WATCH: CNN Host DESTROYS AL Supreme Court Justice Who Says ‘Laws Come From God’

If the KKK supports Moore, perhaps it’s time to find a new Justice

On CNN today during the News Day broadcast, host Chris Cuomo tears into Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who is currently defying federal court orders to allow gay marriage in his state after the gay marriage ban implemented in 2006 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Moore advised Alabama probate judges in his state this month to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples trying to marry last week. The refusal was compared to 1960’s Alabama Governor George Wallace for blocking desegregation. Both men have support from the KKK.

Cuomo engages Justice Moore in a lively debate on the issue. Justice Moore compared the current ruling on gay marriage to the historic rulings that made slavery and segregation the law of the land in the past, asking if Cuomo would have followed those laws, just because the courts made it so.

But Cuomo did not bite, instead saying the same courts overruled the legality of slavery and segregation. Cuomo said:

But [court decisions are] exactly how discrimination got removed in states like yours.

Justice Moore responded by misinterpreting Cuomo’s point:

No one is arguing about racial discrimination.

Cuomo restated his point saying that it indeed was discrimination of a person’s sexual preference, stating:

It’s about discrimination. In 2006, you created a constitutional amendment that by design discriminated against gay people and now you are being told by the federal law, that that is wrong.

The law is that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and marriage.

When Cuomo asked the stubborn Justice if he thought gay marriage was wrong, Moore replied:

Every person in this country and in this state has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Now that’s real equality! Not.

Taken aback, Cuomo said:

Why not extend those rights to the same-sex, that’s clearly within the bounds of equal protection.

And Moore replied:

That’s not in the historical definition of marriage and never has been.

Our rights in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.

Cuomo replied:

Our laws do not come from God, and you know that. They come from man.

Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith, that’s my faith. But that’s not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise.

But Cuomo wasn’t done with the Christian dinosaur on this point, continuing:

When you take the rules of your religion and you put them on everybody else, that is not what we do in this country. Your definition of marriage is based on your faith, you’ve said it a hundred times, that it is derived from God. That is not how it works here, and you know that. Equal protection applies to all by compromise. And you would even need to have a rational basis for why it would need to be only between a man and a woman, and all you can say is, ‘Because God said so. It’s always been that way.’ That’s not enough.

Moore said:

I never said that’s about my faith and it’s about my religion, it is not as a matter of fact. It’s about the organic law of our country which states very clearly that our rights, our pursuit of happiness quoted in Loving vs. Virginia comes from God.

Now, God gave us that definition and that definition has remained in America for many, many centuries for two centuries and even before that until just recently.

I’m just simply saying that the people of Alabama have the right to put in their constitution that ‘Marriage is between a man and a woman.’ It doesn’t dispute anything.

Justice Moore says he won’t follow the law even if the Supreme Court makes gay marriage the law of the land.

So while Justice Moore remains adamant that it’s not about his faith, and his religion, it actually is about his faith and religion because he can use old cases by proxy to speak through. He can say all he wants it’s about federal overreaching their own power, but when Cuomo asked the Judge what he will do if the Supreme Court in decides in June what the Justice will do, Moore said he would continue to fight it because it goes against what he believes. Facepalm.

Justice Moore was unseated in 2003 when a court told him to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building, because it was in violation of separation of church and state laws. When Justice Moore pulled a “Gov. George Wallace” and blocked the doors to the Alabama Courthouse the Alabama Court of the Judiciary voted unanimously to unseat him. If Justice Moore remains obstinate when the Supreme Court makes gay marriage the law of the land, perhaps he’ll lose his job once more, because it’s not up to a Justice to decide for his state which laws he will allow based on his personal beliefs.

Watch the entire, infuriating exchange here:

H/T: Raw Story | Photo: CNN (Screen Capture)

Send to Kindle
  • Budhag Rizzo

    Roy Moore… wasn’t he the guy who illegally put up a monument of the Ten Commandments in the federal court building? How is this man still a judge?

    • Tikidoc

      Because after he was removed from his position as Chief Justice due to the Ten Commandments fiasco, he ran again and won, and became Chief Justice again. Because Alabama. Next time, maybe they should disbar him, since he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the federal courts.

      • Rubendlct

        It will probably works better if all the people who voted to have himn as a Justice are removed from Alabama because,,,,gee, you just can’t fix stupid!

  • wildwildwest

    And this is why Alabama is still Alabama. I bet Louisiana will have marriage equality before Alabama.

  • NelsonRobison

    The last two states in the United States that will accept that marriage equality is the law of the land are Mississippi and Alabama. The crazy and the stupid are strong with this one.

  • Gina M. Nardoianni

    If you take your orders from your God then get the hell out of our government and out of our courts.

  • Ghmike

    I don’t know a whole lot about constitution law, but what I do know is that South Pacific Railroad vs. Arizona 1947 pretty much makes the 10th Amendment moot.

  • rachel

    Did Mr Moore poop his diaper about halfway through? Props to Chris Cuomo, you kicked his butt!i haven’t seen anyone look that pathetic since Sarah Palin’s Teleprompter went down and she she babbled nonsensically for 15 minutes!

  • Tomokun

    What I want to know is that if marriage is a Christian Institution, are Bhuddists not allowed to get legally married?

  • BryanLoberg

    Oh, America. :(

  • Friday Hefler

    Alabama passed an amendment, banning judges and legislators from making laws, legal decisions, or interpretations of law, based on “foreign law”. The poorly disguised purpose was to prevent Alabama from adopting and laws that could be considered part of the canon of Sharia law.

    Sharia/Quranic law, would roughly be equivocal to Talmudic, or Biblical Law, they all have the same basis, historical context and roughly the same historical, religious and geographical origins (in fact all are said to be the laws ascribed to the same God). And to be redundant were written in the same places, or at least region.

    This makes ANY laws, interpretations, definitions or judgement bases on Biblical law also illegal in Alabama.

    And unless they have gone to the trouble of codifying it, which most states haven’t, remnants of British common law, such as the self-defense clause, would also be illegal, as they are derived from a foreign set of legal codes.

    And what exactly is a Historical definition, what is the scope? In Egypt, brothers and sisters could marry, long ago, and in ancient Greece Men could marry, and In Japan, two women could marry (provided one of them was living as a man for the purposes of inheritance). These are all historical definitions of Marriage. So was rape… Rape a woman and you have to pay her father or husband for the “damages” and she is now your wife. That’s both a historical and biblical definition of marriage. Polygamy is a current and historical definition of marriage, as well as biblical. This judge has claimed to fear that marriage equality would lead to polygamy, as if that were bad, but he claims to support God’s definition of marriage, which clearly includes polygamy. You can’t have one without the other.

  • MaverickCoast

    If the Communist Party supports the Democrat Party, maybe it’s time to get rid of the Democrat Party!

  • MaverickCoast

    You can change the name for anything and call it ANYTHING, but it doesn’t change what it is. Marriage will ALWAYS be between a man and a woman and you cannot change that. Nice try.