Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[bodecea]

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

Might want to ask Justice Scalia about that one.

I'm fairly certain His Honor would agree that a KKK member should recuse himself from a case involving the KKK.

I'm not so sure....he doesn't have a very good record in that regard.

 

[Immanuel]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

The answer to your honest question. I know that the judge is NOT required to perform marriages. The issue of same sex marriage is the vehicle by which the judge expressed bias. The Judge is not trustworthy because she allows her bias to affect her decisions.

Last year I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. If this Judge was the judge in my case, the law would have been disregarded and I would have lost instead of won. The entire issue was whether or not I was in the "business" of provding artist services to the general public. A biased judge could easily have found that I was. That makes the judge's decisions inherently untrustworthy.

 

[Katzndogz]

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

If not, that is what the appellate courts are for.

Some seem to believe judges should be some sort of automatons with no opinions or outside interests though. Just weird.

They do take an oath not to allow their personal beliefs or outside interests to influence their decisions.

 

[Peach]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

Her announcement of WHY she will not marry persons under the laws of Texas is what I find WRONG. She made it a point to explain her DECISION not to marry those allowed to marry in her state. Thus she is campaign to change the law; her legal decisions are open to the public, you can also ask those who have appeared in front of her for their view of her. But taking PUBLIC POLITICAL STANDS is inappropriate at best.

 

[Si modo]

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

If not, that is what the appellate courts are for.

Some seem to believe judges should be some sort of automatons with no opinions or outside interests though. Just weird.

They do take an oath not to allow their personal beliefs or outside interests to influence their decisions.

When doing their duties, yes it does.

When deciding for themselves, they can do whatever they want, just like you and me.

 

[bodecea]

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

The answer to your honest question. I know that the judge is NOT required to perform marriages. The issue of same sex marriage is the vehicle by which the judge expressed bias. The Judge is not trustworthy because she allows her bias to affect her decisions.

Bullshit. Unless you can show a history of this particular judge's bias in court cases. I look forward to your....ahem....evidence.

Last year I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. If this Judge was the judge in my case, the law would have been disregarded and I would have lost instead of won.

You know this for a FACT.....how?

The entire issue was whether or not I was in the "business" of provding artist services to the general public. A biased judge could easily have found that I was. That makes the judge's decisions inherently untrustworthy.

You are accusing gay judges of being dishonest....I think we can see whose BIAS are really shining thru here. I say it is a good thing that YOU are not a judge.

 

[bodecea]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

Her announcement of WHY she will not marry persons under the laws of Texas is what I find WRONG. She made it a point to explain her DECISION not to marry those allowed to marry in her state. Thus she is campaign to change the law; her legal decisions are open to the public, you can also ask those who have appeared in front of her for their view of her. But taking PUBLIC POLITICAL STANDS is inappropriate at best.

Boo Hoo

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

When a judge officiates a wedding, he's not acting as a public servant paid by tax money. He's acting as a private individual engaged in private business. Duhhhh, pukestain.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Identify what law the judge is allegedly not following. Otherwise, shut up.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It is not her privilege to grant or deny.

It's her prerogative to engage in private business or not.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Actually, this isn't true. It's a statutory matter, not a constitutional matter. Texas law prohibits authorized wedding officiants from discriminating against couples based on religious grounds or race, at least in theory. However, in practice religious officers also have the leeway to decline to perform wedding ceremonies that don't comply with the guidelines established by the church from which they derive their authority. So, while it is technically illegal for a Catholic priest to say "You have to join my church and tithe to us for six months before I'll marry you" it is within his prerogative to say "I am not authorized to perform a wedding ceremony for people who are not both confirmed Catholics." Beyond these statutory prohibitions of discrimination, an authorized officiant can refuse to perform any wedding he so chooses.

Texas law does not obligate anyone to officiate wedding ceremonies. It only authorizes them to do so. Since we are authorized, and not required, we can decline based on any reason whatsoever, other than those statutorily prohibited reasons. If I decide that I don't want to marry you because I don't like people with red hair, that's my right.

The only way that the judge here could be running afoul of the law would be for sexual orientation to be a protected class. Of course, if that were the case, then this would be moot, because then prohibitions against gay marriage would become illegal forms of discrimination.

 

[Immanuel]

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

The answer to your honest question. I know that the judge is NOT required to perform marriages. The issue of same sex marriage is the vehicle by which the judge expressed bias. The Judge is not trustworthy because she allows her bias to affect her decisions.

Last year I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. If this Judge was the judge in my case, the law would have been disregarded and I would have lost instead of won. The entire issue was whether or not I was in the "business" of provding artist services to the general public. A biased judge could easily have found that I was. That makes the judge's decisions inherently untrustworthy.

First, you do not have any way of knowing whether or not you would have lost that case in front of her. She is not discriminating against straight couples. She is exercising her right not to perform weddings. She is not required to do so.

She gave no indication that she would judge you unfairly. However, I believe you judge her unfairly.

And chances are had your case come before her and her opinions were known at the time, your attorney would have moved to have her recused from the case.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

The Judge should be removed and disbarred. Judges take an oath to follow the law. Even if that law conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Identify what law the judge is allegedly not following. Otherwise, shut up.

Nah, let her keep digging. After all, this is the poster who said that reporter in Egypt deserved to be assaulted and raped.

 

[Peach]

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.

no it hasnt

I find it a dereliction of duty to take a public stance because of her objection to the law. Just do not perform marriage ceremonies but leave your personal grievances out of the media. Or step down from the Bench and become a lobbyist.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

The answer to your honest question. I know that the judge is NOT required to perform marriages. The issue of same sex marriage is the vehicle by which the judge expressed bias. The Judge is not trustworthy because she allows her bias to affect her decisions.

Bullshit. Unless you can show a history of this particular judge's bias in court cases. I look forward to your....ahem....evidence.

Last year I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. If this Judge was the judge in my case, the law would have been disregarded and I would have lost instead of won.

You know this for a FACT.....how?

The entire issue was whether or not I was in the "business" of provding artist services to the general public. A biased judge could easily have found that I was. That makes the judge's decisions inherently untrustworthy.

You are accusing gay judges of being dishonest....I think we can see whose BIAS are really shining thru here. I say it is a good thing that YOU are not a judge.

This judge has a bias, that bias has been exhibited. I am not accusing gay judges of being dishonest, just that THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge. At the very least this judge's decisions should be subject to judicial review and examined to see if her bias has affected her decisions. ALL of them.

The only good thing to come of it is that now she can be papered by any attorney wishing to remove her from a case.

 

[Peach]

My guess is that he realized that not placing the word "straight" in there would give the thread a very short life, but then by putting that word in there... well, look where we are now.

Immie

Her announcement of WHY she will not marry persons under the laws of Texas is what I find WRONG. She made it a point to explain her DECISION not to marry those allowed to marry in her state. Thus she is campaign to change the law; her legal decisions are open to the public, you can also ask those who have appeared in front of her for their view of her. But taking PUBLIC POLITICAL STANDS is inappropriate at best.

Boo Hoo

No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.

 

[bodecea]

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

The answer to your honest question. I know that the judge is NOT required to perform marriages. The issue of same sex marriage is the vehicle by which the judge expressed bias. The Judge is not trustworthy because she allows her bias to affect her decisions.

Last year I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. If this Judge was the judge in my case, the law would have been disregarded and I would have lost instead of won. The entire issue was whether or not I was in the "business" of provding artist services to the general public. A biased judge could easily have found that I was. That makes the judge's decisions inherently untrustworthy.

First, you do not have any way of knowing whether or not you would have lost that case in front of her. She is not discriminating against straight couples. She is exercising her right not to perform weddings. She is not required to do so.

She gave no indication that she would judge you unfairly. However, I believe you judge her unfairly.

And chances are had your case come before her and her opinions were known at the time, your attorney would have moved to have her recused from the case.

Immie

Well, at least she doesn't want the judge gang raped like Sir James does.

 

[bodecea]

Her announcement of WHY she will not marry persons under the laws of Texas is what I find WRONG. She made it a point to explain her DECISION not to marry those allowed to marry in her state. Thus she is campaign to change the law; her legal decisions are open to the public, you can also ask those who have appeared in front of her for their view of her. But taking PUBLIC POLITICAL STANDS is inappropriate at best.

Boo Hoo

No BOO HOO, just an objection to an employee of tax payers taking personal issues public on tax payer time. And judges litigating from the Bench.

Except you are wrong, it was not taxpayer's time. She did not do this during court time or office hours. And you've been told this again and again and again. So, either you are not paying attention, or you do not care about the truth.

 

[Article 15]

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

Negged for disingenuous bullshit