Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[Inthemiddle]

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

Same sex marriage dates back to antiquity.

Spanning several cultures.

There were highly ritualized ceremonies to commemorate these marriages in many parts.

The Chinese even have fairy tales about gay couples.

The Romans even had it.

Records still exist recording the marriage of two men in Spain by the local priest in the 1600s.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

"Come socialize, find a great seat and order dinner starting at 6:00. The meeting begins at 6:30 with reports on the progress towards our goals, invited speakers and announcements of exciting volunteer opportunities.

Bring a friend. You never know who might become the next Stonewall Democrats of Dallas member!"

Looks like the events are held in the evening, so it wouldn't have been on the taxpayers time.


Stonewall Democrats of Dallas - General Meeting


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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

Don't be too hard on Avatar....apparently loveless marriage is her idea of acceptable reasons to marry.

 

[Inthemiddle]

THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest

She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?

and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.

No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't care what she was doing. She has exhibited a propensity for bias. She has personal opinions that affect her judgment.

If same sex marriage were legal and a judge said that he disagreed so strongly with marrying same sex couples that he would refuse to perform any marriage at all wouldn't you think this judge was biased? That such bias would influence any case that came before him or her? It doesn't matter what the issue is. It could be sexual orientation, racisim, sexism, any issue. It's not what it is, it's that this judge's decisions are affected by her bias.

 

[bodecea]

THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest

She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?

and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.

No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.

They've been told this again and again. Apparently that shoe on their other foot is SO UNCOMFORTABLE they cannot read what is in front of them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.

Same sex marriage dates back to antiquity.

Spanning several cultures.

There were highly ritualized ceremonies to commemorate these marriages in many parts.

The Chinese even have fairy tales about gay couples.

The Romans even had it.

Records still exist recording the marriage of two men in Spain by the local priest in the 1600s.

Oh, so now you libtards are touting ancient tradition? Oh hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

 

[Peach]

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.

Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.

 

[bodecea]

I don't care what she was doing. She has exhibited a propensity for bias. She has personal opinions that affect her judgment.

If same sex marriage were legal and a judge said that he disagreed so strongly with marrying same sex couples that he would refuse to perform any marriage at all wouldn't you think this judge was biased? That such bias would influence any case that came before him or her? It doesn't matter what the issue is. It could be sexual orientation, racisim, sexism, any issue. It's not what it is, it's that this judge's decisions are affected by her bias.

That pretty much sums up your position.

You're gonna ***** and complain and cry no matter what the facts are.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.

So tell us, how is MARRIAGE going to come up before her court? Explain that one.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't care what she was doing. She has exhibited a propensity for bias. She has personal opinions that affect her judgment.

If same sex marriage were legal and a judge said that he disagreed so strongly with marrying same sex couples that he would refuse to perform any marriage at all wouldn't you think this judge was biased? That such bias would influence any case that came before him or her? It doesn't matter what the issue is. It could be sexual orientation, racisim, sexism, any issue. It's not what it is, it's that this judge's decisions are affected by her bias.

Judges in Texas are elected. They parade themselves with an (R) or (D) next to their name. And you want to say that expressing an opinion about a public policy matter makes them instantly biased? *****, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest

She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?

and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.

No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.

You are suggesting that she separates her prejudice. She is biased only in her spare time. When she puts on that robe she becomes impartial.

Yeah, right.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh, so now you libtards are touting ancient tradition? Oh hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

1) I'm not a liberal.

2) Even if I were, the fact would still remain that the "it's been defined this way for thousands of years we can't change it now" argument is BS.

 

[Peach]

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

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
**********************************************
Not in Florida. Until a Supreme Court case of just a few years ago, gay citizens could not even ADOPT children They could be guardians, and foster parents but not NO ADOPTION. And the law stood through Democratic AND Republican governors.

 

[bodecea]

THIS judge has shown a propensity to be dishonest

She's being dishonest by not performing wedding ceremonies?

and let her bias interefere with her activities as a judge.

No she's not. Being a judge only authorizes her to perform weddings IN HER SPARE TIME. If she chooses to do so, it is aside from her job as a judge. When a judge officiates wedding ceremonies, they are engaging in private business that is distinct from their job as a judge.

You are suggesting that she separates her prejudice. She is biased only in her spare time. When she puts on that robe she becomes impartial.

Yeah, right.

We get it. You are prejudiced against gay people and believe we cannot do our jobs honestly.

But then again, you also believe that women performing dangerous jobs deserve to be gang raped and beaten.

So......not really giving much credence to anything you may "think".

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The saddest part of this thread is that I have ZERO doubt that 90% of those posting here would be arguing the other side if things were reversed and gay marriage was legal and this woman refused to marry ANYONE in protest of the law.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Judges still, at least in my state, are discouraged from taking public stands on issues that may come before the Court. Many states are now considering legalization of same gender marriage, which I AGREE with. Judges are the triers of fact & law and their behavior regulated full time; you say it wasn't tax payer time, but MOST Judges work many hours PREPARING for Court, not giving public statements of disapproval concerning laws. Thus, I am CONSERVATIVE about Judges, though I agree with her opinion on the issue.

For the record, discouraged is not the same thing as forbidden.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

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

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
**********************************************
Not in Florida. Until a Supreme Court case of just a few years ago, gay citizens could not even ADOPT children They could be guardians, and foster parents but not NO ADOPTION. And the law stood through Democratic AND Republican governors.

When that kind of argument was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Virginia lawyers in Loving v Virginia, the Justices laughed out loud....kind of like I am laughing at you now.

 

[Katzndogz]

The saddest part of this thread is that I have ZERO doubt that 90% of those posting here would be arguing the other side if things were reversed and gay marriage was legal and this woman refused to marry ANYONE in protest of the law.

And they would all be demanding that this judge be removed from the bench too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Negged for disingenuous bullshit

They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
**********************************************
Not in Florida. Until a Supreme Court case of just a few years ago, gay citizens could not even ADOPT children They could be guardians, and foster parents but not NO ADOPTION. And the law stood through Democratic AND Republican governors.

When that kind of argument was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Virginia lawyers in Loving v Virginia, the Justices laughed out loud....kind of like I am laughing at you now.

And a judge today that said she was going to refuse to perform any marriages in protest against interracial marriages would deserve to be summarily removed from office.