Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[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.

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

I USED THE TERM AS A VERB, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS YA FOOL.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No one is making their own laws - you're building spectacular strawmen here.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No, recuse is a verb. Recusal is a noun:

recusal
n. the act of a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily stepping aside from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other good reason. (See: recuse)

recusal legal definition of recusal

There's no legal case involved. Which is why the judge never used the term 'recusal'. As it has nothing to do with the situation.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Only in your own paranoid mind. Lol.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The problem is "religious freedom" is getting stretched so thin it's becoming a code word for bigotry.

 

[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.....

He never condemned pedophiles either, you think He was OK with it? Stupid people

Yeah I have seen that comparison before also.

The fact is that the Bible doesn't condemn pedophiles at all.

Anywhere.

Is God omniscient? Is God 'all knowing' Is Jesus God?

Seems to me that Jesus preached about what he thought were the important lessons for Christians. And didn't talk about what he didn't think was as important.

We know what Jesus's two most important commands were- and- wow- neither have anything to do with homosexuality.
We know that Jesus said to obey the Commandments- and the Commandments don't mention homosexuality either.

 

[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?

Religious freedom is the excuse. Recuse is a verb. Good lord you are dense.

 

[ChrisL]

They are totally LOSING it. It's been a cruel summer for them, I suppose. Here. Here's some huggies for the poor wittle babies.

 

[Syriusly]

We all know being a fag cork soaker is unhealthy..

-Geaux

Statistics on HIV AIDS and health related issues CARM Homosexuality

1. Emotional Health
   1. Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
   2. Professional psychiatrists say homosexual men are less happy: "A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo-sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women,' (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many. 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
2. Psychological Health
   1. High rate of psychological counseling among lesbians: "In a national health care survey 75% of the nearly 2000 lesbian respondents reported they had pursued psychological counselling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 . . . " (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. "Homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. Study by Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities . . . " Table 21.12" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
3. Physical health
   1. Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.' Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. Higher Alcoholism among Lesbians: "'Lesbians are 3 times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviours. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,' Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238–244." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   3. Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Homos are a hot mess

Fascinating that you find homosexuals 'hot'.....

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Religious freedom is the excuse. Recusal is a verb. Good lord you are dense.

Well, the government doesn't recognize discrimination as a "religious practice or custom". You are still free to practice your religion. You just cannot apply it to your customers. K?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

No, recuse is a verb. Recusal is a noun:

recusal
n. the act of a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily stepping aside from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other good reason. (See: recuse)

recusal legal definition of recusal

There's no legal case involved. Which is why the judge never used the term 'recusal'. As it has nothing to do with the situation.

Thx for the correction, I was using the term recuse wrt. to refusing to marry someone on the basis of religious grounds... and got steamed about it.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

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

Refusing to perform a legal job-related duty should result in impeachment. If we let people decline however respectfully to perform their duty on spec, where does it end? Gonna let them refuse to try a case involving a gay bashing because they don't think gays deserve legal protection?

Wanna be reliigous, more power to you. But you swear to be an officer of the court, or a judge you're obligated to do your fucking job.

Why would gays want to be married by someone who was 'forced' to join the freaks?

-Geaux

Why would a gay couple know that the judge is a Christian freak?

 

[ChrisL]

Hmmm. I wonder how many of the people preaching about their religious views are "sin free" anyway.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We all know being a fag cork soaker is unhealthy..

-Geaux

Statistics on HIV AIDS and health related issues CARM Homosexuality

1. Emotional Health
   1. Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
   2. Professional psychiatrists say homosexual men are less happy: "A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo-sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women,' (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many. 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
2. Psychological Health
   1. High rate of psychological counseling among lesbians: "In a national health care survey 75% of the nearly 2000 lesbian respondents reported they had pursued psychological counselling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 . . . " (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. "Homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. Study by Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities . . . " Table 21.12" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
3. Physical health
   1. Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.' Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. Higher Alcoholism among Lesbians: "'Lesbians are 3 times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviours. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,' Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238–244." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   3. Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Homos are a hot mess

Fascinating that you find homosexuals 'hot'.....

some of them are.

 

[Pop23]

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.

^^^troll doing what trolls do

Need a bit of a history lesson? How much longer has same sex been banned compared to legal? And dates please.

You understand that when CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are afforded to a new group, laws have to change to accommodate those changes, right?

What does not exist today, can and will exist tomorrow thanks to the creation of new rights being granted.

You didn't do well in civics class, now did you?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

It is okay to fire someone for not doing their job.

If I tell one of my staff that he needs to make copies for me, if he says he won't do it, because it violates his religious beliefs, then I am firing him for not doing his job- not because of his religious beliefs.

However that said- as I recall, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. If there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made- such as this judge not doing any marriages, in exchange for handling other types of judicial responsibilities, and another employee can handle the marriages- that might be a reasonable accommodation.

Kind of case that makes employment lawyers lots of money.

 

[ChrisL]

Funny. You guys have a LOT of rules. I'm quite sure some of you have and do (and I mean regularly) commit sins yourselves. Ever think about that? Yet, here you are . . . preaching about your "religious views." Lol. I've met some "christian conservative" men before.

 

[Ravi]

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.

so what are we arguing about?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

It is okay to fire someone for not doing their job.

If I tell one of my staff that he needs to make copies for me, if he says he won't do it, because it violates his religious beliefs, then I am firing him for not doing his job- not because of his religious beliefs.

However that said- as I recall, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. If there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made- such as this judge not doing any marriages, in exchange for handling other types of judicial responsibilities, and another employee can handle the marriages- that might be a reasonable accommodation.

Kind of case that makes employment lawyers lots of money.

Well said.

 

[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.

^^^troll doing what trolls do

Need a bit of a history lesson? How much longer has same sex been banned compared to legal? And dates please.

You understand that when CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are afforded to a new group, laws have to change to accommodate those changes, right?

What does not exist today, can and will exist tomorrow thanks to the creation of new rights being granted.

You didn't do well in civics class, now did you?

So you are just doing your usual troll dance.

Plural marriages, sibling marriages- still illegal.