Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[koshergrl]

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.

No, they are paid to abide by both. You need to be better educated.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Who said the license is required? It's not in TX

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.

Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.

Must you always resort to name calling when you know you are losing an argument?

No. I resort to name calling when I am clearly dealing with a low life who deserves to be called what they are. Losing the argument? Hardly. The argument was won weeks ago and you and your like will continue to lose.

 

[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.

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

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

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

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

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

It is actually from practicing law for 25 years. Recusal is when a judge cannot fairly preside over a dispute between two parties. A judge whose religious faith would not allow him to impose the death penalty cannot preside over a death penalty case because he could not fairly decide the issue and apply the law as written. There is no "dispute" that he has to decide. He is no different that the clerks who refuse to do their jobs in issuing a piece of paper. He can refuse to perform marriages at all or he can perform them without regard to his personal beliefs.

Your inability to express yourself in a respectable manner causes me to think you have never practiced law. Unless you consider being a defendent as practicing.

You deserve no respect. I usually encounter pricks like you when I visit clients in jail. Your writings resemble the rambling letters I get when they pretend to know that the fuck they are talking about.

 

[Coyote]

Judges are public employees.

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

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

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

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

Second - where do you draw the line?

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

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


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

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.

How is religion being "oppressed"?

What if Muslim is working in a barbecue joint refuses to serve pork?

 

[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.

Do you see the word "church" in here:

"Full Definition of SACRAMENT
1
a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament "

?

Nope. You don't. Now go sit down, you piece of shit. You need to look up words before you presume to tell people what they mean.

You people do need to die.

Sacrament Definition of sacrament by Merriam-Webster

Are you really that fucking stupid? Your definition was entirely consistent with what I posted. "a Christian rite" How the fuck is a marriage between two people who are not Christians before a Judge or minister of some other faith a "Christian Rite"? What a stupid fucking piece of shit you turned out to be. You provide a definition that proves you are wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.

Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.

Must you always resort to name calling when you know you are losing an argument?

No. I resort to name calling when I am clearly dealing with a low life who deserves to be called what they are. Losing the argument? Hardly. The argument was won weeks ago and you and your like will continue to lose.

We aren't losing, and we won't.

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

They will appeal, and the queers will have to pay them back.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You deserve no respect. I usually encounter pricks like you when I visit clients in jail. Your writings resemble the rambling letters I get when they pretend to know that the fuck they are talking about.

Clients?

So you're a Male Prostitute working for the state, serving your 'clients' conjugal needs?

ROFLMNAO! Seriously? Well that explains a TON!

So... You're licensed in Washington or Oregon? Or Both?

 

[Coyote]

Judges are public employees.

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

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

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

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

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

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

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

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do that part of his job? How far do you stretch "religious freedom" before it becomes an infringement on other people's rights?

 

[Ravi]

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.

you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.

Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.

Must you always resort to name calling when you know you are losing an argument?

No. I resort to name calling when I am clearly dealing with a low life who deserves to be called what they are. Losing the argument? Hardly. The argument was won weeks ago and you and your like will continue to lose.

We aren't losing, and we won't.

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

They will appeal, and the queers will have to pay them back.

I heard the married couple is going to donate the fine they receive from Sweetcakes to a fund to help gay couples adopt children. How sweet is that!

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

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.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.
the state on the other hand has every right to make rules that govern civil unions.

It is not defined as a religious sacrament, you dumb fuck, for those not married in a religious ceremony. Recognizing marriages performed civilly or by those faiths that permit gay marriage has not a damn thing to do with the ceremonies of those in religious faiths that do not recognize gay marriage.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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?

A.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance.[sic]

Thanks for sharing...

Now that is Relevant to what? Subjectivism? Relativism... the limitless capacity for people to misuse Scriptures to serve their own subjective needs? Or what?

 

[Skylar]

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

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

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

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

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

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do that part of his job? How far do you stretch "religious freedom" before it becomes an infringement on other people's rights?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

- Judge Leon Bazile convicting Richard and Mildred Loving

 

[Coyote]

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance.[sic]

Thanks for sharing...

Now that is Relevant to what? Subjectivism? Relativism... the limitless capacity for people to misuse Scriptures to serve their own subjective needs? Or what?

Try to keep up with the thread honey.

 

[Skylar]

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance.[sic]

Thanks for sharing...

Now that is Relevant to what? Subjectivism? Relativism... the limitless capacity for people to misuse Scriptures to serve their own subjective needs? Or what?

That Judge Leon Bazile used essentially the same process you do....and came to some rather horrid conclusions in the name of 'god'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

See: The HIV. (That's the Virus that corrupts the bloodlines of Homosexuals and those unfortunate people who who share a needle with a homosexual, screwed a homosexual, screwed someone who screwed a homosexual or is in the line for blood... BEHIND A HOMOSEXUAL.)

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

No, they are paid to abide by both. You need to be better educated.

Share with us the education that convinced you that your bullshit is true? Where in the Judicial Code of Ethics for Ohio is there any provision that states that a judge may follow his conscience rather than the law? Here are some of those provisions:

"RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question>"

Explain how a judge does not violate this requirement when he asserts his personal belief as a justification for refusing to follow the law?

How about this section of the Code:

RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct (A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. (C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

Care to explain how his refusal to follow the law comports with this requirement?

Of course, you will not respond to this with any substantive argument. I expect a deflection and asinine insult. Go ahead....

 

[hazlnut]

Good for the Judge!! .......

Yeah, that's it... Go Bigotry!!