Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[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.

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.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

 

[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.

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

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes. And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

 

[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.

What would make you say something as stupid as that?

what would cause you to belive that marriage was a right. Can you point it out in the constitution? the bill of rights? any of the amendments? No? imagine that.
States also do not or should not dictate constitutional rights.

 

[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.

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

Lefties believe in some really weird shit.

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

 

[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?

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

 

[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.

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

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

 

[ChrisL]

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?

what would cause you to belive that marriage was a right. Can you point it out in the constitution? the bill of rights? any of the amendments? No? imagine that.
States also do not or should not dictate constitutional rights.

What makes you think you have any right to tell others what they can and cannot do? What makes you feel so self important when it comes to other people's lives??

 

[bodecea]

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.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

 

[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.

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

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

 

[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.

What would make you say something as stupid as that?

what would cause you to belive that marriage was a right. Can you point it out in the constitution? the bill of rights? any of the amendments? No? imagine that.

Where does the constitution say that a right needs to be enumerated to exist? No where. In fact there's an entire Amendment dedicated to refuting your entire argument:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Yet you're arguing the exact opposite: that only those rights that are enumerated exist. The bug of your argument just splattered on the windshield of the 9th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

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?

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

 

[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.

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.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

 

[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.

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

Lefties believe in some really weird shit.

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

There should be no more tolerance for prejudice regarding social justice than there is for drugs.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

And can a fundamentalist Muslim judge refuse to rule in any manner inconsistent with Sharia law using the same 'religious belief' standard?

Lets say the fundamentalist muslim judge won't grant a divorce to a Christian couple because they don't meet the critieria of an valid divorce laid out in the Koran. You're cool with that, right?

Lets say the fundamentalist muslim judge won't hear any case involving domestic violence as his religious beliefs allow for beating your wife. You're cool with that too?

If not, why not?

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

So he is like the Taliban.

 

[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.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

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?

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Lefties believe in some really weird shit.

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.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top