Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[Avatar4321]

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.

 

[g5000]

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.

"We've always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a valid legal defense.

 

[g5000]

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.

How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).

See my signature. Click on the link.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Government has a strong interest in perpetuation of the species and resolving conflict if it arises concerning separation/divorce.

Nothing is stopping you from entering into private relationships outside the government's jurisdition.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.

And likewise if the law is changed you will be able to marry a man you don't love.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

"We've always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a valid legal defense.

There is no discrimination because the law applies to everyone the same way.

 

[g5000]

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?

Click on the link in my signature and see if our society could function without those cash and prizes established in law for married people.

Read and think carefully before you just blow it off.

Think about inheritance laws. Why should some "wife" or "husband" get all your stuff after you die if they have no legal claim to it?

 

[Avatar4321]

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.

How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).

See my signature. Click on the link.

Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.

 

[chikenwing]

So what,ya got a judge running a pissing match!

 

[del]

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.

all you have to do is look around

you're welcome

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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?

Click on the link in my signature and see if our society could function without those cash and prizes established in law for married people.

Read and think carefully before you just blow it off.

Think about inheritance laws. Why should some "wife" or "husband" get all your stuff after you die if they have no legal claim to it?

that's what contracts and will are for. Only an idiot would rely on marriage to handle all those situations anyway.

 

[g5000]

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.

How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).

See my signature. Click on the link.

Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.

I have posted several times in this topic that same-sex marriages do not get the same benefits from the state and federal governments as opposite-sex marriages do, and pointed to the authoritative evidence.

To then just ignore the evidence and blithely state they do is to lie.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).

See my signature. Click on the link.

Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.

I have posted several times in this topic that same-sex marriages do not get the same benefits from the state and federal governments as opposite-sex marriages do, and pointed to the authoritative evidence.

To then just ignore the evidence and blithely state they do is to lie.

Come on, he isn't lying. He's simply of the opinion that gays being able to marry someone of the opposite sex just like a hetero can means they have the same right. It's a difference of opinion, not a lie.

 

[g5000]

Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.

I have posted several times in this topic that same-sex marriages do not get the same benefits from the state and federal governments as opposite-sex marriages do, and pointed to the authoritative evidence.

To then just ignore the evidence and blithely state they do is to lie.

Come on, he isn't lying. He's simply of the opinion that gays being able to marry someone of the opposite sex just like a hetero can means they have the same right. It's a difference of opinion, not a lie.

No, he specifically stated they get the same benefits as everyone else. That is completely false.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Only in your case, miskeit.

i've been married 29 years and my youngest child turned 18 yesterday

keep swinging rebbe nebbish

The Judge made this a PUBLIC issue. CAMPAIGNING from the bench should be discouraged.

Probably so. But in Texas, judges are elected officials, so that's kinda impossible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

eta: changed pronoun, i too wrote he.

But if those damned churches get any stupid ideas about "staying true to their personal belief systems", throw the book at them!

Never mind that performing marriages IS part of her job description, and providing health insurance coverage is NOT part of the Catholic Church's, or any employer's.

I don't know what amazes me more: how leftists forget that the power they wield doesn't belong to them, but to the people, or how other leftists gladly transform themselves into blithering hypocrites in order to kiss their asses.

 

[Si modo]

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.

"We've always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a valid legal defense.

There is no discrimination because the law applies to everyone the same way.

I'm pretty sure that was an argument many used to justify Jim Crow laws, too.

And, in no way am I implying in any way that you are racist, because I know you are not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

he's a she.

if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.

keep swinging

What I note is that that's what SHE says. Clearly, her take on reality and actual reality aren't always in contact, so you'll excuse me if I take the ravings of a lunatic with a grain of salt.

Out here in RealityLand, judges are given the ability to perform weddings precisely because they ARE expected to do so.

 

[bodecea]

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.

he's a she.

if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.

keep swinging

Love it! And yes, you made that very clear in the OP....funny how some people can't READ, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Not to mention that she doesn't have a religious objection. "I don't feel like it" or "I'm making a political statement" don't quite get it done as reasons for a public servant to decide not to serve the public.