Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[del]

my work here is done

Calling everyone stupid while refusing to respond to any points and then running for the door like a scared bitch is your job? I thought it was just your hobby.

i believe you were busy shoving your other foot in your mouth...

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Boo Hoo

AND her announcement of a POLITICAL statement is also inappropriate.

she wasn't on the bench; she was at a political meeting

duh

OK, so no elected officals can make policital statements. I'll go for that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

She actually is not required to do it, and even if she was, I would support her not doing it if that is her choice.

That would make it a different matter. If , for example, this guy was the only place in town to get married and that was part of his job description, then he can either do it or get fired.

But that isn't the case.

I would still support her right to refuse to conduct marriages.

 

[bodecea]

Guilty Pleasure Thread of the Week

 

[del]

If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?

YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.

You are of course WRONG.

Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.

They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?

By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.

How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?

THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.

you've objected at least three times now.

we get it.

 

[del]

If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?

YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.

no, i didn't. reading for comprehension is your friend

no minister, priest or rabbi does if it isn't to their liking.

feel free to move your lips if it helps you to understand the words

Seems like her lips are otherwise engaged.

probably busy googling xanthippe

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You are of course WRONG.

Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.

They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?

By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.

How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?

THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.

you've objected at least three times now.

we get it.

I object to her objections.

 

[Gem]

Not quite sure what the story is here. Someone has an activity that they can do because of their job. They don't have to do it. It isn't required to do their job. In fact, they are not permitted to do it during work hours. It's like a perk. Like a worker in a office being allowed to use the office copier for their family Christmas letter, just so long as they use their own paper and do it after hours...

This particular person chooses not to do that activity. Who cares? His reason is his reason. He wants to make his reason public because he feels its important...doesn't mean anyone has to care, he isn't hurting anyone. He isn't denying anyone their right to get married - he's just saying he won't be the one doing it.

Ummm....ok...what am I missing? Why is this a big deal?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.

Thus you just proved it is gender discrimination.

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

Well I hope your state comes out and passes a law that say it wont allow marriages between men and women. that only gays can get married.
Then the federal government says it wont accept tax returns from said state of any man and woman that are married if they checked the "married" box.
Because, ya know, none on the right should have a problem with that, as long as its fair for everyone.

 

[bodecea]

Not quite sure what the story is here. Someone has an activity that they can do because of their job. They don't have to do it. It isn't required to do their job. In fact, they are not permitted to do it during work hours. It's like a perk. Like a worker in a office being allowed to use the office copier for their family Christmas letter, just so long as they use their own paper and do it after hours...

This particular person chooses not to do that activity. Who cares? His reason is his reason. He wants to make his reason public because he feels its important...doesn't mean anyone has to care, he isn't hurting anyone. He isn't denying anyone their right to get married - he's just saying he won't be the one doing it.

Ummm....ok...what am I missing? Why is this a big deal?

Because...we are finding that for some, that shoe on the other foot is not comfortable.

 

[Immanuel]

Boo Hoo

AND her announcement of a POLITICAL statement is also inappropriate.

she wasn't on the bench; she was at a political meeting

duh

What sucks is that some people seem to thing judges need to keep their personal opinions to themselves when out in public life. I'm glad she had the courage to take a stand on the issue. At first, I thought it was said that she only performs homosexual weddings, but from what I got from her statements was that she said she does not perform any weddings.

Good for her for taking a stand.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

AND her announcement of a POLITICAL statement is also inappropriate.

she wasn't on the bench; she was at a political meeting

duh

What sucks is that some people seem to thing judges need to keep their personal opinions to themselves when out in public life. I'm glad she had the courage to take a stand on the issue. At first, I thought it was said that she only performs homosexual weddings, but from what I got from her statements was that she said she does not perform any weddings.

Good for her for taking a stand.

Immie

that's what some hate. Anyone who actually stands up for something they don't like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thus you just proved it is gender discrimination.

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.

Your logic is what fails. Horribly so. Sexual orientation is not the basis of the inequality. Gender is.

Also, my signature is linked to a legal web site. It is a fact of law that same-sex marriages do not get the same cash and prizes as opposite-sex marriages.

As long as there is DOMA, there is inequality.

What gender is being discriminated against? Men have rights of marriage. Women have equal rights of marriage. Doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Big whoop.

 

[logical4u]

Wonder if that is an "elected" position or an "appointed" position?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. oh great another fag libturd legislating from the judges bench.
2. This crap never changes.
3. This fag should be kicked off her bench and then gang raped.
4. Just kidding, but it did sound cool and appropriate.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[The Rabbi]

Your logic is what fails. Horribly so. Sexual orientation is not the basis of the inequality. Gender is.

Also, my signature is linked to a legal web site. It is a fact of law that same-sex marriages do not get the same cash and prizes as opposite-sex marriages.

As long as there is DOMA, there is inequality.

What gender is being discriminated against? Men have rights of marriage. Women have equal rights of marriage. Doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Sorry bout that,


1. oh great another fag libturd legislating from the judges bench.
2. This crap never changes.
3. This fag should be kicked off her bench and then gang raped.
4. Just kidding, but it did sound cool and appropriate.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Just kidding about gang rape?

Sheesh

 

[del]

What gender is being discriminated against? Men have rights of marriage. Women have equal rights of marriage. Doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

damn, skippy

if i look up stupid in the dictionary, i bet your post is there