Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Carla_Danger]

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

Oh look, another gay thread by Sasssssy!

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You can't force him. You can fire him. But you can't force him to marry a couple he does not want to marry. Suck it up? Nah, if he's a good Judge let him rule over cases vs. being thrown into the fire of having to marry people against his will.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Good for the judge for putting his personal views over the law and abdicating his responsibilities?

I don't care if anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. I care about people thinking they can disregard the law without consequences.

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

 

[Brain357]

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

Judges are allowed to discriminate on a case for personal reasons... why not the ability to discriminate regarding marrying someone? I should think the duties need to be reassigned is all. I have no problem with a judge, or priest, or anyone else for that matter not wanting to be the master of ceremony over something that they believe is a sin. That's fine.

Something tells me this judge has not lived his life completely free of sin. If he has himself sinned i don't really think he should be making such a stand for others.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

Good for the judge for putting his personal views over the law and abdicating his responsibilities?

I don't care if anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. I care about people thinking they can disregard the law without consequences.

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

 

[Brain357]

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.

You can't force him. You can fire him. But you can't force him to marry a couple he does not want to marry. Suck it up? Nah, if he's a good Judge let him rule over cases vs. being thrown into the fire of having to marry people against his will.

The law says they can marry. His job is to follow the law. If we start putting religion above the laws we will be like the Taliban.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Good for the judge for putting his personal views over the law and abdicating his responsibilities?

I don't care if anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. I care about people thinking they can disregard the law without consequences.

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

 

[rightwinger]

Good for the judge for putting his personal views over the law and abdicating his responsibilities?

I don't care if anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. I care about people thinking they can disregard the law without consequences.

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

 

[Maryland Patriot]

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You can't force him. You can fire him. But you can't force him to marry a couple he does not want to marry. Suck it up? Nah, if he's a good Judge let him rule over cases vs. being thrown into the fire of having to marry people against his will.

The law says they can marry. His job is to follow the law. If we start putting religion above the laws we will be like the Taliban.

Not wedding a couple of fags is like being the Taliban?

Lefties believe in some really weird shit.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So question: can a fundamentalist Muslim judge refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law?

If not, why not?

 

[Skylar]

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

Th Supreme Court says otherwise. About 4 times going back nearly half a century.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

So question: can a fundamentalist Muslim judge refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law?

If not, why not?

as long as it does not violate our constitution he can rule however he wants.

 

[Ravi]

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.

At the very least he shouldn't be able to preside over any cases involving gay people. Which makes him useless. Fire him.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

Th Supreme Court says otherwise. About 4 times going back nearly half a century.

Where is it written into the constitution?

 

[Skylar]

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.

So question: can a fundamentalist Muslim judge refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law?

If not, why not?

as long as it does not violate our constitution he can rule however he wants.

Would imposing his religious views on non-Muslims by enforcing Sharia as an officer of the State be violating the constitution?

 

[Skylar]

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

Th Supreme Court says otherwise. About 4 times going back nearly half a century.

Where is it written into the constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a right need be enumerated to exist?

You may wanna take a look at the 9th amendment. With special attention to the words 'reserve' and 'rights'.

 

[guno]

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

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

Your buy bull isn't the law of the land the constitution is

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Good for the judge for putting his personal views over the law and abdicating his responsibilities?

I don't care if anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. I care about people thinking they can disregard the law without consequences.

How about the laws that state the government wont interfere with religion.
here is the problem, we have a situation that clearly both sides have specific legal rights under. The real issue comes in the fact that the judge is actually protected by the constitution, gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter is not.

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

 

[rightwinger]

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

What would make you say something as stupid as that?