Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[ChrisL]

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!

No, it's because all of your arguments are stupid and nonsensical and are not all the same.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

if Marriage was really viewed as a right by the government, then we would not be having the conversation in the first place. Rights do not require applications and permission to be used. our legal papers to execute our rights is the constitution. The requirement for a marriage license, and the conditions that must be met to get married makes marriage a privilage. Even if we want to call it a right, it is legally treated by the government as a privilage.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

Then to require a license is a violation.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

 

[G.T.]

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.

Then to require a license is a violation.

Whoa.

No i disagree

 

[Ravi]

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.

if Marriage was really viewed as a right by the government, then we would not be having the conversation in the first place. Rights do not require applications and permission to be used. our legal papers to execute our rights is the constitution. The requirement for a marriage license, and the conditions that must be met to get married makes marriage a privilage. Even if we want to call it a right, it is legally treated by the government as a privilage.

Our government does a lot of stupid things. Quite a few constitutional amendments didn't really need to be written, such as equal protection, allowing black people to vote, allowing women to vote.

None of those things should have ever been considered not allowed.

 

[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

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?

Males are a class of person, they land under the classification of sex.

Nicely played though.

Try again

 

[Pop23]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then to require a license is a violation.

Nope.

Try again.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

if Marriage was really viewed as a right by the government, then we would not be having the conversation in the first place. Rights do not require applications and permission to be used. our legal papers to execute our rights is the constitution. The requirement for a marriage license, and the conditions that must be met to get married makes marriage a privilage. Even if we want to call it a right, it is legally treated by the government as a privilage.

Nope.

Try again.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

Also, you completely misunderstand "compelling state interest". It is the concept required to exclude individuals from having a right, not the states interest in granting rights

 

[Pop23]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The Bible says plenty about homosexuality. This is an interesting case, I'm curious how it will play out. They still got married by another judge so what's the big deal

It also says we should stone people to death, yet here we stand with rocks in hands...

It only proves that America is a Christian Nation who obeys Jesus who said that let those without sin cast the first stone.
Since nobody in America got stoned to death recently it proves that Americans know that they are sinners.

On the other hand, the fact that stoning to death occurs with frightening frequency in Muslim countries, it proves that Muslims are righteous and innocent and without sin, because otherwise none of them would cast the first stone at their favorite public spectacle, because they believe in the teachings of Jesus, since they drag Jesus down to the level of Mohammed by calling the Son Of God a "Prophet" on the same level as their beloved thief, crook and pedophile.

It must be a joy to be gay, apply for a marriage license and get hitched by a mullah in a Muslim country.

We are not, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation other than to have a majority of Christians as citizens. Our government is not based, to any degree, on any faith at all.

 

[paddymurphy]

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.

Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.

You really are dim, aren't you. My guess is your sole understanding of our judicial system comes from your time spent answering for petting crimes.

They are paid to abide by the law, not their "conscience." I do agree, however, that if he cannot perform his duty in good conscience, he should remove himself from the Court. Resigning would be appropriate. Glad we can agree that he should not be a judge.

 

[paddymurphy]

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.

then they cant force him to marry homosexuals based on their lack of religious belief.
to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion,

And his refusal to do his job, based on his religious belief, it him, an agent of the government, "establishing his religion" as superior over the civil law.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

 

[Coyote]

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?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

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

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Yes, wanting to force everyone to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle is sick, depraved, and evil. I stand by that. And jobs don't just go to those lacking in religious scruples, and those in particular who hold government jobs may not face discrimination and don't "need to find another job." You're so busily supporting a system that oppresses religion that you fail to see that the Constitution was written to protect the religious from people like you.

 

[paddymurphy]

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

Nobody said they hated homosexuals. Not agreeing with gay marriage is not hate for the person.

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.