Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.
No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.Her announcement of WHY she will not marry persons under the laws of Texas is what I find WRONG. She made it a point to explain her DECISION not to marry those allowed to marry in her state. Thus she is campaign to change the law; her legal decisions are open to the public, you can also ask those who have appeared in front of her for their view of her. But taking PUBLIC POLITICAL STANDS is inappropriate at best.
Boo Hoo
"Come socialize, find a great seat and order dinner starting at 6:00. The meeting begins at 6:30 with reports on the progress towards our goals, invited speakers and announcements of exciting volunteer opportunities.
Bring a friend. You never know who might become the next Stonewall Democrats of Dallas member!"
THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest
and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.
They've been told this again and again. Apparently that shoe on their other foot is SO UNCOMFORTABLE they cannot read what is in front of them.THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest
She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?
and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.
No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.
I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.
Same sex marriage dates back to antiquity.
Spanning several cultures.
There were highly ritualized ceremonies to commemorate these marriages in many parts.
The Chinese even have fairy tales about gay couples.
The Romans even had it.
Records still exist recording the marriage of two men in Spain by the local priest in the 1600s.
Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.Boo Hoo
Except you are wrong, it was not taxpayer's time. She did not do this during court time or office hours. And you've been told this again and again and again. So, either you are not paying attention, or you do not care about the truth.
I don't care what she was doing. She has exhibited a propensity for bias. She has personal opinions that affect her judgment.
If same sex marriage were legal and a judge said that he disagreed so strongly with marrying same sex couples that he would refuse to perform any marriage at all wouldn't you think this judge was biased? That such bias would influence any case that came before him or her? It doesn't matter what the issue is. It could be sexual orientation, racisim, sexism, any issue. It's not what it is, it's that this judge's decisions are affected by her bias.
Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.
Except you are wrong, it was not taxpayer's time. She did not do this during court time or office hours. And you've been told this again and again and again. So, either you are not paying attention, or you do not care about the truth.
I don't care what she was doing. She has exhibited a propensity for bias. She has personal opinions that affect her judgment.
If same sex marriage were legal and a judge said that he disagreed so strongly with marrying same sex couples that he would refuse to perform any marriage at all wouldn't you think this judge was biased? That such bias would influence any case that came before him or her? It doesn't matter what the issue is. It could be sexual orientation, racisim, sexism, any issue. It's not what it is, it's that this judge's decisions are affected by her bias.
THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest
She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?
and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.
No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.
Oh, so now you libtards are touting ancient tradition? Oh hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
Negged for disingenuous bullshit
THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest
She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?
and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.
No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.
You are suggesting that she separates her prejudice. She is biased only in her spare time. When she puts on that robe she becomes impartial.
Yeah, right.
Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.
Except you are wrong, it was not taxpayer's time. She did not do this during court time or office hours. And you've been told this again and again and again. So, either you are not paying attention, or you do not care about the truth.
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
Negged for disingenuous bullshit
**********************************************
Not in Florida. Until a Supreme Court case of just a few years ago, gay citizens could not even ADOPT children They could be guardians, and foster parents but not NO ADOPTION. And the law stood through Democratic AND Republican governors.
The saddest part of this thread is that I have ZERO doubt that 90% of those posting here would be arguing the other side if things were reversed and gay marriage was legal and this woman refused to marry ANYONE in protest of the law.
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.Negged for disingenuous bullshit
**********************************************
Not in Florida. Until a Supreme Court case of just a few years ago, gay citizens could not even ADOPT children They could be guardians, and foster parents but not NO ADOPTION. And the law stood through Democratic AND Republican governors.
When that kind of argument was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Virginia lawyers in Loving v Virginia, the Justices laughed out loud....kind of like I am laughing at you now.
