Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[del]

marriage is not a right.

of course it isn't

and the sun revolves around the earth

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

As the judge herself said, it's a privilege.




And a mia koopa; In PA you pay the state to get married, I assumed it was likewise in TX. Since the state doesn't take money, and neither does the judge, she can pass on rendering that service.

loving v virginia

you pay the state for a license in TX

 

[del]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

do you find the wind whistling through your ears distracting?

i would

 

[del]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

how much time were you looking at?

 

[del]

This should not be so hard to understand.

A judge who in his personal time was a member of the KKK, appeared at a KKK meeting and gave a speech saying that he would not follow the law involving a black petitioner would absolutely be understood to have bias and shouldn't be judging a dog show. This is the same thing.

only in what passes for your mind, toots.

 

[del]

I'm a whiner because I would prefer to have conversation where people either inform themselves of the topic or shut up?

Hmmm okay I'll take that hit I guess. How sad.

I have preferences as well. But, after some time here, I know when to stop banging my head against a brick wall and just move on.

I already acknowledged that I would probably adjust and just start posting gibberish without actually reading the topic, but until then I'm pretty opinionated about preferring intelligent debate, and that's hardly whining.

I mean seriously, how many people in this thread have posted some dumb opinion that they obviously would not have formulated if they had only read the thread before commenting.

stop whining

 

[del]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

it was the headline of the linked article, and i'm lazy

 

[del]

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

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.

she wasn't on taxpayer time and she wasn't on the bench

other than that, you've made some excellent points here, derp.

 

[Immanuel]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

it was the headline of the linked article, and i'm lazy

I went back and looked because when I read the article later, I looked for "straight", but it is not in the article and it is not in the title of the article. It is in the title of the link, you provided but it I copy and past the link, this is what I get:

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

I don't see straight there and I know there is a way to manipulate the link title, but have never tried it... What gives?

Immie

 

[del]

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

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
**********************************************
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.

negged for disingenuous bullshit

 

[del]

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.

And they would all be demanding that this judge be removed from the bench too.

and they'd be as wrong as you are.

see how that works?

 

[del]

oh, connie

you're not fooling any of the *fellers*

 

[del]

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

it was the headline of the linked article, and i'm lazy

I went back and looked because when I read the article later, I looked for "straight", but it is not in the article and it is not in the title of the article. It is in the title of the link, you provided but it I copy and past the link, this is what I get:

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

I don't see straight there and I know there is a way to manipulate the link title, but have never tried it... What gives?

Immie

i dunno, i copied it and pasted it off drudge yesterday. it was the headline.

*shrug*

i really don't spend a lot of time thinking about thread titles and their potential

i'm lazy

 

[Immanuel]

it was the headline of the linked article, and i'm lazy

I went back and looked because when I read the article later, I looked for "straight", but it is not in the article and it is not in the title of the article. It is in the title of the link, you provided but it I copy and past the link, this is what I get:

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

I don't see straight there and I know there is a way to manipulate the link title, but have never tried it... What gives?

Immie

i dunno, i copied it and pasted it off drudge yesterday. it was the headline.

*shrug*

i really don't spend a lot of time thinking about thread titles and their potential

i'm lazy

Oh Drudge? Hell, why didn't you just say so?

Immie

 

[del]

Nope. Don't want the business. Take it down the road.

See how easy that was!

Too bad everyone doesn't have that same freedom.

Yet, you deny this judge that freedom.

Immie

I didn't take an oath to follow the law and be impartial. In fact, I'm as discriminatory as one could get.

shocker

 

[del]

Sorry bout that,

Let's hope # 9 happens to you and yours!

Let's see who condemns him for his posts....no one seemed to do so about his first horrific post....except to say he was "just kidding".

1. Why should I be condemned? I am willing to marry a man and a women, if I were a judge....
2. Everyone knows I am just kidding.
3. And I am making a very valid point with my kidding.
4. Your not much a a judge if you can't see this.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

you are now, and have always been, a maggot

 

[Peach]

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

how much time were you looking at?

The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
***********************************
CORRECT.

 

[del]

I went back and looked because when I read the article later, I looked for "straight", but it is not in the article and it is not in the title of the article. It is in the title of the link, you provided but it I copy and past the link, this is what I get:

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

I don't see straight there and I know there is a way to manipulate the link title, but have never tried it... What gives?

Immie

i dunno, i copied it and pasted it off drudge yesterday. it was the headline.

*shrug*

i really don't spend a lot of time thinking about thread titles and their potential

i'm lazy

Oh Drudge? Hell, why didn't you just say so?

Immie

because i thought i copied the headline off the linked article

 

[Peach]

Boo Hoo

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.

she wasn't on taxpayer time and she wasn't on the bench

other than that, you've made some excellent points here, derp.

They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
****************************************
In Florida at least.

 

[del]

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.

she wasn't on taxpayer time and she wasn't on the bench

other than that, you've made some excellent points here, derp.

They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
****************************************
In Florida at least.

in your benighted opinion

 

[Peach]

she wasn't on taxpayer time and she wasn't on the bench

other than that, you've made some excellent points here, derp.

They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
****************************************
In Florida at least.

in your benighted opinion

That IS funny! No, the avoidance of impropriety is part of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2:

Court Decisions and Rules