Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Syriusly]

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.

Well you certainly added nothing to the discussion, did you?

Tell me oh wise one, how many laws were changed, modified or eliminated entirely when the civil rights act was passed?

You don't have to be specific, 10? 100? Thousands perhaps?

Oh, one day they were on the books, the next, POOF, gone (or added, just sayin)

But you do not care about future generations of possibly inbred children. I get that.

Your side is stuck in the hippy dippy days of, if it feels good, do it

And still plural marriages and sibling marriages are not legal.

Matter of fact- its been 11 years since Massachusetts courts found that same gender couples have the legal right to marriage- and in those 11 years- still no legal plural marriages or sibling marriages.

 

[ChrisL]

What if I hung a sign outside of my business saying "I don't serve ugly people"???

You'd exclude yourself

That's just dumb

Yeah right. I can guarantee that I am 1000 x better looking than you, old man. More than likely, I'd have two reasons to discriminate against you, fat AND ugly, oh and let's not forget about old, poppy.

 

[Ravi]

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.

— re·cus·al \-ˈkyü-zəl\ noun

recuse verb...

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Marriage is not a new right.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Well you certainly added nothing to the discussion, did you?

Tell me oh wise one, how many laws were changed, modified or eliminated entirely when the civil rights act was passed?

You don't have to be specific, 10? 100? Thousands perhaps?

Oh, one day they were on the books, the next, POOF, gone (or added, just sayin)

But you do not care about future generations of possibly inbred children. I get that.

Your side is stuck in the hippy dippy days of, if it feels good, do it

Really. It sounds like you are talking about yourself, except stuck in the 1950s because you're old and out of touch.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Well you certainly added nothing to the discussion, did you?

Tell me oh wise one, how many laws were changed, modified or eliminated entirely when the civil rights act was passed?

You don't have to be specific, 10? 100? Thousands perhaps?

Oh, one day they were on the books, the next, POOF, gone (or added, just sayin)

But you do not care about future generations of possibly inbred children. I get that.

Your side is stuck in the hippy dippy days of, if it feels good, do it

And still plural marriages and sibling marriages are not legal.

Matter of fact- its been 11 years since Massachusetts courts found that same gender couples have the legal right to marriage- and in those 11 years- still no legal plural marriages or sibling marriages.

The exact same arguments (polygamy, incest) were made over Loving v Loving. And those marriages still aren't legal.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

We do that all the time.
Im not going to invite a known nose picker out to lunch. or am I going to want stinky fouling the air in my car, so he is not going to get a ride, ugly is another matter, I can play pool or go out to lunch with an ugly person (I assume you mean looks) but Im not going to be humping them in the shower anytime soon.
so yes, we all discriminate to some degree with those that we dont agree with or that we are repulsed by.

We are talking about doing business here. Not in my personal life. If I find ugly people as repulsive as you find gay people, then why can't I refuse service to them?

you can. whats stopping you. For instance if you own a resturant, you have the right to ask stinky to leave, or if someone is standing there in front of the other diners picking his nose and eating it, you have the right to ask them to leave.
Ugly might be harder since its a born trait. but you could always seat them in an out of view location.

 

[ChrisL]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

We do that all the time.
Im not going to invite a known nose picker out to lunch. or am I going to want stinky fouling the air in my car, so he is not going to get a ride, ugly is another matter, I can play pool or go out to lunch with an ugly person (I assume you mean looks) but Im not going to be humping them in the shower anytime soon.
so yes, we all discriminate to some degree with those that we dont agree with or that we are repulsed by.

We are talking about doing business here. Not in my personal life. If I find ugly people as repulsive as you find gay people, then why can't I refuse service to them?

you can. whats stopping you. For instance if you own a resturant, you have the right to ask stinky to leave, or if someone is standing there in front of the other diners picking his nose and eating it, you have the right to ask them to leave.
Ugly might be harder since its a born trait. but you could always seat them in an out of view location.

You see? You are wrong and completely ignorant of the law. I cannot hang a sign outside of my business that says that! I would be breaking the law, and I think I demonstrated why your ideas are stupid. Any one could think of anything to refuse to serve anyone! This is why the government doesn't recognize your perceived "sinners" defense to discriminate against people. Because it's stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

From what he wrote he wants the special privilege of being allowed to violate the constitution by continuing to marry straight couples while refusing to marry gay couples.

Cite pls.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

Well you certainly added nothing to the discussion, did you?

Tell me oh wise one, how many laws were changed, modified or eliminated entirely when the civil rights act was passed?

You don't have to be specific, 10? 100? Thousands perhaps?

Oh, one day they were on the books, the next, POOF, gone (or added, just sayin)

But you do not care about future generations of possibly inbred children. I get that.

Your side is stuck in the hippy dippy days of, if it feels good, do it

And still plural marriages and sibling marriages are not legal.

Matter of fact- its been 11 years since Massachusetts courts found that same gender couples have the legal right to marriage- and in those 11 years- still no legal plural marriages or sibling marriages.

Massachusetts had every right to do as they saw fit since marriage was regulated by the states. plural marriage was illegal at a federal level, thus the states could not allow it.
however, now that the federal government has stepped in, states no longer have the right to regulate on their own, all requirements for marriage and divorce will have to be standard, and it also changes the federal ruling on multible partner marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

— re·cus·al \-ˈkyü-zəl\ noun

recuse verb...

I'll take that as a no.

The original statement I made back in #236 was "Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act." My use of the term was as a verb and in the broader context outside of a case before a judge. Your use of the term is as a noun. You are also assuming that the noun only applies to legal cases. That is also not true. So while I incorrectly stated that recusal is a noun, my use of the term was not incorrect. So no, I'm not gonna apologize for my use of the term. But I do agree I was wrong in saying recusal is a verb... I was rushed and meant recuse is a verb. It was a typo.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

We do that all the time.
Im not going to invite a known nose picker out to lunch. or am I going to want stinky fouling the air in my car, so he is not going to get a ride, ugly is another matter, I can play pool or go out to lunch with an ugly person (I assume you mean looks) but Im not going to be humping them in the shower anytime soon.
so yes, we all discriminate to some degree with those that we dont agree with or that we are repulsed by.

We are talking about doing business here. Not in my personal life. If I find ugly people as repulsive as you find gay people, then why can't I refuse service to them?

you can. whats stopping you. For instance if you own a resturant, you have the right to ask stinky to leave, or if someone is standing there in front of the other diners picking his nose and eating it, you have the right to ask them to leave.
Ugly might be harder since its a born trait. but you could always seat them in an out of view location.

You see? You are wrong and completely ignorant of the law. I cannot hang a sign outside of my business that says that! I would be breaking the law, and I think I demonstrated why your ideas are stupid. Any one could think of anything to refuse to serve anyone! This is why the government doesn't recognize your perceived "sinners" defense to discriminate against people. Because it's stupid.

I would argue that the stupid one is the one that needs to look to government to dictate their business.
If I decide to run a business and I exclude people for any reason, I take the chance of failing because of it. the market will decide.
how about modeling agencies? you see many butt ugly models? is that discrimination? should the goverment step in and force them to take pictures of my ugly ass in a speedo?

 

[Ravi]

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?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

From what he wrote he wants the special privilege of being allowed to violate the constitution by continuing to marry straight couples while refusing to marry gay couples.

Cite pls.

Toledo judge issues statement on same-sex marriage refusal News NBC24.com

 

[Ravi]

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?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

From what he wrote he wants the special privilege of being allowed to violate the constitution by continuing to marry straight couples while refusing to marry gay couples.

Cite pls.

Here's another.

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

 

[ChrisL]

All you people do is complain. OMG! The gays, the gays! They're destroying our marriages, they're taking away our rights, they're persecuting us, they're destroying the world!! My God, don't you see how paranoid and delusional you are? They are JUST PEOPLE who want to be treated like all other people and who want to be able shop at their local store without having an issue. most of these people just go to work and live their lives and mind their own business and just wish for the same respect in return. Grow up, will you? Gay is not contagious!!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

From what he wrote he wants the special privilege of being allowed to violate the constitution by continuing to marry straight couples while refusing to marry gay couples.

Cite pls.

Toledo judge issues statement on same-sex marriage refusal News NBC24.com

He apologized, all is cool.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Marriage is not a new right.

Same sex is

 

[Pop23]

All you people do is complain. OMG! The gays, the gays! They're destroying our marriages, they're taking away our rights, they're persecuting us, they're destroying the world!! My God, don't you see how paranoid and delusional you are? They are JUST PEOPLE who want to be treated like all other people and who want to be able shop at their local store without having an issue. most of these people just go to work and live their lives and mind their own business and just wish for the same respect in return. Grow up, will you? Gay is not contagious!!

Tissue?

 

[Ravi]

recusals specific to the judiciary are reserved for case law.

Omg

Recusal is a verb, ya dumb ass.

— re·cus·al \-ˈkyü-zəl\ noun

recuse verb...

I'll take that as a no.

The original statement I made back in #236 was "Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act." My use of the term was as a verb and in the broader context outside of a case before a judge. Your use of the term is as a noun. You are also assuming that the noun only applies to legal cases. That is also not true. So while I incorrectly stated that recusal is a noun, my use of the term was not incorrect. So no, I'm not gonna apologize for my use of the term. But I do agree I was wrong in saying recusal is a verb... I was rushed and meant recuse is a verb. It was a typo.

I was talking about being labeled a dumbass or moron when you were being the dumbass or moron.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Marriage is not a new right.

Same sex is

So was interracial marriage a new right? No. It's merely the extension of an old right to a larger group of people.