Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is in hot water for urging the state's 68 probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Supreme Court's 2015 marriage equality ruling. And now that he's facing the possibility of being removed from office when he goes before the Court of the Judiciary Wednesday to answer ethics questions, Moore is making a desperate claim. Kim Chandler writes:
The charges against Moore stem from a January administrative order he sent probate judges. Moore said a prior Alabama Supreme Court order from March to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples had not been lifted and remained in "full force and effect." The nine-member Court of the Judiciary will weigh the intent with the memo: Was it a defiant effort to try to block gay marriage or, as Moore contends, a status report in response to probate judges' questions about the order. ?
"He merely gave a status report on the pending case and the JIC overstepped its authority to bring these politically-motivated charges," said Moore's attorney Mat Staver.
Oh, really—a mere status report, eh? Staver's with a right-wing legal group called the Liberty Counsel, by the way. His view aside, here's what Reuters reported about Moore’s order at the time:
Moore wrote in his order that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was at odds with a decision last March by the Alabama Supreme Court that instructed probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [...]
Until the Alabama Supreme Court decides the matter, probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary" to the state's law banning same-sex marriage, Moore said.
Oh, and also, here's how Staver framed it at the time.
"The opinion of five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage is lawless and without legal or historical support," Mat Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel legal group, said in a statement.
Hmm, does that sound like Staver took the order as a simple "status report,” or does it sound like he thinks the Supreme Court's ruling is suspect and therefore worthy of being overridden?
