Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[WorldWatcher]

What gender is being discriminated against? Men have rights of marriage. Women have equal rights of marriage. Doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

What? Now you're just babbling. Are you really trying to say that white men and black and white women could marry any color they want but black men could not?

 

[The Rabbi]

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

What? Now you're just babbling. Are you really trying to say that white men and black and white women could marry any color they want but black men could not?

Do you need a diagram or something?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

What? Now you're just babbling. Are you really trying to say that white men and black and white women could marry any color they want but black men could not?

Do you need a diagram or something?

I just wanted to be clear that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

 

[WorldWatcher]

a) There was no discrimination.
b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not.

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) then based on gender they aren't treated equally.

The criteria applies to the options of the couple and not to the individual. If you think otherwise you ware wrong because you argument was used in Loving v. Virginia and the SCOTUS (rightly) didn't buy it either.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) the based on gender they aren't treated equally.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

It is equal under the law, the same philosophy as the progressive tax

 

[WorldWatcher]

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) the based on gender they aren't treated equally.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

It is equal under the law,...

Not it's not.

the same philosophy as the progressive tax

Which is why I support a flat tax.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

How can you say there was no discrimination and then point out that there was discrimination? That makes no sense.

So if "b) White men could marry white women while black men could not. Black men were discriminated against because whites enjoyed a right they did not." THen you have men could marry white women while a women could not. Women are discriminated against because men enjoy a right women did not.

Thanks for making our case.


>>>>

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) then based on gender they aren't treated equally.

The criteria applies to the options of the couple and not to the individual. If you think otherwise you ware wrong because you argument was used in Loving v. Virginia and the SCOTUS (rightly) didn't buy it either.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

A woman her brother. But another woman can. DOes that mean the first one is discriminated against?
The issue is you think men and women are the same. It is pretty obvious they are not.

 

[bodecea]

Your logic is what fails. Horribly so. Sexual orientation is not the basis of the inequality. Gender is.

Also, my signature is linked to a legal web site. It is a fact of law that same-sex marriages do not get the same cash and prizes as opposite-sex marriages.

As long as there is DOMA, there is inequality.

What gender is being discriminated against? Men have rights of marriage. Women have equal rights of marriage. Doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

Under anti-miscegenation laws what race was being discriminated against? Coloreds had rights of marriage. Whites had equal rights of marriage. Didn't matter what their race was.


How well did that logic work before?


>>>>

The Justices laughed out loud at that one on the Warren court.

 

[Full-Auto]

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.



However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) the based on gender they aren't treated equally.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

It is equal under the law,...

Not it's not.

the same philosophy as the progressive tax

Which is why I support a flat tax.


>>>>

Yes it is. But since we have had other laws passed in the last ten years. I do understand the point.

 

[Texanmike]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

 

[WorldWatcher]

Women enjoy the same rights that women do.
Thanks for making my case.

Which isn't the case you made regarding race.

You shot yourself in the foot with that one.

You understand that a black man is a man who is black, a white man is a man who is white. By limiting this, one man enjoys a right the other does not. But a woman is not a man. This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

However since a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a woman cannot marry another woman (and a man not another man) then based on gender they aren't treated equally.

The criteria applies to the options of the couple and not to the individual. If you think otherwise you ware wrong because you argument was used in Loving v. Virginia and the SCOTUS (rightly) didn't buy it either.

This ought to be obvious. Even to you.

>>>>

A woman her brother. But another woman can. DOes that mean the first one is discriminated against?
The issue is you think men and women are the same. It is pretty obvious they are not.

I don't think that men and women are the same. Never said they were.

I've said the law discriminates based on gender and it does.

Civil Marriage laws involve couples, the couples should be treated the same when in like situations. To day no one has presented a compelling government reason as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently than a law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

The only difference is the gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

It's been posted, she's empowered but not required to perform marriage ceremonies. It's NOT part of her official duties.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is interesting. Does anyone have any links to local statutes? If its not mandatory that she does this then I don't now what the problem is. If the locals don't like it then vote her out. (I believe district judges are elected positions in Texas).

I have a problem with it from an ideological standpoint. The People of Texas have spoken. They have defined marriage. If she is not doing something she is required to do then she should be impeached. If she's not then let the local electorate decide.

Whatever you do, don't take this up the chain. God help us if SCOTUS gets a hold of this. Them deciding what local government requirements should be will basically eliminate all of the local government authority.

Until someone can produce some sort of local statutes I don't think anyone can really have an educated opinion on this.

Mike

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."​

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm


>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

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.

 

[Peach]

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.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Boo Hoo

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

you realize Judges aren't on call 24/7 right? They have personal time.