Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Coyote]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business. Somehow I missed seeing that asterisk. Judges marrying is an elective procedure just like it is for pastors. The way you people think it's ok to force people into the homosexual agenda is sick, depraved, and evil. You people deserve to be loathed.

First off - judges should not be confused with pastors. I don't believe in forcing ANY religious entity into performing something that is against their religion. Second - I was thinking judges performing it was the same as a magistrate which can perform a civil wedding irregardless of religion.

Second - where do you draw the line?

Pharmacists have "objections" to birth control and refuse to honor a prescription?
Hospitals have religious "objections" to homosexuality and refuse to treat AID's patients?
Judges have religions "objections" to interracial marriage and refuse to marry interracial couples?

If people object to performing a job then they either need to get a different job, or let someone else perform that duty.
If the job requires performing marriages (outside of religion) then they should perform whatever marriages are legal.
If an animal rights activist is working in a chicken processing plant and object on ethical grounds then they ought to get another job.
If Muslim is working in a barbecue joint he should find another job if he objects to pork.


I happen to think "sick, depraved and evil" is a bit overboard.

 

[RKMBrown]

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good fucking lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

Correct and when he's performing the marriage he's not acting as a judge, he's acting as an officiator of the ceremony. Thus my broad use of the term was correct since it did not apply to a case but rather to the marriage ceremony that he recused himself from presiding over.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

What the fuck are you talking about? His decision was a personal decision, ya moron.

Except he's the representative of the government.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

and the state forcing him to comply is an infringment on his relgious rights, and thats a constitutional violation.

The State is forcing him to do nothing. He can refuse to do his job and the State will find someone who can. The man has a choice. What he doesn't have is the right to ignore his job duties and still collect a paycheck.

so in your small mind it is ok to fire someone over religious belief?

 

[Coyote]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business.

Its the Bill of Rights that prevents the State from imposing a specific religion upon unwilling people. And the judge is a representative of the State, a gate keeper of state authority. And he's using his religious beliefs as a basis of denying couples state services they have a constitutional and legal right to.

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

I don't think impeachment is the answer but - if he performs marriages he should perform all legally sanctioned marriages or none. It's not "accepting" a lifestyle. It's performing a job.

 

[G.T.]

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good fucking lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

Correct and when he's performing the marriage he's not acting as a judge, he's acting as an officiator of the ceremony. Thus my broad use of the term was correct since it did not apply to a case but rather to the marriage ceremony that he recused himself from presiding over.

Correct.....so recusals in terms of the judge do not even come into play, and YOU RAISED THEM

 

[Skylar]

Nope. As his religious rights don't grant him the authority to ignore his job duties and still collect his pay check.

IIf you can't do a job, that's ample justification for replacement. Your argument would be akin to a Buddhist who worked at a Slaughterhouse, but refused to kill any animal or work with any meat.

But still expects to collect a paycheck.

Um, no.

DId the Buddhist take that job with full knowledge that it would involve slaughtering? or did the buddhist take a job somewhere that suddenly decided they would get into the slaughter business and try to force him to comply with their new line of income.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

If someone will not perform their job they are subject to dismissal. He wouldn't be fired for his religious belief. He would be fired for not doing his job.

Show us where it says in his job description that he has to marry people.

Show us where in his job description he can arbitrarily ignore his duties assignment.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment."

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

The burden of proof is on you to prove that his duties assignment is completely voluntary and he can ignore any part of it he wishes. As neither 'duties' nor 'assignment' denotes something that's optional

 

[Ravi]

Nope. As his religious rights don't grant him the authority to ignore his job duties and still collect his pay check.

IIf you can't do a job, that's ample justification for replacement. Your argument would be akin to a Buddhist who worked at a Slaughterhouse, but refused to kill any animal or work with any meat.

But still expects to collect a paycheck.

Um, no.

DId the Buddhist take that job with full knowledge that it would involve slaughtering? or did the buddhist take a job somewhere that suddenly decided they would get into the slaughter business and try to force him to comply with their new line of income.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

If someone will not perform their job they are subject to dismissal. He wouldn't be fired for his religious belief. He would be fired for not doing his job.

Show us where it says in his job description that he has to marry people.

I do not know if he does or not. I can only go by what he himself said. But IF he marries straight couples he is obligated to marry gay couples under the law and under the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

My husband informs me that laws vary from state to state but a judge is not required by law to marry anyone. A state authorizes who can perform weddings but does not require anyone to do it. He said this judge should opt out of all weddings until the Ohio Courts determine proper procedure

As well as eligibility. Soon the judge could be asked to perform a plural marriage, or an incestuous marriage.

Simply a mess

Not really a mess- if the Judge opts out of performing all legal marriages he should be fine.

Plural marriages and incestuous marriages of all kinds are illegal in Ohio, so he could be asked- but ignore any illegal requests to marry.

When they are no longer illegal? Unless you see a Complelling state interest in denying the right, they soon could be. As of yet no one had forwarded that interest.

Check the law- still illegal. Show me where plural marriages or sibling marriages have been legalized.

I will wait.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ok, yes you can. And yes, you will likely loose a civil law suit on the grounds of religious discrimination. So here's to hoping you authoritarian types get your way and the judge sues and wins a few hundred million.

It's funny that you are calling us authoritarian when you are supporting big government deciding who he will and will not marry. That is authoritarian.

What the fuck are you talking about? His decision was a personal decision, ya moron.

Except he's the representative of the government.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

Your piece of shit straw man does not fly. He's not using state power to enforce dick you dumb shit.

 

[koshergrl]

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

You really dont understand my post?


Really?


Really?

He's not presiding over a case. He's presiding over a marriage. The term recusal fits to the act of removing oneself from participation in the marriage proceedings based on religious grounds.

Recusals are used in the context of the judge removing himself from a case

Not a marriage...a marriage is not a case. Exactly. Jeebus

"...recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer."

Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good fucking lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

Correct and when he's performing the marriage he's not acting as a judge, he's acting as an officiator of the ceremony. Thus my broad use of the term was correct since it did not apply to a case but rather to the marriage ceremony that he recused himself from presiding over.

If he's not acting as a judge, how can he use recusal as an excuse?

 

[Coyote]

How so? The last wedding I went to was performed by a notary. There was nothing religious about the ceremony.

Then that is a civil union, not a Marriage. Consider it more of a contract.

And THAT is what the judge was being asked to perform. A civil union. Religious marriages occur in church.

In his religious mind, its wrong for same sexes to marry. He has a right to refuse.

Then the Muslim judge would have the right to refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia.......if it was wrong to do otherwise in his 'religious mind'?

If not, why not?

sharia law is not protected by our constitution. we have our own laws.
You continue to show your ignorance of our constitution. You really should stop.

It is part of his "religious beliefs" - now you are picking and choosing what religious beliefs to protect?

 

[RKMBrown]

DId the Buddhist take that job with full knowledge that it would involve slaughtering? or did the buddhist take a job somewhere that suddenly decided they would get into the slaughter business and try to force him to comply with their new line of income.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

If someone will not perform their job they are subject to dismissal. He wouldn't be fired for his religious belief. He would be fired for not doing his job.

Show us where it says in his job description that he has to marry people.

I do not know if he does or not. I can only go by what he himself said. But IF he marries straight couples he is obligated to marry gay couples under the law and under the constitution.

Agreed... As a government official he should not be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to marry gays while continuing to marry heteros.

 

[RKMBrown]

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good fucking lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

Correct and when he's performing the marriage he's not acting as a judge, he's acting as an officiator of the ceremony. Thus my broad use of the term was correct since it did not apply to a case but rather to the marriage ceremony that he recused himself from presiding over.

If he's not acting as a judge, how can he use recusal as an excuse?

I said religious grounds. FYI recusal is a verb, not a noun, thus can't be an excuse.

 

[Syriusly]

Remind me what it says about same-sex marriage. Why don't you apply your bible to interracial marriage - after all, it was used to justify those laws too.

Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman. Stop comparing straight marriage to homo marriage. That won't fly with

In our country, what Anthony Kennedy says has more weight than what Jesus said, because Jesus isn't a Supreme Court Judge.

Sorry but I take Jesus over Kennedy. People still have the right to practice religion. In fact THAT is mentioned in the Constitution. Homo marriage? Nope

I never saw where Jesus condemned gheys.....

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Romans 1:26-27).

He asked where Jesus condemned homosexuals.

Frankly even Paul- the prig that he was- is not condemning homosexuals- he is saying men with men is an 'indecent act' in context of leaving God's grace. Apparently according to Paul- if you give up God- you become a gay man, and women start wearing pants instead of cooking.

 

[Skylar]

The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding....

.....He also said he'll continue to perform weddings between men and women while he waits to hear if he can opt out of same-sex marriages.

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty, called upon to perform an official duty. That's not optional. A point underscored by the fact that he's asking the court if he can opt out.

Your claim that marriages are 'optional' is imaginary clap-trap based on absolutely nothing but wishful thinking. As there's not the slightest indication that any of his assigned duties are optional.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! Too funny how the conservative Christians are totally losing their minds over the gays.

 

[RKMBrown]

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term.

There is in the law. Judicial disqualification (ie recusal) applies only to legal proceedings. Which by definition require parties in conflict. Recusal exists to insure that a judge will be fair to both parties and not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with religious objections to officiating a marriage. Which is why the judge never uses the term recusal. You do, pretending to speak for him.. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Recusal is a term that can be used in a broader context. Are you really this stupid that you don't know that?

recusals specific to the judiciary are reserved for case law.

Omg

Recusal is a verb, ya dumb ass.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Then that is a civil union, not a Marriage. Consider it more of a contract.

And THAT is what the judge was being asked to perform. A civil union. Religious marriages occur in church.

In his religious mind, its wrong for same sexes to marry. He has a right to refuse.

Then the Muslim judge would have the right to refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia.......if it was wrong to do otherwise in his 'religious mind'?

If not, why not?

sharia law is not protected by our constitution. we have our own laws.
You continue to show your ignorance of our constitution. You really should stop.

It is part of his "religious beliefs" - now you are picking and choosing what religious beliefs to protect?

if you can show me where its ok to make your own laws and totally disregard the entire constitution, I will agree that the animal humpers have a right to violate our constitution with their own misguided version of a law.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Lol! Too funny how the conservative Christians are totally losing their minds over the gays.

nobody is losing their mind over gays. The problem is religious freedom being violated once again.