Fortunately, the Constitution was written in somewhat more precise language than God's Word. It was also written in 200-year-old English, not 5000-year-old Hebrew. As an added bonus, we have additional writings from those who wrote it, to give us some additional insight into what was meant, whereas we have little objective insight into the mind of God. We mostly just have to rely on our own faith to flesh that out.
But all that aside, whether we're talking about the Word of God or last week's zoning ordinance, there exists an actual fixed meaning to the law in question, whatever that meaning is. I assume we can agree on that much.
From there, it's simply a matter of whether a ruling from a judge is in line with it or not. If it is not (not "if someone has determined that it is not", but if it is not), then the ruling is invalid. Maybe people won't know right away that it's invalid, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that it is.
From there, it's just a matter of whether you agree that the ruling is not in accord with the law. If you do, then naturally you're going to conclude that Justice Moore is obligated to follow it. If you don't, then...I'm not quite sure what you'd say. What if you could be convinced that the 11th Circuit court is wrong? Would you still be arguing that he's obligated to follow a ruling that you know for a fact is unconstitutional? Would you likewise argue that one is obligated to obey an act of Congress that you know is unconstitutional?
[The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.]
That, and and an extra bonus insofar as the law gives us all something new to argue about.
You're quite wrong there. Imagine the discord that would result from having no standard of reference at all. Law removes sources of disagreement. The disagreement you see now is merely residual.
It sounds so easy when you put it like that, doesn't it? If it's invalid, we ignore it. Mary says it's valid. Betty says it's invalid. Who's right? Shouldn't we all be able to look at it and instantly know its meaning, if it's that simple? For that matter, if it's so clear and obvious, why are there still people disagreeing with you about the meaning of the Constitution? Why is it that you seem to have a handle on its objective meaning, but I don't? Why do so many fail to do what you imply ought to be easy to do?
What if you could be convinced that the 11th Circuit court is wrong? Would you still be arguing that he's obligated to follow a ruling that you know for a fact is unconstitutional? Would you likewise argue that one is obligated to obey an act of Congress that you know is unconstitutional?
We all, in a democratic republic, have a moral obligation to work within the system for peaceful change. I dispute right off the bat this contention that there is any way of knowing "for a fact" that something is Constitutional or not, other than in the sorts of law-school hypotheticals where the law is literally antonymous to the Constitution - the sorts of hypothetical cases that don't actually exist in reality, IOW - but setting that aside, Judge Moore has a legal means of recourse available to him. He may appeal to the Supreme Court for relief, and if that fails, he may appeal to the public at large to amend the Constitution to reflect his interpretation, such that it will be clearer that his preferred interpretation is the correct interpretation.
Failing that, he has three options. One, obey the law as it exists, rather than as he prefers it to be. Two, face whatever penalties exist for failing to obey the law. Three, leave. Those are his choices, and mine, and yours. My personal preference would be for Judge Moore to embrace legal reality as it is, rather than acting in accordance with how he thinks it ought to be - I don't like seeing anyone punished for simply being wrong - but that is his decision, and I frankly don't have too much sympathy for a man who has traversed the ground from being simply wrong to being willfully wrong.
Either way, he has no right, legal or moral, to exempt himself from a law that binds everyone else by mutual agreement. We all enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by God, the Constitution, and each other, but incumbent upon that is the obligation to respect the institutions that we have created in service to those freedoms. And if Judge Moore finds that he is unable to freely and fully honor those obligations as a public servant, then he neither deserves nor will have his position for much longer.
Imagine the discord that would result from having no standard of reference at all. Law removes sources of disagreement. The disagreement you see now is merely residual.
Completely disagree. We have now exactly the same disputes as existed before the law - the law merely provides a means of peacefully resolving those disputes. Now I invoke the law when I find you in possession of my ox, rather than simply bashing your skull in as I might have done in a simpler time. ;)