Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Maryland Patriot]

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion.

a reasonable solution to the issue.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion.

a reasonable solution to the issue.

It will never fly, the homos want to be accepted as normal and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. The push back is inevitable

 

[Brain357]

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

 

[rightwinger]

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

 

[RKMBrown]

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

 

[hadit]

This is what happens when the SC steps in shuts down the legislative process. Let the people of each state decide for themselves and you don't have all this rancor. Just like with abortion, this battle will never stop.

 

[rightwinger]

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

 

[Skylar]

You kind of have it backwards

Same sex marriage is covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution
The judge is required by the Constitution to separate church and state

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

Would imposing his religious views on non-Muslims by enforcing Sharia as an officer of the State be violating the constitution?

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

 

[Brain357]

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

 

[Ravi]

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

 

[danielpalos]

Some on the left believe the Right actually prefers to work with ninth-tenths of a clue and nine-tenths of a Cause.

 

[Skylar]

The US Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is covered by the 14th amendment

The state is not dictating the Judges religion. He is free to practice his religion. However, he is not free to allow his religion to dictate his performance as a Judge.
This ruling will never impact churches because they still have first amendment rights. The Judge, in his official capacity, does not have a right to discriminate

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it?

How did the officer of the court job description 'just change'? Judges already act as officiants of weddings. And have for a very long time.

They do now as well. That's not a change. That's the same role they've already had.

Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs.

The duties of the job didn't change. What 'change' are you referring to?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No not really, same sex marriage had the 14th applied to it, the 14th does not specifically cover gay marriage. The first thing the courts had to do was to make the decision that same sex marriage was equal to hetero marriage. ( this ruling has implications far greater than just marriage by the way)
As far as the judge goes, the state is dictating his religion and stopping him from following it. That is specifically prohibited in the constitution.
Either way, someone is going to have their rights put aside in order to accomadate gay marriage.
and like I said, how long before churches are forced to comply? as far as how does gay marriage affect you, this is a good example.
At any rate, Its against my religion according to those in charge, however I would personally perform the marriage and be happy to do it for them.
but that is my personal choice.

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

if it violates someones constitutional rights, then yes.

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

And since the 14th says all people are to be treated equally, his ruling would have to be comparable to a ruling by an non animal judge.

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

does sharia law hold weight in the U.S?

 

[Skylar]

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

 

[RKMBrown]

What does marrying someone have to do with being a judge? Fix the duty assignments... no need to make Judges marry people.

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

 

[Brain357]

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

So he is like the Taliban.

If he was he would have tossed them off a roof top

I'm talking about what laws he is following, not the punishment. He is following religious laws like the Taliban.

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

 

[Skylar]

No, they didn't, but to increase our Tax burden through frivolous litigation based on the fallacy of appealing to the mases instead reason when ignoring our own laws. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

That's my question: whether or not imposing religious views using the power of the state violates constitutional rights.

Does it?

Why would it have to be 'comparable'? If he feels that ruling in a manner inconsistent with sharia was a violation of his religious views wouldn't that be more than adequate reasoning all by itself? I mean, its merely religious grounds.

The same grounds the judge in the OP is using.

So why can't Muslims use the State to impose Sharia on unwilling people on the basis of 'religious objections' too?

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

does sharia law hold weight in the U.S?

Its a religious belief. If religious beliefs hold weight in the US sufficient to allow a judge to impose their Christian values by the State, why wouldn't it be sufficient to allow a judge to impose their Muslim values by the State?

And for the 5th time: So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

If you don't know, just say so.