Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[paddymurphy]

The judge is being asked to do nothing more than their job.

And he did his job... he declared his judgment. And in so doing he recognized the parties humanity... and declared his unwillingness to participate in officiating over their degeneracy... .

JOB DONE!

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? I highlighted the portions of the law you need to address.

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....

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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?

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.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

further indication that you are not or have you ever been on the right side of the law.

 

[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.

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.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

 

[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.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

further indication that you are not or have you ever been on the right side of the law.

I am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

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

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

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

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

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

 

[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?

Try to keep up with the thread honey.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

AHH! The Re-concession. GOOD FOR YOU! Really drive that point home. Maybe it'll stick this time.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

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

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

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

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

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

Yeah, he is pretty pathological about this. I think his brain seizes up when confronted with the idiocy of his comments and he some sort of seizure that causes him to type that nonsense.

 

[paddymurphy]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

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

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

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

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

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

 

[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.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

AHH! The Re-concession. GOOD FOR YOU! Really drive that point home. Maybe it'll stick this time.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

There is only one concession appropriate in the context of you:

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

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

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

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

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

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

HEY! Straw Reasoning!

Oh that is a CLASSIC means of concession!

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

AHH! The Re-concession. GOOD FOR YOU! Really drive that point home. Maybe it'll stick this time.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

There is only one concession appropriate in the context of you:

MORE DEFLECTION!??

Super... Now that is a Re-re-Consession...

Your Re-re-concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

 

[Skylar]

So, too fucking stupid to read the provision of the Judicial Code for Ohio Judges?

That a BOIEEE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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....

Dude......the Judicial Code is pretty vast. Kudos for doing the research.

 

[Coyote]

Try to keep up with the thread honey.

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

AHH! The Re-concession. GOOD FOR YOU! Really drive that point home. Maybe it'll stick this time.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

There is only one concession appropriate in the context of you:

MORE DEFLECTION!??

Super... Now that is a Re-re-Consession...

Your Re-re-concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED.

I'm losing track of concessions here...but I believe you've conceded the entire topic in a flood of obfuscation. Call Rotor Rooter for help.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

 

[paddymurphy]

So, too fucking stupid to read the provision of the Judicial Code for Ohio Judges?

That a BOIEEE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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....

Relatively easy to find if you care to understand the facts. Most here would prefer to cite to their own limited intellect.
Dude......the Judicial Code is pretty vast. Kudos for doing the research.