Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[Unknown_Soldier]

Never said it was. But a square isn't going to be a circle no matter how hard you want it to be one.

There's room for both squares and circles in the world.

I agree. If she wants to engage in homosexual behavior, she can. I just think it absurd that we should be forced to change the definition of marriage because she doesn't want to comply with it.

I think it's absurd that you let the government define marriage.

 

[Warrior102]

Damn - she looks as manly as Bo-DIKE-a. They should just just strap one on and proclaim themselves men once and for all. Put on a wife-beater, pop open a beer and mow the lawn. Boycott shaving too(if that hasn't been done yet).

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

 

[Si modo]

Never said it was. But a square isn't going to be a circle no matter how hard you want it to be one.

There's room for both squares and circles in the world.

I agree. If she wants to engage in homosexual behavior, she can. I just think it absurd that we should be forced to change the definition of marriage because she doesn't want to comply with it.

She certainly has freedom of speech, and if she DOES want to redefine it, she can.

It won't make much of a difference because she doesn't have the power to change the laws in Texas.

 

[Dot Com]

He's paid to perform that service.

He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.

blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.

Here you go:

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court.

You should read more carefully before you post unless, that is, you have an agenda

 

[Avatar4321]

There's room for both squares and circles in the world.

I agree. If she wants to engage in homosexual behavior, she can. I just think it absurd that we should be forced to change the definition of marriage because she doesn't want to comply with it.

I think it's absurd that you let the government define marriage.

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Damn - she looks as manly as Bo-DIKE-a. They should just just strap one on and proclaim themselves men once and for all. Put on a wife-beater, pop open a beer and mow the lawn. Boycott shaving too(if that hasn't been done yet).

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

 

[del]

Damn - she looks as manly as Bo-DIKE-a. They should just just strap one on and proclaim themselves men once and for all. Put on a wife-beater, pop open a beer and mow the lawn. Boycott shaving too(if that hasn't been done yet).

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

don't worry, retards are next on my list.

hang in there, help is on the way.

 

[Avatar4321]

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

and how do you propose they consent to something they cant understand?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I agree. If she wants to engage in homosexual behavior, she can. I just think it absurd that we should be forced to change the definition of marriage because she doesn't want to comply with it.

I think it's absurd that you let the government define marriage.

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.

 

[Warrior102]

we've already got plenty o' retard in this thread, but thanks for pitching in and doing more than your fair share.

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

don't worry, retards are next on my list.

hang in there, help is on the way.

Appreciate it.

Is there a Catholic relief post soon too? If so, sign me up for your wisdom on that topic as well.

Thanks.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

and how do you propose they consent to something they cant understand?

 

[Conservative]

If performing marriages is not part of his official duties (required by his job description), but a 'perk'... then as long as he is not breaking the law, he's free to do whatever he wants in this regard.

 

[Inthemiddle]

He's paid to perform that service.

He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.

blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.

No he's not. He's paid to be a judge. Under Texas law, judges CAN perform marraiges. There is no requirement to do so. When judges perform marriages, they can, and normally will, charge the couples. When doing so, they are engaging in distinct private business separate from their job duties as a judge. Some judges have lucrative second businesses as wedding officiants. Judges Tanner and Canales in San Antonio do upwards of $30,000 a year in their officiant businesses.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it's absurd that you let the government define marriage.

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.

I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

He could always resign if his job interferes with his beliefs. Rather than pontificating from the bench.

No doubt, you'll feel the same way about pharmacists who have religious objections to Plan B....

 

[Avatar4321]

Good news for you. I support allowing retards to marry to, so I got your back as well.

and how do you propose they consent to something they cant understand?

Consent is rather important. So I agree with your emoticon. Your point makes little sense.

 

[g5000]

So in the video in the Opening Post, the judge makes a salient point. When you are filling out a jury selection form in the state of Texas, it asks for your spouse's information for disclosure purposes.

Under the current law, a gay person would not be required to fill that out.

What anti same-sex marriage people continually fail to understand is that this is a legal matter, not a religious one. This has to do with changes in your legal status and standing when you are officially declared by the state and federal governments to be married.

This is why this is a 14th amendment issue. "Equal protection under the law".

I notice the video starts out by saying this meeting at which the judge is speaking is a "Stonewall Democrats" meeting. I can't help but wonder how many people get the reference.

It also cracks me up to see that little old lady there.

She's probably gay, too. She has been around long enough to have quite a few anti-gay stories to tell, I'm sure.


Before assuming that "campaigning from the bench is illegal", ask yourself how a judge is supposed to get re-elected if they are not appointed for life. Some states elect judges. That may be the case with this judge, I don't know.

 

[Avatar4321]

If performing marriages is not part of his official duties (required by his job description), but a 'perk'... then as long as he is not breaking the law, he's free to do whatever he wants in this regard.

Completely agree that she isn't. But her premise is still flawed because she can marry.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sounds like forcing to him to perform these duties compromises his values, good for him for staying true to his personal belief system.

Being a JUDGE is NOT a private business. The example of the pharmacy concerned no tax payer funded work.

Being a judge does not entail any requirement to perform wedding ceremonies. When judges do do this, they are engaged in private business that the law authorizes them to perform. There are many judges who do not perform wedding ceremonies. There are also some judges who neglect their duties as a judge in order to make extra money doing weddings.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.

I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.

And indeed there should be no marital law. What business is it of the governments if I just live with a woman or marry her? Or if Warrior just lives with a guy rather than marries him?