Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[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.

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

Took you a few years?

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

The judge has stated flatly that he will not follow the law.

Please quote the judge stating flatly that she will not follow the law. What law requires a Judge to perform a voluntary service not part of their official duty requirements?


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

“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.

Are you here to actually discuss the topic or just ramble on with nonsense? The state of Texas has via the Family Code and verified by the Attorney General stated that trial court judges are NOT required to perform marriages.

Seriously, acknowledge that point or move on.

Does this site have thread bans? And if so is it considered impolite to ask that someone who isn't even trying to be rational be removed from the thread?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Took you a few years?

Immie

Some people are a little slower than us NAVY types.


>>>>

 

[Si modo]

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.

Right. As I accounted in an earlier post, I found that out on my own when I was actually living in Dallas County.

We wanted a civil ceremony, too. (He's an ex, now.) So, I called to schedule a judge and I was informed that I would be better off going to a JP because the judges' didn't prioritize marriages, and some just never did them. This was long before same-sex marriage was a hot topic, too.

So, we scheduled a JP in an adjacent county because his schedule fit best with our preferred date. This is a duty of JPs in Texas.

Just my account from an internet poster on a board, so means little. However, the laws have been posted.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

True, but it would seem you either didn't perform them at all or for all. Up hold the law, all that.

 

[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

Took you a few years?

Immie

I was young, entered at 17, very gung ho.

After I did my very best to avoid, you ,you and you.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Not at all because the evidence of bias is still there. This is just the vehicle that exposed the bias.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

Explain how she is biased.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does this site have thread bans? And if so is it considered impolite to ask that someone who isn't even trying to be rational be removed from the thread?

Not that I've seen, people are free to ignore facts as they wish.


>>>>

 

[Si modo]

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.

Are you here to actually discuss the topic or just ramble on with nonsense? The state of Texas has via the Family Code and verified by the Attorney General stated that trial court judges are NOT required to perform marriages.

Seriously, acknowledge that point or move on.

Does this site have thread bans? And if so is it considered impolite to ask that someone who isn't even trying to be rational be removed from the thread?

You really should review the rules here. Other than very few restrictions, this is a free speech site. You're starting to turn into a whiner about that.

 

[saveliberty]

Personally, if I were a judge, I wouldn't perform any marriages. Its not a government job.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

True, but it would seem you either didn't perform them at all or for all. Up hold the law, all that.

Jesus Christ, another person who is weighing in with an opinion who hasn't even read the thread?


She is refusing to perform ANY marriage. She does NOT pick and choose.

 

[Si modo]

Personally, if I were a judge, I wouldn't perform any marriages. Its not a government job.

I agree.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

Are you here to actually discuss the topic or just ramble on with nonsense? The state of Texas has via the Family Code and verified by the Attorney General stated that trial court judges are NOT required to perform marriages.

Seriously, acknowledge that point or move on.

Does this site have thread bans? And if so is it considered impolite to ask that someone who isn't even trying to be rational be removed from the thread?

You really should review the rules here. Other than very few restrictions, this is a free speech site. You're starting to turn into a whiner about that.

I'm a whiner because I would prefer to have conversation where people either inform themselves of the topic or shut up?

Hmmm okay I'll take that hit I guess. How sad.

 

[Katzndogz]

Judges have all sorts of discretionary activities. They can swear in new attorneys instead of having the newbies wait for the mass swearing in at the Bar. If a judge said that he did not believe black people should be lawyers and therefore was choosing not to perform any private swearings at all everyone would understand immediately that this judge should not be on the bench. Even though there is no requirement that these ceremonies are part of judicial duties.

 

[Si modo]

Are you here to actually discuss the topic or just ramble on with nonsense? The state of Texas has via the Family Code and verified by the Attorney General stated that trial court judges are NOT required to perform marriages.

Seriously, acknowledge that point or move on.

Does this site have thread bans? And if so is it considered impolite to ask that someone who isn't even trying to be rational be removed from the thread?

You really should review the rules here. Other than very few restrictions, this is a free speech site. You're starting to turn into a whiner about that.

I'm a whiner because I would prefer to have conversation where people either inform themselves of the topic or shut up?

Hmmm okay I'll take that hit I guess. How sad.

I have preferences as well. But, after some time here, I know when to stop banging my head against a brick wall and just move on.

 

[Immanuel]

“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.

Again, the judge is not required to perform marriages.

Do you think that a judge belonging to an all white country club would be removed from the bench? How about one that belongs to the Augusta National Golf Club. Now, I may be wrong on which club it is, but, I think this is the one that faced some controversy recently because it does not allow women members. Would a judge belonging to Augusta be removed from the bench? How about a female judge belonging to NOW? Maybe all Catholic judges should be removed from the bench? Mormons? Would any Muslim judges be removed from the bench? You know, a judge who belongs to the 700 Club can't be trusted to judge gay people fairly, they should be removed from the bench!

You are wrong on this Katz.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Explain how she is biased.

The judge did that quite well. I don't need to elaborate.

I can't help it if you are dense. The judge expressed a bias against the laws of the state. Her actions in performing or not performing marriages is immaterial. She has expressed a bias. She should be removed.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You really should review the rules here. Other than very few restrictions, this is a free speech site. You're starting to turn into a whiner about that.

I'm a whiner because I would prefer to have conversation where people either inform themselves of the topic or shut up?

Hmmm okay I'll take that hit I guess. How sad.

I have preferences as well. But, after some time here, I know when to stop banging my head against a brick wall and just move on.

I already acknowledged that I would probably adjust and just start posting gibberish without actually reading the topic, but until then I'm pretty opinionated about preferring intelligent debate, and that's hardly whining.

I mean seriously, how many people in this thread have posted some dumb opinion that they obviously would not have formulated if they had only read the thread before commenting.