Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Skylar]

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

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

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Its part of his duties assignment by the judge's own admission. Neither 'duty' nor 'assignment' denote that the task is optional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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'.

You miss the point.
The legal institution of marriage exists because of the laws that create it. Laws do not create rights.
Absent those laws, or upon their repeal, marriage as a legal institution creases to exist. Absence of a law cannot take away a right.
That is, marriage exists because the state created it and the states can take it away; that being said, marriage cannot be a right.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

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.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

does sharia law hold weight in the U.S?

Its a religious belief. If religious beliefs hold weight in the US sufficient to allow a judge to impose their Christian values by the State, why wouldn't it be sufficient to allow a judge to impose their Muslim values by the State?

And for the 5th time: So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

If you don't know, just say so.

I just have a hard time explaining things to idiots that have no ability to understand the variables.

 

[Brain357]

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

Isn't that illegal?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

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

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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'.

You miss the point.
The legal institution of marriage exists because of the laws that create it. Laws to not crate rights.
Absent those laws, or upon their repeal, marriage as a legal institution creases to exist. Absence of a law cannot take away a right.
That is marriage exists because the state created it and the states can take it away; that being said, marriage cannot be a right.

Not only that but if it is a right, then there should be no fee associated with it, there should be no requirement for a license.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

I believe more fiscally responsible Judicial activism should have included a mandamus to lower our tax burden by not putting him in such a position to harm the greater glory of his immortal soul due merely to an exercise of a civil office of public Trust--and, simply have it recorded for public acts purposes.

 

[Skylar]

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

That's an affirmative legal action. Which is a little different than what we're discussing here. As the judge in the OP and the hypothetical muslim judge are denying services to citizens. Which is a negative legal action.

 

[Brain357]

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

Isn't that illegal?

only based on a supreme court ruling in Reynolds VS the U.S. But, reason used for that ruling was made null when the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage.
so no, it can no longer be considered illegal until it is put in front of the Supreme Court for another ruling.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

 

[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.

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

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.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

What judge has imposed his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State to violate the Federal Constitution? Are you trying to derail the thread?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

 

[Skylar]

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

You say two different functions... then you mix them. Make up your mind. You can't have both separation of and mixing at the same time. Either it's a separate job or it's not a separate job. If it is a separate job that has changed then why do we have to force him, the judge, to agree to do this changed job? What gives us the right to force him to marry people if he does not want 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.

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

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

Does it?

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.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

What judge has imposed his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State to violate the Federal Constitution? Are you trying to derail the thread?

The judge in the OP. He denied services he was obligated to provide as officer of the court because his religion mandated that those seeking those services shouldn't have them.

That's the imposition of his religious beliefs. And using the State to impose them. The 'unwilling' would be those who wanted to get married.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

Did that muslim judge swear to uphold the constitution of the United States when He took on the job?
now the question here is if the right to religion as actually written holds more or less weight than the right to marry, which is not specifically written. One of the two rights are going to be violated.

 

[Ravi]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.