tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post7291768566404764317..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Alabama and Same-Sex Marriage: The Authority of the Constitution and GodBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-36686219118964866482015-03-03T22:00:44.909-05:002015-03-03T22:00:44.909-05:00Thinking that a judge can completely dissever hims...Thinking that a judge can completely dissever himself or herself from his/her personal beliefs is idealistic and naive. Everything we do is a product of our beliefs about something, and judges are not exempt from this drive simply because of their occupation. However, I would agree that in a case such as this, elevating his religious belief over a Supreme Court ruling violates his judicial duty. It is not the incorporation of his religious beliefs that is the problem, but rather the fact that he is so willing to prioritize this and think that his truth is everyone else's truth. On a similar note, he seems to be violating his legal obligation by saying such a ruling on gay marriage would only apply to the people in that case. The court system is built on a system of precedents and stating something such as this completely goes against his job description.Nina N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11274129528737598025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-59873055576382460772015-03-03T21:00:06.839-05:002015-03-03T21:00:06.839-05:00Just as the other two girls before me have noted, ...Just as the other two girls before me have noted, Justice Moore's actions are incorrect given his position as a high-ranking official in the judicial system. However, I do not agree with what Molly has said about how his occupation denies his free speech and free exercise rights from being considered. I agree that the laws on marriage should be decided by each state because it has traditionally been this way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11065065543773248730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-30793572289677621732015-03-02T23:49:08.786-05:002015-03-02T23:49:08.786-05:00I almost laughed at how absurd Justice Moore was i...I almost laughed at how absurd Justice Moore was in this article. The man's entire job is based on the fact that he must remain a neutral party in the court of law. It is completely unjust for him to incorporate his personal religious beliefs into the entire Alabama law system. Also, this man is completely out of line for trying to push his beliefs onto other judges in surrounding areas, encouraging them to also join forces and deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moore's comparisons of same-sex marriage to slavery are completely ridiculous and should not be taken seriously. Moore signed up for a job that is clearly notorious for remaining neutral and unbiased, therefore his free exercise clause is not being violated. This is a clear example where the line of church and state needs to be clearly separated. The Supreme Court is the final say in the United State's law system, as it has been for over 200 years. I fully support the idea that the Supreme Court has the final say in all court rulings and that it has every right to determine the laws of each state if they appear to be unconstitutional. Molly H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00721867630371536282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-82069297520787046092015-03-02T19:29:41.672-05:002015-03-02T19:29:41.672-05:00In my opinion, it is completely uncalled for for a...In my opinion, it is completely uncalled for for a judge to insert his own religious beliefs into an American court of law. To me, the constitution is the supreme law and the Supreme Court has the final decision in these issues, not some religious deity. A judge is meant to be as unbiased as possible, and directly inserting his religious beliefs into a courtroom is a complete violation of the separation of church and state and is clear excessive entanglement. I believe that the Supreme Court should have the final say and that the decision should not be shaped by anything written in a 'holy' book. Liz Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12158115742624195708noreply@blogger.com