Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore Ignores Unlawful Federal Judge Ruling On "Gay Marrriage"

"I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity," "Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."
"As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage." 
uphold and Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Roy Moore Ignores Unlawful 
Federal Judge Ruling On "Gay Marrriage"
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.
Moore’s office released the three-page letter 
that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge’s ruling Friday striking down the ban.
“As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,” Moore wrote.
“I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity,” Moore continued at the end of the letter. “Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.”
Bentley issued a statement today after Moore’s letter was released.
“The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do,” the governor said.
“The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday’s ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.”
Moore said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. “Ginny” Granade “raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction” over the Alabama amendment.
“As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage,” Moore wrote.
David Kennedy, an attorney for Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand, the couple who successfully challenged the same-sex ban, said he strongly disagreed with what Moore wrote.
“We also know there is no legal support for the position he’s taken,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy said the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that when a federal court with the proper jurisdiction rules that a state law is unconstitutional that state officials are bound to abide by the ruling.
Kennedy mentioned the fact that in 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Moore from the state Supreme Court after he refused to obey a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument that he had placed in the state judicial building.
“I’m disappointed he is again encouraging state officials to be defiant of a lawful federal order,” Kennedy said.
Moore was elected chief justice again in 2012.
State voters approved the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment in 2006, with 81 percent voting in favor of it. The amendment defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Granade ruled that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and a separate state law banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Granade issued a 14-day stay in her ruling, as well as on a second ruling Monday in favor of another same-sex couple. The stay expires Feb. 9.
Moore included a biblical passage in his letter, Mark 10:6-9, which describes God’s directive about marriage.
He wrote that he was encouraged that the Alabama Probate Judges Association encouraged its members not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The association’s position was that Friday’s ruling applied only to the couple that filed the lawsuit.
That couple’s lawyers disagreed and compared the association’s position to Gov. George Wallace’s stand in the schoolhouse door to prevent integration at the University of Alabama.
Probate judges in some counties disagreed with the association’s position and indicated they planned to issue licenses. The stay prevented that from happening.

Alabama Chief Justice Urges Defiance 

of Federal Tyranny

"Moore’s letter is packed with support for his position. In addition to the state Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and previous Alabama Supreme Court rulings protecting the institution of marriage, the chief justice also cited a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. “Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is ‘the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement,’” Moore explained, quoting the U.S. high court’s decision in Murphy v. Ramsey."
"As the federal government becomes increasingly extreme in usurping power — more than two thirds of Americans in surveys say the feds are “out of control” and a threat to liberty — state-level efforts to stop it all are growing stronger. From nullification of unconstitutional federal statutes by liberal and conservative states, to efforts such as Moore’s to protect state constitutions from radical federal judges, the trend is expected to accelerate. The federal ruling purporting to redefine marriage has been put on hold until at least next month. However, with the Supreme Court expected to rule on the issue, and two justices with blatant and unlawful conflicts of interest so far resisting demands for recusal, legal experts say the high court may well seek to impose its new definition of marriage on all 50 states later this year. Pastors, judges, lawmakers, and more areincreasingly urging states to interpose and protect citizens from the escalating federal abuse. Whether or not they do may define America for generations to come."

Southern Baptist Leader Russell Moore: Alabama Judges Must Uphold ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling or Resign

A prominent Southern Baptist leader who raised concerns last year after he advised that Christians should support the rights of other religions and also traveled to the Vatican for an interfaith conference on marriage is now stating that probate judges in Alabama should either follow the recent federal ruling in favor of “gay marriage” or resign.
“Given the high bar required for civil disobedience, the way to address same-sex marriage in this circumstance is not by defying the rule of law, but by making our case before the legitimate authorities,” Moore stated. “If we lose, our responsibility is to advocate as citizens for our views, even if that project is (as in the case of the pro-life movement) a long-term project, while we work for our constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and religious liberty.”

Obama Tax Policy Shows Bias Against Stay-At-Home Moms

Obama Tax Policy Shows Bias 
Against Stay-At-Home Moms
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

If there’s one thing political “progressives” despise, it’s discrimination. And not just the old-fashioned kind, like discrimination against minorities in housing, hiring, public accommodations, etc. No, today legislatures are guilty of discrimination against women if they enact any limitation at all on “abortion rights”; parents are “homophobes” if they object to having their children taught in their tax-supported schools that all “lifestyles” are morally equal; and florists, bakers, and photographers are unfairly discriminating if they choose not to provide their services for same-sex weddings. Private employers and even religious institutions are guilty of discrimination against women’s “reproductive health choices” if the health insurance they offer employees does not include coverage for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Yet the tax policy the president has urged Congress to write into law would further discriminate against the minority of women who choose the traditional role of “stay-at-home mom,” devoting their time and energy to the unpaid labor of raising children, buying the groceries and doing the myriad other tasks involved in managing a household.
Obama has called for a “second-earner tax credit” for two-income couples worth five percent of the lower-paid spouse’s first $10,000 of earnings for a tax break of $500. The credit, wrote Matt Gardner of the Institute on taxation and Economic Policy “would be unavailable to those couples earning over $210,000.” Why a couple earning $210,000 a year needs a $500 tax break is anyone’s guess, but it is part of Obama’s plan for “middle-class tax relief.” He has also called on Congress to pass an expansion of the Child and Dependents Care tax credit, currently a 50-percent tax credit for a parent’s first $2,000 in babysitting or daycare expenditures that allow a spouse to work or look for work. Obama would increase that to $6,000 in child-care expenses for most families, while increasing also the size of the credit families earning $100,000 or more can claim.
The rub is that these proposals perpetuate a policy bias in favor of encouraging women to forsake the opportunity to be at home with their small children in exchange for the family’s second paycheck. For many, if not most, families, that may be an economic necessity in an economy where wages don’t keep pace with inflation and real income for most Americans has been declining for decades. But there are families, including those of modest means, that choose to forego the added income so that one parent, usually the mother, can stay home to take care of the children. And Obama’s tax credits are not for them. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it, “You want pro-family tax reform? Sure, so long as the tax credit only pays for daycare and excludes families with a stay-at-home parent.”
The feminist movement in the 1960s and ’70s encouraged a disparaging view of the American “housewife,” as women entered the labor market in force. The federal government encouraged the movement with Affirmative Action hiring “guidelines” (none dare call them quotas), not only out of concern for equal opportunity, but also because an expanding labor pool was considered good for business, while at the same time providing more workers to support Washington’s ever-expanding, ever more costly welfare/warfare state. But the trend has drawbacks as well as advantages, both for the working families and for the social order. As Tim Carney wrote in the Washington Examiner:
Working parents acquire new job skills and keep their existing skills fresh. That definitely has value for the family and even the broader economy. Stay-at-home moms have the opportunity to provide their kids with more positive attention than they can get in most daycare situations. This has positive effects on children. Having a wife at home can also make husbands and fathers more productive in the workplace. How should we weigh these pros and cons of dual-income families versus single-income families with one spouse staying home? Here’s the great thing about America: We don’t have to decide which is better for everyone — we just have to decide for our own families. The tax code should be neutral on this choice. Obama wants the tax code to take sides, tilting the scales towards working over staying at home. This is social engineering by Obama.
The irony is that it is cultural conservatives who are most often accused of trying to “impose their values” on the body politic. Yet social engineering is the essence of the progressive agenda. As Selwyn Duke pointed out at, the president who is zealously “pro-choice” when defending a woman’s “right” to destroy her unborn child does not want to leave much else to private choice. In a speech at Rhode Island College last fall, Obama spoke of the difficulties parents often face in trying to find affordable, quality day care.
“And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make,” the president said.
Surely it is nothing new to find politicians using tax credits, subsidies, or loans to encourage individuals or businesses to buy electric cars, build windmills or solar panels, or do any number of things that social planners deem beneficial. Indeed, the entire ObamaCare scheme, with its subsidies for people purchasing health insurance and penalties for those who don’t, is social engineering on a grand scale. Pamela Olson, former assistant secretary for the treasury for tax policy has observed that the tax code incorporates “policies aimed at the environment, conservation, green energy, manufacturing, innovation, education, saving, retirement, healthcare, child care, welfare, corporate governance, export promotion, charitable giving, governance of tax exempt organizations and economic development, to name but a few.”
That’s quite a “few.” And most, if not all, of the above-mentioned tax incentives has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. As a result, there is scarcely any aspect of life in which Americans are not bribed, cajoled, or “incentivized” by their government to spend their time, energy, and money in ways the government favors, with rewards and penalties filling a tax code that runs some 70,000 pages. At a time when the president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are once again promising to reform and simplify the tax code, adding a tax credit to encourage the separation of young children from both parents through most of their waking hours would be another step in the wrong direction.