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?

Marriage is not a new right.

Same sex is

Same sex is not even a complete statement.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Thx. Yeah, IMO he should not be allowed to discriminate against gays, based on the SCOTUS decision. I agree it would appear to show he want's to discriminate. I'd like to see it from the horses' mouth so to speak as opposed to hearsay.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

other than the refusal due to religious convictions, what other issues do you see that will require laws be made or modified.
Personally, if I owned a business I would not turn someone away because they were gay. they would get the same respect as anyone else. I want their dollars. my bank account does not have any clue that the money came from a gay pocket.

 

[Ravi]

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.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

twisting around the constitution to allow something new grants the government the special privilege of violating his existing and written constitutional rights?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Oh... well yeah ok, I sincerely apologize for calling you at least one of a dumbass or a moron. As for my own failings, of which there are many, I disagree that I failed wrt. my use of the term originally, but yes then I did later on by saying recusal is a verb.. so.. yeah I'm a dumb ass too I guess.

 

[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!!

Tissue?

I mean really, can you be serious? "Oh no, sorry sir or maam, we don't serve "your kind" here. You'll have to go over to Gay Mart across town. SMH.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

 

[Ravi]

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.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

twisting around the constitution to allow something new grants the government the special privilege of violating his existing and written constitutional rights?

How is ruling that gay couples can marry twisting around the constitution exactly?

 

[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?

I mean really, can you be serious? "Oh no, sorry sir or maam, we don't serve "your kind" here. You'll have to go over to Gay Mart across town. SMH.

No sir, we can't allow you to shower with your wife, maybe you need to go across town to the hetro gym.

Get it. It's the paradox that the law created. NOT ME

 

[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!!

Tissue?

I mean really, can you be serious? "Oh no, sorry sir or maam, we don't serve "your kind" here. You'll have to go over to Gay Mart across town. SMH.

No sir, we can't allow you to shower with your wife, maybe you need to go across town to the hetro gym.

Get it. It's the paradox that the law created. NOT ME

Again, you silly person. The law that was cited in the anti discrimination case has nothing to do with that. Not allowing people to shower together is nothing the same as saying to an entire "class" of people that you will not serve them. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Coyote]

^^^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.

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

 

[Pop23]

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

Same sex is not even a complete statement.

Try to follow along

Meds wearing off?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Cite pls.

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

He apologized, all is cool.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

twisting around the constitution to allow something new grants the government the special privilege of violating his existing and written constitutional rights?

How is ruling that gay couples can marry twisting around the constitution exactly?

marriage is not a written right, so they had to find a way to include marriage of gays in the constitution as it currently reads, to make an amendment would have taken too long, and honestly never been agreed on . Plus it would have been 39,000 pages with 38,999 pages of pork.
so, they decided to use the 14th, which is great in my opinion for two reasons.
It allows gays to marry and live a good life just like everyone else
and it destroys the repressive gun laws in the country and opens the 2nd back up as intended.

 

[Ravi]

Damn, Pop, go pollute a different thread with your insane rants about paradoxes.

It isn't often that we have a thread where reasonable people (excepting kgrill) have a decent discussion.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

 

[ChrisL]

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

Same sex is not even a complete statement.

Try to follow along

Meds wearing off?

YOU try to follow along. Lol. You are the one who is completely misrepresenting. IT is obvious, yet you seem to be under the impression that you are being clever. Well, not to me. To me, you just sound stupid.

 

[Pop23]

Damn, Pop, go pollute a different thread with your insane rants about paradoxes.

It isn't often that we have a thread where reasonable people (excepting kgrill) have a decent discussion.

You can't defeat it cuz if you do, you eliminate SSM, or mariage as a legal institution.

Go ahead, try, they are afterall your original arguments being used!

 

[Ravi]

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

He apologized, all is cool.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

twisting around the constitution to allow something new grants the government the special privilege of violating his existing and written constitutional rights?

How is ruling that gay couples can marry twisting around the constitution exactly?

marriage is not a written right, so they had to find a way to include marriage of gays in the constitution as it currently reads, to make an amendment would have taken too long, and honestly never been agreed on . Plus it would have been 39,000 pages with 38,999 pages of pork.
so, they decided to use the 14th, which is great in my opinion for two reasons.
It allows gays to marry and live a good life just like everyone else
and it destroys the repressive gun laws in the country and opens the 2nd back up as intended.

According to Loving vs., marriage is a right. And even without that ruling, everything is a right unless there is a compelling reason to deny said right.

Marriage does not need to be in the constitution to be considered a right.

 

[G.T.]

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

He apologized, all is cool.

He apologized? That grants him the special privilege of violating the constitution?

twisting around the constitution to allow something new grants the government the special privilege of violating his existing and written constitutional rights?

How is ruling that gay couples can marry twisting around the constitution exactly?

marriage is not a written right, so they had to find a way to include marriage of gays in the constitution as it currently reads, to make an amendment would have taken too long, and honestly never been agreed on . Plus it would have been 39,000 pages with 38,999 pages of pork.
so, they decided to use the 14th, which is great in my opinion for two reasons.
It allows gays to marry and live a good life just like everyone else
and it destroys the repressive gun laws in the country and opens the 2nd back up as intended.

Actually, marriage is a written right. It became one through case law back when interracial marriage was tried.