Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Religious definition? What, like the human race has only had one religion throughout all of the millennia that it's defined marriage that way? Are you really that stupid, or are you just goofing on us to see if we'll buy it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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....

No, pukestain, because pharmacists aren't civil servants, paid by tax money. They're private citizens, employed by private businesses. Duhhh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, to start off, have you ever heard of "contract law"? How about "custody"? Alimony?

However much the left mistakenly thinks that marriage is a goody bag full of government money and bennies, it's actually a legal contract, entailing an enormous number of obligations, which the legal system is often called upon to step in and enforce. Have you ever been divorced? Would you have wanted to go through that without any legal recourse? Of course not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Were you under the erroneous impression that women don't ALREADY marry men they don't love? For the life of me, I can't imagine where you dimwits got the idea that marriage laws have ****-all to do with "love", or ever have had.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

There is no "marriage inequality" here. Everyone has an equal right to marry.

marriage is not a right.

of course it isn't

and the sun revolves around the earth

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

As the judge herself said, it's a privilege.




And a mia koopa; In PA you pay the state to get married, I assumed it was likewise in TX. Since the state doesn't take money, and neither does the judge, she can pass on rendering that service.

 

[Immanuel]

SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.

Churches have the right to discriminate based on belief...judges do not. One has to wonder if the judge made his stance clear before he was elected.

SHE took up taxpayer time announcing her "decision" and took a political stand based on her opposition to her state's law. I hope the state JQC goes after her.

Are you sure about that?

If you watched the video you would know that she was at some kind of a luncheon meeting i.e. a speaking engagement.

Are you stating that judges are on the clock 24/7/365 and that they cannot participate in a LGBT luncheon? How about a Tea Party Rally on their own time? A PTA Meeting?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.

Churches have the right to discriminate based on belief...judges do not. One has to wonder if the judge made his stance clear before he was elected.

Do some of you even read before you post? This judge performs NO marriages, gay or straight because she opposes the marriage laws of the state.

HOW is that discrimination.

If you read the title of the thread it says "straight marriages" which is what made me think she would perform homosexual marriages. Whether or not del did that to stir up controversy and start a beef I don't know. She, the judge, clearly states she does not perform any weddings.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

 

[Si modo]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

Derp, derp.

Read the article in the OP.

 

[Katzndogz]

marriage is not a right.

of course it isn't

and the sun revolves around the earth

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

As the judge herself said, it's a privilege.




And a mia koopa; In PA you pay the state to get married, I assumed it was likewise in TX. Since the state doesn't take money, and neither does the judge, she can pass on rendering that service.

It is not her privilege to grant or deny.

 

[Si modo]

of course it isn't

and the sun revolves around the earth

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

As the judge herself said, it's a privilege.




And a mia koopa; In PA you pay the state to get married, I assumed it was likewise in TX. Since the state doesn't take money, and neither does the judge, she can pass on rendering that service.

It is not her privilege to grant or deny.

Sure it is. It's a volunteer duty of hers.

 

[Nosmo King]

He can easily go through the ceramony for himself. He can marry any woman of his choice that is:

1) Unmarried
2) Above the age of consent
3) Not closely related to him.

Absolutely nothing but his own choices is stopping him.

What a tired, foolish and short sighted argument. Hardly worthy of a response, other than to finally put the lid on it once and for all.

For all of you who claim this argument valid, I must assume that you are all in favor of marriage as a stabilizing, important social institution. You recognize that marriage is between two people who wish to formalize a loving bond between them. You see this bond as an important part of society.

And yet you would say that two people cannot marry the ONE person they love unless that person is of the opposite sex. And that precludes same sex marriage. Is this restriction imposed by the lot of bigots and homophobes only due to the fact that procreation cannot occur in a same sex marriage? Perhaps then marriage licenses should not be issued to post menopausal women. That is the logical off shoot of your argument.

Perhaps it is because you think same sex relationships are tawdry and should be made illegal for the sake of society. In that case, sodomy laws must be repealed. And the government would then have open access to everyone's personal lives to assure no conspiracy to commit sodomy is in the offing.

Why would you restrict sober, loyal tax paying American citizens who are of the age of majority form entering the legal protections of marriage if you didn't just think that same sex relationships are icky? How much longer must our society chaff under your ignorance and bigotry?

This argument that someone can marry whomever they want so long as they are of opposite sexes can be boiled down to bigotry and fear . It's tantamount to saying someone can marry whomever they want so long as their skin colors are similar.

 

[bodecea]

of course it isn't

and the sun revolves around the earth

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

As the judge herself said, it's a privilege.




And a mia koopa; In PA you pay the state to get married, I assumed it was likewise in TX. Since the state doesn't take money, and neither does the judge, she can pass on rendering that service.

It is not her privilege to grant or deny.

Um, yes it is. If you'd bothered to actually READ the article, you would have known that.

 

[Immanuel]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

 

[Si modo]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those who find this judge so admirable woudn't like it if a judge who had a personal belief that women who wear short skirts were asking to be raped and dismissed all cases against rapists. Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users. Attorneys have the right to have a judge removed from a case because of bias. This judge has a bias against heterosexuals and cannot judge fairly in any case involving a heterosexual defendant or plaintiff. Any lawyer that permits such a case to come before this judge automatically commits malpractice.

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

Only, this judge didn't refuse to follow the law. This judge refused to volunteer.

 

[Katzndogz]

This should not be so hard to understand.

A judge who in his personal time was a member of the KKK, appeared at a KKK meeting and gave a speech saying that he would not follow the law involving a black petitioner would absolutely be understood to have bias and shouldn't be judging a dog show. This is the same thing.

 

[Katzndogz]

Can you tell me what law she is breaking?

As for whether or not she has a bias against straight people, you are right an attorney could petition to have her removed from a case if the attorney felt her beliefs might lead to an unfair bias, but that is the responsibility and/or duty of the attorney in each and every case.

You have not convinced me that this judge has a bias against heterosexuals. You could easily convince me that she has an opinion regarding the marriage laws of this country. To be honest with you, I am glad our judges have opinions and minds of their own. I don't want some mindless drone deciding my case. Do you?

Immie

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

Only, this judge didn't refuse to follow the law. This judge refused to volunteer.

Because of a personal bias. The bias was expressed. The judge cannot be impartial on any issue because of the bias, not because of a lack of volunteerism.

 

[Si modo]

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

Only, this judge didn't refuse to follow the law. This judge refused to volunteer.

Because of a personal bias. The bias was expressed. The judge cannot be impartial on any issue because of the bias, not because of a lack of volunteerism.

Anyone can refuse to volunteer; their reasons are totally irrelevant, because it's voluntary.

Rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

 

[Peach]

I certainly would not want a judge who refused to follow the law because of a personal opinion. I had one of those in my own carjacking case and got him removed because his personal opinion conflicted with the law he was bound to follow. The standard that a judge is held to is quite high. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Judges take an oath. They are bound by that oath 24/7, 365. If they cannot follow that oath, they are removed. This judge has expressed her opinon which indicates a bias such that the judge cannot be impartial on any case before her.

Only, this judge didn't refuse to follow the law. This judge refused to volunteer.

Because of a personal bias. The bias was expressed. The judge cannot be impartial on any issue because of the bias, not because of a lack of volunteerism.

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’
***************************************************
She is not required to perform any marriages but made a political issue out of her refusal. This I find objectionable. (So much for alleged "leftists" applauding her.)