “problem” appears to be justices following their good-faith interpretations of the Constitution.  While hardly a first for Moore, such a view would violate not just fundamental principles of judicial review but it would violate the impeachment clause.  As the last lead counsel in a judicial impeachment case (in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous), Moore’s view is deeply troubling.  As I have previously written, the Good Behavior Clause of Article III was designed to protect the independence of the judiciary and insulate it from political pressures.  It was meant as a guarantee of life tenure against precisely the type of threat that Moore is endorsing.  As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 78:

In a monarchy [the good behavior standard] is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body….[I]t is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

In the records of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that the Good Behavior Clause protects the institution of the judiciary. Likewise, James Wilson described the Good Behavior Clause as intended to protect judges from “every gust of faction which might prevail in the two branches of our [government].”

In impeachment terms, differing judicial interpretations cannot be deemed a case of “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  If that were the case, each party could move to “clear the bench” of jurists who hold opposing interpretative views.  It would lead to the destruction of the American judicial bench and values.

What is so disturbing is not that Moore would take such an extreme position (given his prior defiance of fundamental principles of judicial review). Rather it is the rapturous applause from the crowd as he called for the evisceration of judicial independence in the United States.  There was little thought to the implications of his statement or the obvious threat to religious view if the majority can simply remove those who oppose their values from the bench.  Tomorrow another religion or non-religious view could hold the majority and strip the courts in their favor.  Our federal courts would then become little more than vehicles for majoritarian tyranny as they are in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and China. For example, Article 2 of the Iranian Constitution states that law “is a system based on belief in … the One God … His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate.” Thus, courts must follow Sharia principles and are subject to removal for defying “the One God.”

Moore would have Congress punish jurists who fail to follow its dictates on the law.  It is the very danger that Madison warned against in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

259 thoughts on ““The Very Definition Of Tyranny”: Roy Moore Calls For Justices To Be Removed For Voting For Same-Sex Marriage

  1. The very definition of the American Taliban. Don’t kid yourselves my fellow citizens, they are out there, as they have always been.

  2. All of you that defended the Uber</em? Presidency that was Obama's, take a seat. You have ZERO credibility invoking the Constitution for any issue. You made this bed, now sleep in it.

    • Not really, no. Religious-nuts like Moore should face and will face incessant resistance, notably by the very Constitution he wishes to overrule.

      • The fact is Dave that the political class is chock full of nuts that should face incessant resistance EVERY TIME their respective nuttiness exceeds their limited authority and our constitutional rule of law. Pretending you have the stake of our republic at heart by invoking the constitution when you prefer walnuts over pecans is as hypocritical as it gets.

        • First sentence, I agree completely. The second, well again, no. The Constitution is quite clear where it stands on religion. Congress shall pass no law with regard to the establishment of religion, and there shall be no religious test for office, to name two. That doesn’t quite scream PRAISE JESUS, does it.

          • The Constitution is quite clear where it stands on religion. Congress shall pass no law with regard to the establishment of religion, and there shall be no religious test for office, to name two.

            Ahem, you kinda skipped this important part:

            or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,

            Again, if Moore’s constituents want to elect his brand of nut to the senate then that is within their right to do so. All that does is plant his values in a U.S. Senate seat. The danger is not his values or that of his constituents. The danger is if he and/or his constituent’s expect that his values to be supreme and not the constitution.

            • Olly, I believe you have gotten to the heart of the matter, whether Moore, if elected, can in good conscience take the Senate oath of office. For example, can he swear to uphold the Constitution when he has publicly stated that the Free Exercise Clause applies only to Christians, or that adherence to Islam disqualifies a person from service in Congress?

              I’m old enough to recall the controversy surrounding John Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1960, the first time I saw or read anti-Catholic views publicly expressed. Kennedy found it necessary to reiterate his dedication to the separation of church and state in a speech to a group of Baptist ministers in Houston. I also recall a joke attributed to him during the campaign in which he explained that he had already prepared a telegram to be sent to the pope in the event of his defeat by Richard Nixon. It read “Unpack.”

              My belief is that Roy Moore is simply the latest manifestation of the old southern doctrine of interposition, but has shed the now threadbare nullification cloak of state sovereignty for one of theocratic transcendency.

              • I believe you have gotten to the heart of the matter, whether Moore, if elected, can in good conscience take the Senate oath of office.

                I agree and that goes for everyone that takes the oath. History has proven however that whatever the political class believes is good conscience is vastly more important than what is constitutional government. This was my concern with Trump since he had no record of how his conscience would be checked by the power of the office. Clinton on the other hand required no such concern. She has no conscience, or at least none that would have found the constitution anything other than a gnat worthy of swatting.

                We are no more going to become a theocracy than Iran will become a constitutional republic.

              • My belief is that Roy Moore is simply the latest manifestation of the old southern doctrine of interposition, but has shed the now threadbare nullification cloak of state sovereignty for one of theocratic transcendency.

                He’s not a puppy dog for the federal judiciary. And it’s a good thing too.

            • Moore is free to practice religion on his own time: But he will use the government to endorse those views, which is prohibited. The second clause does not cancel the first.

              • Moore is free to practice religion on his own time

                Moore is free to practice his religion…period. He is free to bring his Christian beliefs wherever he goes and that includes his place of work. He can even argue on the Senate floor his support or opposition to a bill based on his Christian beliefs. What is unconstitutional is to make law that does not equally protect the rights of all.

                • No, what is unconstitutional is to erect an establishment of religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof. I doubt you could demonstrate that Moore had ever advocated religious tests for public office or fining people for recusancy or putting Southern Baptist ministers on government salary, so concerns regarding the former are humbug. As for the latter, any regulatory statute infringes on someone’s autonomy. The question is whether Moore’s ever advocated anything that did so contra a competing religious body in anything but an incidental way.

                  • What I see from those opposed to the Moore’s and Trump’s of the world is a fear that the weaponized government they created would be turned against them. All of a sudden they invoke the constitution once they’ve lost control of their monster. What Dave137 and his ilk are too myopic to realize is not everyone with beliefs different from his own want a government with unlimited power. We want a government limited by the constitution regardless of what political party is in power.

                    • Olly, I’ve been meaning to recommend Patrick O’Brian to you, since you’re a Navy man. The late author is one of my favorites of all time. I grieved deeply when he died while writing #21, but the series did tie up nicely by then. He was such a world renowned expert on 18th and 19th century naval warfare, as well as the customs of Europe, America, the Middle East, even the High Spanish Bow, Catalan, and the most extensive list of trivia that his publisher declared that it would have taken a committee to have enough knowledge to finish his book, and no good book was ever written by committee.

                      https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=patrick+o%27brian

                    • Olly – one of the many aspects of the series that I loved was the evolution of Captain Jack Aubrey as a military leader, until he had the unshakeable loyalty of his crew. He also had so many personal foibles that literary critics called his character the lion at sea and the ass on land. There was this scene in the beginning where his first lieutenant damn near damaged that loyalty in its early stages. Captain Aubrey leapt over the side to engage the enemy, literally in a “who’s with me” moment. It was a defining moment in the series. He also had to struggle with his navigational skills. In the beginning, he’s hopeless with the math. He would do these mental exercises where he would calculate things like how long it would take to fall a mile. His answer of 2 years was dismissed as absurd. But by the end, he was a navigational expert and reliably teaching the midshipmen. His behavior in really dire straights was extraordinary.

                      O’Brain was subtle. He didn’t do the thinking for the reader and spell it out on a billboard. To illustrate, there is a scene in which Dr Maturin gets his revenge on a pair of vicious government agents in a most unexpected way. And there is absolutely no fanfare. You would miss it if you didn’t pay attention, and it was quite gruesome.

                      Many of the plot lines were based on actual events that occurred in history. He even included some of the poetry for which sailers were famous.

                      I hope you like it. Do let me know.

                    • Anonymous – I wish. I was just a loyal fan. The loss was felt keenly in the community because he had such an extraordinary body of knowledge and literary talent. I even bought the cookbook, Lobscouse and Spotted Dog, to get the authentic recipes mentioned in the book. No, I did not make the rat recipes. But the cookbook authors, also super fans, who loyally recreated every single recipe did!

                      When you hear that the stories is based on turn of the 19th century British naval warfare, you may pass it up. But I’m so glad my father turned me on to the series. Not only is the superbly well written, but the plot just grabs you. 20 books was too short. Each character had their own idioms, syntax, speech style, and decision trees. You could recognize the character by the dialogue alone, which is rarely well done. I don’t mean “British accent” – but socioeconomic class and which tiny hamlet of the Kingdom they were from.

                    • Karen – I am a big fan of the Horatio Hornblower series (naval) and Sharpe series (specialized infantry) which both take place during the Napoleonic Wars. However, it has been a long time since I read either.

                  • Paul – my Dad liked those series, as well, but found O’Brian to be better, according to his taste.

                    Was it the Hornblower series where in the last book suddenly people started acting entirely out of character? I think it was. It ruined the series for him, because characters had been built to have one pattern of behavior, and it all flew out the window. It was as if the author suddenly hated the books and took revenge.

                    If it was not the Hornblower series, but another of the naval works he read, then my apologies. I’ll have to ask him.

                • I agree.

                  Moore is just as free to argue his support or rejection of any bill on the floor due to his Christian beliefs, as an environmentalist, a humanist, or anyone else. We all have our own morality. Sometimes it is encoded in religion, sometimes not. All reasoning is allowed. As long as the State does not create a State religion to which all must adhere, then everyone is free to use religion as reasoning for a political argument.

                  For example, how many times was it said that it was our Christian duty to free the slaves? “Christian duty” was used as reasoning in our country for over two hundred years, and yet we still have freedom of religion. Someone can argue it is his Christian duty to preserve the environment of the Earth as the stewardship given as the responsibility of man from God. Or someone can argue that they believe there should always be alternative meals or separate cutting boards for school cafeterias who serve pork because it is not halal but rather haram in the Muslim faith. Or perhaps they argue that Yom Kippur should be a national holiday because they are Jewish and feel their religion should be included in national holidays just as Christian ones are.

                  The pilgrims and later founders created this country because they wanted the freedom to practice their religion. There were a surprising diversity of religions in Europe, including many little known Christian sects. There were the Sethians, who had this hand signal they would throw to each other. They were religiously bound to pain the letter “S” everywhere, and it was a sin to remove it. It caused this problem when they served on the navy and they would paint the letter “S” on their ship. In Patrick O’Brian’s fantastic naval warfare series of 26 novels, Captain Jack Aubrey had to cover the letter up with a piece of sailcloth to satisfy both the King’s Navy and his men.

                  Oh, God, that reminds me. The author wrote the captain so that he would fumble sayings, especially French or Latin sayings. Like Autres pays, autre merde instead of Autres pays, autres moeurs.

                  There were state faiths in most countries, and those who had other religions were at worst persecuted and at best ostracized. Freedom to practice any religion you pleased was a fantastic, almost unbelievable freedom. We take it for granted nowadays. Isn’t everyone allowed to believe in anything or nothing? At one point in time, almost no one had that right.

          • “Congress shall pass no law with regard to the establishment of religion, and there shall be no religious test for office, to name two. That doesn’t quite scream PRAISE JESUS, does it.”

            ******************************

            It certainly could. The provision says no establishment of religion. It’s doesn’t say no mention of religion or promoting the virtues it engenders. Thus Moore is free to espouse the virtues of his brand of religion without actually making it the state religion. No bigger builder the Wall of Separation than me, but hostility to religion is not the Constitution’s mandate.

    • President Barack Hussein Obama was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces since Harry S. Truman. Moreover, prior to his marriage, he undoubtedly stood very close to the white women, and likely dated them, as well.

      This is to “the uppity types knew their place in the good ole days” olly

      • President Barack Hussein Obama was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces since Harry S. Truman.

        What a shocker!

      • President Barack Hussein Obama was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces since Harry S. Truman.

        I take it you have a macro which spits out this inane sentence.

  3. Another lawless religious conservative? Should we be surprised they want to install an intolerant version of christian sharia in lieu if the constitution? And they’ll likely do so whilst flying the terrorist confederate flag…….and then incessantly whining about football players that supposedly do not respect the constitution.

    What putrid intolerant trash…….and a favorite of hate filled conservatives.

    • Another lawless

      Anyone who endorses ‘Obergefell’ or ‘Roe v. Wade’ is in no position to call any other individual lawless.

        • No, I’m saying that if you have a complaint about ‘lawlessness’ and you endorse either one of those decisions, you’re a fool or a fraud.

          This isn’t that difficult.

          • You make no sense. So you are saying that those two supreme court rulings are lawlessness?
            You also fantasize about 50 more Judge Roy Moores in the US Senate, but you write off and ridicule people’s comments containing the same level of delusional fantasy?
            You make no sense.

            • You make no sense.

              No, I’m making sense, but it’s flying over your head. You seem to fancy judicial opinions should be treated as ex cathedra documents and not evaluated at all. That’s a stupid I cannot fix.

              • Apply your own standards to others who respect the process as much as you do please
                They are out there believe it or not

                • I apply one standard: judges are umpires. When they aren’t their position loses it’s legitimacy and other parties have a franchise to tell them to hire pinkertons and enforce your own godforsaken dedisions.

    • Bill must not see all of the liberal tolerance going on in the college campuses around the country. Keep those partisan blinders on.

  4. Roy Moore bothers the legal establishment and the usual careerists and trimmers who run the Republican Party. We should have 50 Roy Moore’s in the Senate.

  5. The guy is an idiot. That being said, like others have pointed out, marriage has tax advantages. Gay marriage to me has had little to do with “rights” and more to do with money. The simple solution to all of this is to get the govt. out of social engineering through the tax code (Marriage, house, children, death). Leave marriage up to religion, that is where it belongs.

  6. Moore is right, finally a voice of reason, If you think SSM isn’t tyranny when it’s supported by communists better think again.

      • Ken – I am more interested in Hillary claiming she spent all of Weinstein’s money so she cannot return it and the continuing number of women coming out of the woodwork to accuse Harvey, Friend of Bill and Hillary.

        • Can we move on from 2016 already. Moron is president, with real power: he, being one-third of the government, deserves the focus. I don’t care about Hillary.

          • Dave137 – if you haven’t been following the news, some 40 women have now accused Harvey Weinstein of sexually harassing them. He gave Hillary Clinton some 200k+ which she reportedly has spent. Not spent any of her money though. The DNC, which got about the same amount, is sending 30k to some charity, but so far not the full amount. Weinstein is both a major donor and a major bundler for the DNC and the Clintons and Obama. I believe in following the money.

                • Rather, your pivoting ability is showing again.

                  Trump runs one-third of the government. I don’t care about some Hollywood producer who doesn’t represent me or anyone aside from himself. Throw him in jail. Throw Hillary in jail; again I don’t care. The current administration, whoever happens to hold and to wield power, deserves all our attention.

                  • Of course it needs our attention. But don’t pretend you care about this iteration of 1/3 of our government when you ignored it in the last. Then it was about the other 2/3’s obstructing the 1/3 you approved of. That’s not a constitutional worldview. That’s the worldview of teenager that suddenly finds the most important thing in his life is getting a new pair of sneakers

                    • Your telepathy is incredible. And nice pivot, again and again and again and again. Trump? Who’s that. OBAMAAMAMAMAMAMAMAMA.

                    • Like I said, if your are not nimble enough to pivot around to see the fallacy of your arguments, then you may need a new pair of sneakers after all.

        • Your comment is clearly beside the point, but heck, I’ll bite. I’ve never understood the need to return a political contribution when it is discovered that the donor holds views inimical to my own. All that means to me is that the donor has made a bad investment, one which I will spend with delight.

  7. Former Secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning who is openly gay says it’s an “educational moment”. It has to be taught & learned.

  8. During the Civil War, Lincoln wanted to arrest Justice Taney for ruling the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman. Taney himself thought he would be. Lincoln did place D.C. Circuit Court Judge William Merrick under house arrest for similar reasons. Extraordinary times ….

  9. Has no one considered that he is just throwing red meat to the crowd? This is not the sort of verbiage I would take seriously from a politician or soon to be politician.

          • Paul, that’s a math problem. Do you really want me to have a go at it? Let’s see:

            6 X 6 = 36/2 = 18 which becomes the exponent in the function 2 to the 18th power applied to whatever the original density of McCain’s first two years in his first six-year term of office might have been.

            Did McCain serve as a US Representative before he was elected to the Senate? How many two-year terms?

            Let’s say he had two terms in the House. So 2 to the 20th power applied to . . . OMG. Isn’t that like, you know, one of those hyper-astromical numbers?

            I predict that TSFS will soon enough do the same for Sid Yates (R.I.P).

            • Diane – McCain has been a Senator since 1987, so it is x times 25. We certainly have not seen him get wiser, just more annoying.

              • Paul, Darren said the density of politicians doubles every two years. Besides, 2017 minus 1987 is 30. And I checked that twice with a calculator. So how many years are left in McCain’s current term? Subtract that from 30, then divide by 2 to get the number of successive density doublings.

                • Diane – I took time off for all their recesses and vacations. 🙂 McCain is in the first year of his 6th term and will not likely survive it with the cancer he has. As things are going, little Jeffy Flake will not become the senior Senator from Arizona, he will become a one-term Senator from Arizona. His numbers are horrible. Dr. Kelli Ward is leading him by at least 26 polling points and he is desperate for money. I get his FB ads and you should read the comments about him, they are not supportive.

                  • Paul, can the density of politicians be decompressed by treatment in a hyperbaric chamber? I ask because there’s only so many variables I can factor into a shaggy-dog story problem before they take me away to the hyperbaric chamber.

  10. Off topic I suppose but there is a fine review of
    The Soul of the First Amendment
    Why Freedom of Speech Matters
    by Floyd Abrams
    in the 2017 Oct 09 issue of The Nation.

  11. “‘What gives them a right to declare that two men can get married?” “Tell the Congress: Impeach these justices that put themselves above the Constitution.”

    I had my problems with the timing and timing and content of the “Obergfell” ruling. It struck me as a prelude to the kind of back-and-forth that still surrounds abortion and a curious interpretation of equal protection, but it is the law and will remain so unless overturned in another ruling. That said, Roy Moore’s cavalier ignorance is stunning. The supreme court was pressed to intervene in a dispute between states that already accepted same-sex marriage and others that did not; the justices did not put themselves above the Constitution, they interpreted it in a way that upset an ex-judge. There is a reason religious conviction does not mingle with civil authority in the US, one I think Thomas Jefferson understood.

  12. The Federalist should be mandatory reading for recently elected members of Congress. Whether they will actually take wisdom from these writings is another matter.

    • Moore would say the bible should be mandatory. Just wait for his call for blasphemy laws (and the ginormous crucifix on the White House lawn, come Mythmas).

  13. What is more troubling is how a major political party will nominate such a deficient candidate as their favorite son or daughter. When such defectives result in the party losing the election, it is well deserved. Unfortunately, they do not seem to learn this lesson. Why should they when there are legions of lemmings so eager to follow these flawed candidates that they cast all reason to the wind.

    Most people do get the politicians they deserve. Unfortunately the informed and invested suffer the more.

    • What is more troubling is how a major political party will nominate such a deficient candidate

      The U.S. Senate includes Charles Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Patty Murray, Al Franken. It included in recent times Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Carol Mostly Fraud, and Blanche Lincoln (“Blank Lincoln” wags in Arkansas call her). It has been a collecting pool of octogenarians who have forgotten that cemeteries are filled with indispensable men. The Senate Majority leader is …. Addison Mitchell McConnell. But this you know: Roy Moore is ‘deficient’.

  14. Let’s ask God if homosexuality is normal or a perversion; if it is not an error.

    Marriage “…ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium, which combines the two concepts: mater meaning “mother” and the suffix -monium signifying “action, state, or condition.”

    Marriage is the institution which protects the bond of a man and a woman and the children produced by that union.

    Homosexuals can have no bearing on or relationship to motherhood.

    Homosexuals may engage in legal contractual agreements.

    Corporations/organizations may reconfigure benefit packages to include personal contracts.

    Homosexual marriage is impossible. It is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

    Liberals are compelling its imposition and that is the material tyranny.

    The American Founders, including Madison, conducted a revolution against tyranny.

    • However, married couples have tax privileges unavailable to singles. Similarly regarding Social Security. So those whose significant other is of the same sex want equal treatment. Thus the mess.

      • Very true, I might also add there are significant estate and probate benefits regarding married couples, especially in the case where there are contested assets.

    • George, with all due respect your post reflects deficiencies in both Latin and history. First, the words “marriage” and “matrimony” have different roots. “Matrimony” is indeed derived from the noun “matrimonium.” However, the word “marriage” is of Germanic origin. In addition, in actual usage, “marriage” describes a legal relationship while “matrimony” has acquired sacramental or religious overtones over the centuries.

      As for the history of marriage, I highly recommend the following succinct, but accurate, offerings:
      https://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/14/same-sex-marriage-and-the-new-dominionist-manifesto-2/
      https://jonathanturley.org/2015/02/09/myth-and-the-marriage-pledge/
      https://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/27/marital-dischord/

      You’re welcome.

      • Micheal Appleton, having read the links to your old articles, it’s clear why people miss you on the blawg.

        On the odd chance that you dabble in theology for purposes other than understanding the law, might there be anything to the notion that our dominion over the Earth is suppose to be part of our punishment for having fallen from God’s grace and getting evicted from paradise? If so, then aren’t we supposed to know that we’re being punished in order for the punishment to redeem us? Can we really call the punishment of dominion over the Earth a gift of God’s grace? As though God’s grace were a consolation prize for having fallen from God’s grace? Is there a weirder theology than that? For instance, would the claim that The Bible authorizes us to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas be such a weirder theology?

      • Mike Appleton,

        Thanks for reading. Search as I may, I can find no “germanic” origin for marriage. I do, however, find that the word appears to have evolved from Mary and mother indicating that the basis for marriage and matrimony are motherhood. That comports well with history as I cannot find any historical reference to homosexuals being married. Would you please provide empirical evidence of homosexuals being married in traditional marriage ceremonies anywhere on the planet at any point in history other than the present.
        _____________________________________________

        Mater – Mother

        Matrimony

        “the Old French word matremoine, which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium, which combines the two concepts: mater meaning “mother” and the suffix -monium signifying “action, state, or condition”.[6]”
        ________________________

        mar·ry1
        ˈmerē/
        verb
        verb: marry; 3rd person present: marries; past tense: married; past participle: married; gerund or present participle: marrying

        1.
        join in marriage.

        Origin

        Middle English: from Old French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus, literally ‘married,’ (as a noun) ‘husband.’

    • George, the words marriage, matrimony, matrimonium, man, woman, child, spouse and family do not appear in The Constitution. The closest you could get is the guarantee that rights belonging to the people under the common law shall be retained by the people under this Constitution. And even then you’d be reading common-law marriage into the constitution–not holy matrimony. I think it’s safe to say, George, that the framers of The Constitution did not think that marriage was a federal issue. Otherwise The Constitution would’ve had more to say on the subject.

      • L4D said, “The closest you could get is the guarantee that rights belonging to the people under the common law shall be retained by the people under this Constitution.”

        I spent almost two hours this morning reading the Constitution and I can’t find a sentence that states anything like “rights belonging to the people under the common law shall be retained by the people under this Constitution.” There’s still The Ninth Amendment, though.

        Either the statement at issue is not in the Constitution or I was looking right at it without seeing it. Don’t ever get old, if you can help it.

      • Ken, you’re probably right, but I strongly suspect that George has held his antifederalist libertarian views for a very long time–long before any of us had ever heard of Steve Bannon. Come to think of it, I wonder if Bannon has ever read George.

    • George said, “Let’s ask God if homosexuality is normal or a perversion; if it is not an error.”

      If God is The Creator of everything and everyone in the universe . . . wait a second. Did God create both normalcy and perversion, alike; if not, also, error?

      They say there was a fellow by the name of Job, once, who talked to God, Who, in turn, demanded to know from this Job fellow something like, “Who are you to question The Lord thy God?”

      Might that have something to do with the Muslim claim that God is through talking to us?

    • Keyboard warrior. In real life, your timid and frightened, and want the world to stop moving so fast.

      This is to “I’ll have the Luann Platter, please” georgie

  15. I commend you for this– hopefully the good people of Alabama will see to it that the good people of Alabama will not send America’s Ayatollah never gets to Washington unless he goes on a tour of the Senate. I won’t even go into his so-called foundation that made him over 1 Million Dollars based on reporting by the Washington Post (and before anyone gets excited, even the National Review ((No leftie/Commie publication)) said it does not look good. He’s very definition of Trumpism…

    • And yet, he is not the candidate Trump supported and campaigned for, proving once again that Trump is a great deal more canny than critics give him credit for. Trump’s favorite was beaten in the primary, which will make problems for the GOP in the general election, because Moore is probably unelectable. Even in Alabama.

      • Moore is da face of Stevie Bannon”s Rethuglican Party. T rump digs this Moore dude now. Da gay hating Pence is jumpin and humpin with joy joy. T rump said Pence wants to burns da gays. Well guess what da. T rumper chose da Pence and his bible thumpiin bride.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s