Even though a federal judge declared Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, some LGBT couples in the state still haven’t been able to marry. Many of them have obeyed an order from state chief justice Roy Moore not to issue licenses to LGBT couples. His argument? Alabama is the sole arbiter on what constitutes a legal marriage in the state, and federal court orders be damned. That’s led to the obvious question–has Moore become George Wallace in a robe?
Moore tried to answer that question in an interview with NPR’s Debbie Elliott earlier this week. The interview aired on Thursday’s “Morning Edition.” Moore told Elliott that he isn’t fond of the comparison between Wallace and himself. As he sees it, all he wants is to “keep the federal government within the confines of what the federal government is supposed to do.” But a few minutes later, when Elliott asked him if Alabama judges will be bound to obey any federal Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality, Moore replied:
“They can mandate same-sex marriage, but they can’t force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by performing one.”
Moore conceded that the Supreme Court will have the final say on this issue. However, unless I heard this wrong, he seemed to give carte blanche to any judge in Alabama to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality. In other words–if a judge essentially wants to stand in the courthouse door, he or she is well within his rights to do so. Can you imagine what would happen if a state’s chief justice said that state officials would be well within their rights to refuse to grant marriage licenses to interracial or multinational couples? Well, actually, we don’t need to–that chief justice would be all but forced to resign. No matter what Moore may say, this is no different.
Perhaps someone should ask Moore what he would think if anyone in Alabama did what Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell did in 2009. He refused to grant a marriage license to an interracial couple because he didn’t believe in the races mixing in that manner. Following criticism from across the spectrum, Bardwell resigned. The couple filed a federal civil rights suit against Bardwell, but dropped it after he resigned. If this were to happen to an LGBT couple in Alabama in the event of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, any judge or justice of the peace who does this should get the same treatment.
If the Supreme Court does indeed rule that states have to allow LGBT couples to marry and any judge in Alabama still refuses to grant such couples a marriage license, Moore must be held morally responsible. Even though he is trying to fob off any denials of marriage licenses on individual judges, this statement should be tied around him like an anchor.
