Roy Moore: How The Alabama Chief Justice Said ‘No’ To Gay Marriage And Got Away With It, For Now

Chief Justice Roy Moore of the state of Alabama has called a halt to same-sex marriage, or at least severely hampered it by rejecting the authority of a federal court ruling that had attempted to overturn the state’s constitutional ban.

Moore sat down with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace to discuss how he’s been able to do it successfully, at least until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the constitutionality of setting a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.

Wallace pressured Moore throughout the broadcast, reminding him that federal law trumps state law and pointing out that President Barack Obama had essentially the same comments for Moore.

After playing a clip where Obama indicates that the federal courts are going to force the hand of Roy Moore on this issue, the Chief Justice had this to say.

“I’d like to tell President Obama that he’s entirely correct, federal law does trump state law. But what this Harvard professor who is president of the United States does not understand, is that a trial court’s decision on the constitutionality of a federal question is just that — it’s an opinion. It may be law of the case before her. It is not overturning the Alabama constitution. Federal law is not made by judges.”

In other words, like it or not, Moore has been able to successfully stop the granting of marriage licenses to LGBT couples because on the matter of a strict interpretation of law — a judge’s job — he is 100 percent correct.

As he explained to Wallace, federal judges cannot make legislation. The Alabama law, as enacted by a vote of the people, was to strictly define marriage as an act between one man and one woman.

A judge can decide on the case that is before them, but they cannot rewrite laws that are on the books before the U.S. Supreme Court has determined said laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

By sticking with a strict interpretation of law, Roy Moore has essentially been able to absolve himself of wrongdoing in spite of the fact that a federal judge ruled against the Alabama constitution.

While most of America agrees the U.S. Supreme Court will decide against the Alabama constitution, Moore is in no danger of disciplinary action because he’s following a strict interpretation of law, and the counties that have chosen to defy him are actually in violation of the state they’re serving.

As Moore noted during Sunday’s show, they are the ones breaking the law at this point.

What do you think, readers? Should Justice Roy Moore be held to account for his position, or is he correct in his interpretation? Sound off in our comments section.