Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[del]

SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.

Churches have the right to discriminate based on belief...judges do not. One has to wonder if the judge made his stance clear before he was elected.

SHE took up taxpayer time announcing her "decision" and took a political stand based on her opposition to her state's law. I hope the state JQC goes after her.

no, she didn't.

you fail

some more

again

 

[Si modo]

Churches have the right to discriminate based on belief...judges do not. One has to wonder if the judge made his stance clear before he was elected.

SHE took up taxpayer time announcing her "decision" and took a political stand based on her opposition to her state's law. I hope the state JQC goes after her.

no, she didn't.

you fail

some more

again

One of the easiest things to do to prevent looking like an idiot is to read the articles in the OPs.

So few do it; so many willing fools.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Churches have the right to discriminate based on belief...judges do not. One has to wonder if the judge made his stance clear before he was elected.

SHE took up taxpayer time announcing her "decision" and took a political stand based on her opposition to her state's law. I hope the state JQC goes after her.

no, she didn't.

you fail

some more

again

Yes she did dammit

She held a press conference from her office, announced that part of her job required her to marry anyone who wanted to get married, but that she was going to discriminate instead.

Except that if anyone actually read the thread they would see that we KNOW none of those things are true.

 

[del]

SHE took up taxpayer time announcing her "decision" and took a political stand based on her opposition to her state's law. I hope the state JQC goes after her.

no, she didn't.

you fail

some more

again

One of the easiest things to do to prevent looking like an idiot is to read the articles in the OPs.

So few do it; so many willing fools.

contempt prior to investigation rears its head yet again

 

[Texanmike]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

Thanks. I am trying to track down the code that authorizes her to do something. This is an opinion. I find that opinions get stretched way beyond what the original law says. Again, I'm not passing judgement either way really. I just don't know enough about local laws to make such a determination.


Mike

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

Thanks. I am trying to track down the code that authorizes her to do something. This is an opinion. I find that opinions get stretched way beyond what the original law says. Again, I'm not passing judgement either way really. I just don't know enough about local laws to make such a determination.


Mike

4. The Marriage Ceremony
Persons Authorized to Conduct Ceremony
Persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies include licensed or ordained ministers,
priests, or rabbis; state judges (all the way down to justices of the peace); retired judges and
justices of the peace who have had at least 12 years of service; federal judges and magistrates;
and "persons who are officers of religious organizations and who are duly authorized by the
organization to conduct marriage ceremonies.'' [§ 1.83] (The language in quotes covers Quaker
marriages, where the couple exchanges vows before the congregation, whose members are
deemed officers of the religious organization for purposes of the statute.)



http://www.beardenlawfirm.com/Family Law Outline.pdf


they are CLEARLY authorized but not required to perform marriages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

Thanks. I am trying to track down the code that authorizes her to do something. This is an opinion. I find that opinions get stretched way beyond what the original law says. Again, I'm not passing judgement either way really. I just don't know enough about local laws to make such a determination.


Mike

FAMILY CODE  CHAPTER 2. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP

FAMILY CODE
TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
SUBTITLE A. MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 2. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
SUBCHAPTER C. CEREMONY AND RETURN OF LICENSE

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:

(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;

(2) a Jewish rabbi;

(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and

(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

(b) For the purposes of this section, a retired judge or justice is a former judge or justice who is vested in the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One or the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two or who has an aggregate of at least 12 years of service as judge or justice of any type listed in Subsection (a)(4).

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony without authorization under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.


>>>>

 

[Texanmike]

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

Thanks. I am trying to track down the code that authorizes her to do something. This is an opinion. I find that opinions get stretched way beyond what the original law says. Again, I'm not passing judgement either way really. I just don't know enough about local laws to make such a determination.


Mike

4. The Marriage Ceremony
Persons Authorized to Conduct Ceremony
Persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies include licensed or ordained ministers,
priests, or rabbis; state judges (all the way down to justices of the peace); retired judges and
justices of the peace who have had at least 12 years of service; federal judges and magistrates;
and "persons who are officers of religious organizations and who are duly authorized by the
organization to conduct marriage ceremonies.'' [§ 1.83] (The language in quotes covers Quaker
marriages, where the couple exchanges vows before the congregation, whose members are
deemed officers of the religious organization for purposes of the statute.)



http://www.beardenlawfirm.com/Family Law Outline.pdf


they are CLEARLY authorized but not required to perform marriages.

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

Thanks. I am trying to track down the code that authorizes her to do something. This is an opinion. I find that opinions get stretched way beyond what the original law says. Again, I'm not passing judgement either way really. I just don't know enough about local laws to make such a determination.


Mike

FAMILY CODE**CHAPTER 2. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP

FAMILY CODE
TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
SUBTITLE A. MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 2. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
SUBCHAPTER C. CEREMONY AND RETURN OF LICENSE

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:

(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;

(2) a Jewish rabbi;

(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and

(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

(b) For the purposes of this section, a retired judge or justice is a former judge or justice who is vested in the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One or the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two or who has an aggregate of at least 12 years of service as judge or justice of any type listed in Subsection (a)(4).

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony without authorization under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.


>>>>

There are several different codes, that's the problem. I'm wondering what codes outlines her duties and responsibilities. These are sections defining marriage and authorizing people to do things. I am more curious about what she is bound to do. Maybe there is nothing, I'm not sure. I'm from Texas but I haven't lived there in over a decade. I'm in Lousyanna right now and we have Napoleonic code here. Entirely different from anything you've seen unless you've seen this place.

Mike

 

[GuyPinestra]

So the judge is not required to perform marriages, she refuses to perform ANY marriages, why is this a problem? She can refuse for ANY reason, or NO reason.

She wasn't on the bench when she gave her reasons for not performing marriages, she wasn't on the taxpayer clock, again, why is this a problem?

I say more power to her...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Why does the law in Texas apply at all? Either the judge has a right to an opinion because people have rights, or the judge does not have a right to an opinion because people don't have rights unless the law gives it to them.

By the way, I know what Texas law is because I grew up there, was married by a judge, and happen to be able to remember things even if they happened a few decades ago. I don't need to research statutes to have an informed opinion about things I already know. On top of that, the OP clearly stated that judges in Texas are not required to perform marriages. That means that, if you want argue that people are not posting informed opinions you have to do find the proof that the OP is inaccurate.

 

[Texanmike]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Why does the law in Texas apply at all? Either the judge has a right to an opinion because people have rights, or the judge does not have a right to an opinion because people don't have rights unless the law gives it to them.

By the way, I know what Texas law is because I grew up there, was married by a judge, and happen to be able to remember things even if they happened a few decades ago. I don't need to research statutes to have an informed opinion about things I already know. On top of that, the OP clearly stated that judges in Texas are not required to perform marriages. That means that, if you want argue that people are not posting informed opinions you have to do find the proof that the OP is inaccurate.

The reason I am suspicious is because nowhere is there a link given to the responsibility of the Judge. There is an opinion of an AG. That is not very helpful in determining the law.

And what in the hell do you mean a right or not have a right. When you are acting in an official capacity you don't always have the right to act on an opinion.

Mike

 

[Syphon]

Which gender is being discriminated against, men or women? Or is there some third possibility I don't know about?

Men cannot marry men, women cannot marry women. It is gender discrimination.

I know that, you know that...we all know that....

But please feel free to continue with your "cigarette" speechifying.

So which gender is being discriminated against? Because someone is discriminated against only in terms of someone else. Blacks couldn't hold certain jobs and whites could. If no one could hold those jobs, meth-lab tech for example, then there is no discrimination.
As it is, men are not discriminated against. They can marry any woman, given certain parameters. Note, it does not matter what their sexual orientation is. Ditto for women.
Discrimination does not mean someone cannot do something. It means some people can and others are unlawfully barred.

"Discrimination does not mean someone cannot do something. It means some people can and others are unlawfully barred."

your last line is a great argument in favor of gay marriage actually.

 

[jillian]

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."

Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.

good on him!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Why does the law in Texas apply at all? Either the judge has a right to an opinion because people have rights, or the judge does not have a right to an opinion because people don't have rights unless the law gives it to them.

By the way, I know what Texas law is because I grew up there, was married by a judge, and happen to be able to remember things even if they happened a few decades ago. I don't need to research statutes to have an informed opinion about things I already know. On top of that, the OP clearly stated that judges in Texas are not required to perform marriages. That means that, if you want argue that people are not posting informed opinions you have to do find the proof that the OP is inaccurate.

The reason I am suspicious is because nowhere is there a link given to the responsibility of the Judge. There is an opinion of an AG. That is not very helpful in determining the law.

And what in the hell do you mean a right or not have a right. When you are acting in an official capacity you don't always have the right to act on an opinion.

Mike

Actually, there was, and you rejected it because it was an opinion. For the record, the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Texas is the equivalent of the pope speaking ex cathedra, it is officially binding on the state and all its employees, which includes state district judges. It is formally called an opinion because of tradition, but is, in effect, a decree.

 

[Barb]

good for her! Nice to see someone stand up for equal justice under the law.

Untill all people, regardless of gender, are able to legally bet the object of their affections half their shit that they'll love them forever, none of us are free.

 

[Texanmike]

Why does the law in Texas apply at all? Either the judge has a right to an opinion because people have rights, or the judge does not have a right to an opinion because people don't have rights unless the law gives it to them.

By the way, I know what Texas law is because I grew up there, was married by a judge, and happen to be able to remember things even if they happened a few decades ago. I don't need to research statutes to have an informed opinion about things I already know. On top of that, the OP clearly stated that judges in Texas are not required to perform marriages. That means that, if you want argue that people are not posting informed opinions you have to do find the proof that the OP is inaccurate.

The reason I am suspicious is because nowhere is there a link given to the responsibility of the Judge. There is an opinion of an AG. That is not very helpful in determining the law.

And what in the hell do you mean a right or not have a right. When you are acting in an official capacity you don't always have the right to act on an opinion.

Mike

Actually, there was, and you rejected it because it was an opinion. For the record, the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Texas is the equivalent of the pope speaking ex cathedra, it is officially binding on the state and all its employees, which includes state district judges. It is formally called an opinion because of tradition, but is, in effect, a decree.

Didn't know that. Unfortunately I am much less familiar with the Texas law than I would like to be. Maybe next decade I will polish up on that.

Mike

 

[Barb]

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

I must spread some rep around...

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's room for both squares and circles in the world.

I agree. If she wants to engage in homosexual behavior, she can. I just think it absurd that we should be forced to change the definition of marriage because she doesn't want to comply with it.

I think it's absurd that you let the government define marriage.

They don't. They define what they, the government, are going to officially recognize as a marriage. No one's forcing you to agree with them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's paid to perform that service.

He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.

blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.

Here you go:

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court.

You should read more carefully before you post unless, that is, you have an agenda

You should show us something other than her personal freaking opinion to read.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

and how do you propose they consent to something they cant understand?

Well, lefties apparently screw like minks, and they don't understand jack shit about human reproduction, so . . .