Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[Immanuel]

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.

No, it is not the same thing.

In this case, the judge said that she would not perform weddings because she believes the current law is biased against the LGBT community. According to the article, she is under no obligation whatsoever to perform weddings. By her having made the decision to not perform weddings what laws has she broken.

I do agree that in a particular case an attorney may want her to be removed from the case, but that would be the attorney's decision and strategy. Whether she is biased against straight people or not is yet to be determined.

I think you are wrong in your analysis of this particular case, Katz.

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please find me anything that says marriage is a right.

Loving v. Virginia
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Zablocki v. Redhail
"In evaluating 245.10 (1), (4), (5) under the Equal Protection Clause, "we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected." Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required."

In re MARRIAGE CASES
"If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the
interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full
authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and
any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however,
that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right..."

Varnum v. Brien
"This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates
these broad constitutional principles of governing."
<<SNIP>>
"The Iowa General Assembly has recognized the need to address
sexual-orientation-based discrimination by including sexual orientation as a
characteristic protected in the Iowa Civil Rights Act,"

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
"The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights."

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

No she didn't, what the Judge said from the OP was:

"Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it."​

That's saying her performing Civil Marriage ceremonies is a right and a privileged for her under the Texas Code, one that she chooses not to exercise. That is not saying equal access to Civil Marriage laws is a privilege (equal protection is actually an enumerated right in the Constitution, but that having her perform a voluntary service is a privilege.


>>>>

 

[Intense]

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

“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.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."

Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.

Liberty is a Two Way Street.

 

[Immanuel]

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.)

I don't find it objectionable that she expressed her opinion and here is one reason why.

Say I was about to appear as a defendant in her court and she had made a comment about hating short (under 5'9"), bald white men and that whenever they appear before her, she throws the book at them. Well, I'd rather know that before I appear before her than after. Wouldn't you want to know if a judge's biases affected you?

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

Judges are not entitled to feel a law is unfair. No doubt there are plenty of judges who feel that one law or another is unfair. They cannot appear to have a propensity to bring that bias into their decisions. This judge did exactly that.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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?

That's not QUITE correct. For although it is not mandatory for her to perform marriages, she can not refuse to do so on constitutionally protected reasons. Example, she couldn't single out Catholics and refuse to marry them because they are Catholic. Which is of course why she simply isn't performing ANY marriages.

She's WELL within her rights.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

There is NO bias when you refuse to perform ANY marriage. Bias is when you pick and choose who you will do what for.

I weep for this country, I really do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred.

If you mean actions similar to impeachment, no she shouldn't as performance of Civil Marriages is a voluntary service provided at the judges discretion outside of his/her normal duties.

Now, if during the next election cycle the people decide not to vote her back into office, that is a different situation.

Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs.

No law requires a judge to officiate Civil Marriages (well maybe a Justice of the Peaces as one of their primary duties, but not trial court judges).

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.

Civil Marriages = privilege extended outside of normal duty requirements.

Court Cases = actually part of the job and performed during working hours.

Very different.

Or, a judge that felt that drugs should be legalized dismissed every case against dealers and users.

Civil Marriages = privilege extended outside of normal duty requirements.

Court Cases = actually part of the job and performed during working hours.

Very different.

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.

A man (or woman) robs a 7-11 at the point of a gun. What impact would her not voluntarily performing a service outside of normal court duties have in determining of the man (or woman) robbed a 7-11?


>>>>

 

[Si modo]

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?

That's not QUITE correct. For although it is not mandatory for her to perform marriages, she can not refuse to do so on constitutionally protected reasons. Example, she couldn't single out Catholics and refuse to marry them because they are Catholic. Which is of course why she simply isn't performing ANY marriages.

She's WELL within her rights.

Personally, I would say she can refuse to marry Catholics. But, if she says that is the reason to exclude them, then I wouldn't trust her as far as I could toss her as a judge.

In this case, she stated that she cannot volunteer to do something that is applied unequally to persons. Totally constitutional and full of integrity, especially as a judge.

I understand your point and we're on the same page on that. But, if she keeps her mouth shut about why she doesn't volunteer, I think she'd still be OK. A trend may rat her out in the long run, though.

 

[Si modo]

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

&#8220;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&#8217;m turning them away,&#8221; Parker said. &#8220;So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, &#8216;I&#8217;m sorry. I don&#8217;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&#8217;t apply to another group of people.&#8217; And it&#8217;s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can&#8217;t be performed for me, so I&#8217;m not going to do it."

Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.

Liberty is a Two Way Street.

Yup. Equal rights: x=y and y=x. One of those simple truths.

 

[Full-Auto]

Judges are not entitled to feel a law is unfair. No doubt there are plenty of judges who feel that one law or another is unfair. They cannot appear to have a propensity to bring that bias into their decisions. This judge did exactly that.

You are taking a long walk from a short pier.

Just because you become a judge, doesnt mean you give up your rights.


After a few years in the ARMY I didnt volunteer anymore either

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

Seriously? The law in question was cited several times in this thread. Judges are empowered but not REQUIRED to perform marriages. IF she were REQUIRED to do so and wasn't, I guarantee the AG would have fired her just the same as he would fire her if she refused to show up to court.

It's no different than when a person is say a notary public, that means they CAN notarize things, but it does NOT mean they HAVE to notarize anything you put before them.

Church leaders are authorized to wed as well. Would you complain if your minister refused to perform weddings?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

Rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

That's not QUITE correct. For although it is not mandatory for her to perform marriages, she can not refuse to do so on constitutionally protected reasons. Example, she couldn't single out Catholics and refuse to marry them because they are Catholic. Which is of course why she simply isn't performing ANY marriages.

She's WELL within her rights.

Personally, I would say she can refuse to marry Catholics. But, if she says that is the reason to exclude them, then I wouldn't trust her as far as I could toss her as a judge.

In this case, she stated that she cannot volunteer to do something that is applied unequally to persons. Totally constitutional and full of integrity, especially as a judge.

I understand your point and we're on the same page on that. But, if she keeps her mouth shut about why she doesn't volunteer, I think she'd still be OK. A trend may rat her out in the long run, though.

Of course, I just wanted to clarify so some nut ball didn't run with something we weren't even saying, but that's already been done anyway.

 

[Si modo]

That's not QUITE correct. For although it is not mandatory for her to perform marriages, she can not refuse to do so on constitutionally protected reasons. Example, she couldn't single out Catholics and refuse to marry them because they are Catholic. Which is of course why she simply isn't performing ANY marriages.

She's WELL within her rights.

Personally, I would say she can refuse to marry Catholics. But, if she says that is the reason to exclude them, then I wouldn't trust her as far as I could toss her as a judge.

In this case, she stated that she cannot volunteer to do something that is applied unequally to persons. Totally constitutional and full of integrity, especially as a judge.

I understand your point and we're on the same page on that. But, if she keeps her mouth shut about why she doesn't volunteer, I think she'd still be OK. A trend may rat her out in the long run, though.

Of course, I just wanted to clarify so some nut ball didn't run with something we weren't even saying, but that's already been done anyway.

I too, practice the pre-emptive argument. It's quite good for outing the nutballs, and the intellectually lazy knee-jerkers.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

“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.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."

Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.

Liberty is a Two Way Street.

Yup. Equal rights: x=y and y=x. One of those simple truths.

I'm only quoting you to get to the quote from the Judge because I wanted to point something else out.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.


I think some of these loons either don't realize or just don't care that most trial judges do NOT conduct marriage ceremonies at all. Like a lot of other people they do the job they have to do then they go home, all this judge did was articulate her reasons for doing so. Now as I said earlier if her reasons are not constitutional then she could be in trouble, but she fully covered that base by just blanket saying no marriages.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.)

I don't find it objectionable that she expressed her opinion and here is one reason why.

Say I was about to appear as a defendant in her court and she had made a comment about hating short (under 5'9"), bald white men and that whenever they appear before her, she throws the book at them. Well, I'd rather know that before I appear before her than after. Wouldn't you want to know if a judge's biases affected you?

Immie

The judge has given an indication that he or she cannot follow the oath of office and needs to be removed from the bench for the protection of the unwary or unwitting. All kinds of personal decisions of judges are subject to bias review. If a judge belongs to an all white country club it's evidence of bias. Without even giving a speech on the subject.

If a judge said "I don't care what the law says, I'm not performing marriages for gays and lesbians". Everyone would understand that this judge needs to be removed from the bench because this personal opinion cannot be separated from judicial opinions. The judge has stated flatly that he will not follow the law.

 

[Immanuel]

Judges are not entitled to feel a law is unfair. No doubt there are plenty of judges who feel that one law or another is unfair. They cannot appear to have a propensity to bring that bias into their decisions. This judge did exactly that.

Actually, I think you are wrong in that as well. Everyone knows that they have opinions. What they are not supposed to do is to allow those opinions to interfere with the due process of law. If their opinions interfere with their ability to provide due process, then they are required to recuse themselves from a case.

If they are suspected of having a bias in a case and they don't offer to recuse themselves an attorney in the case has the right to ask that they be recused.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Judges are not required to perform marriages.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Personally, I would say she can refuse to marry Catholics. But, if she says that is the reason to exclude them, then I wouldn't trust her as far as I could toss her as a judge.

In this case, she stated that she cannot volunteer to do something that is applied unequally to persons. Totally constitutional and full of integrity, especially as a judge.

I understand your point and we're on the same page on that. But, if she keeps her mouth shut about why she doesn't volunteer, I think she'd still be OK. A trend may rat her out in the long run, though.

Of course, I just wanted to clarify so some nut ball didn't run with something we weren't even saying, but that's already been done anyway.

I too, practice the pre-emptive argument. It's quite good for outing the nutballs, and the intellectually lazy knee-jerkers.

This site's going to take some getting used to on my part. The last board I was a member of the people who posted actually read the threads and links within the threads that they were commenting on. It seems to me many here don't believe in having INFORMED opinions.

Sad, but I'm sure I'll adjust and be posting when I have no idea what I'm talking about in no time.

 

[saveliberty]

Judges with that much bias don't belong in a job that requires more neutrality.