This Gay Judge is Refusing to Perform Straight Marriages, No Jail Time - No Media Outrage
"Her refusal to marry people based on the fact that they were not homosexuals wasn’t backed by any faith based belief or anything other than a personal vendetta."
Now, this isn't someone not condoning a state license to wed, this is a judge who conducts the ceremony abusing her position.
This again underscores why the government should have no place in marriage.
Now, this isn't someone not condoning a state license to wed, this is a judge who conducts the ceremony abusing her position.
This again underscores why the government should have no place in marriage.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...government can afford to be hated, but it cannot afford to be ignored. And that my friends is exactly where it's headed. People will ultimately ever increasingly ignore the government.
Is this judge the only one in her jurisdiction who can perform civil marriages? Is she required by law to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone in her jurisdiction who requests it? Does she attempt to forbid or discourage other judges in her jurisdiction from performing non-gay marriages?
If the answer to these questions is “no”, then we are looking at apples and oranges.
But it doesn't explain why, for example, a private business is fined $35,0000 for refusing to bake a cake while this judge is ignored. That has also been part of the law, even though it should not be because it is unjustified control over private citizens choices and actions, no matter how onerous (such as privately practiced racism), with their own private property. The freedom of association denied to some is being relied on by this judge.
The confusion also illustrates the danger of relying on militant conservative sources like the article cited in this thread. It is not a news article, and shows no objectivity in describing the facts as it hysterically leads with its irrational conclusions burying the background, which was promoted here as a supposed serious question. It's another example of how 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are so often a false alternative.
She didn't refuse to marry "non homosexuals", she didn't perform any marriages at all. She did not do this out of a "personal vendetta", she did it to protest on behalf of her principle -- she was on 'strike'. Whether or not one agrees with her principle or protest, it doesn't matter that it wasn't "faith based", which is irrelevant to any rational consideration.
This is what she said herself http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-texas-ju... "I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality and until it does, I'm not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn't apply to another group of people". She said that her goal as a judge is to "make sure laws are applied equally to everyone who comes to court and that we take the opportunity to put issues on people's radar's that might not otherwise be there." Further, "I do not, and would never, impede any person's right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness".
The misleading and inflammatory article on which this thread was initially based is an unreliable account trying to drive people into a frenzy as militant activists try to emotionally stampede people into supporting their religious agenda, as is also revealed in the misleading heading "This Gay Judge is Refusing to Perform Straight Marriages, No Jail Time - No Media Outrage". It's also apparently why one of them 'down voted' my post above trying to set the record straight on the difference between the Kentucky clerk and the Texas judge.
The judge is not a problem any more than my refusing to marry a couple back in the day was a problem.
"The law says that a marriage is “not invalidated by the fact the person solemnizing the marriage was not legally qualified to solemnize it, if either party to the marriage believed him to be so qualified.”
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index...
However, the difference here is a couple does not have to get this judge to marry them, but theoretically, people do need a license to get married in Kent County. No one is compelled by this judge's behavior, but people are compelled by the Kent County clerk using her religious positions as executive powers.
A bakery was sued out of existence because they wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, and that was a private enterprise.
agree that the couples can go elsewhere but that loophole was not granted to the clerk in KY> We are rapidly descending into government sanctioned insanity . This ridiculous fool publicity hound is mocking America's judicial system from the inside. Where are the marshalls, lawyers and SCOTUS? If that bakery that was fined $130,000 for refusing to bake a cake, this jerk should pay at least a million. She obviously doesn't have time to marry everyone but she seems to have plenty of time for prejudice and bias and HATE>>>>
Omitted from the inflammatory and misleading article on which this thread is based trying to equate the two different cases, is that this second case in Texas occurred in 2012 and the judge who chose not to perform marriage ceremonies had the legal right not to do so: she said she would not perform any marriage ceremonies because same-sex marriages were not allowed at the time. This has nothing in common with the Davis case and Judge Parker in Texas was not defying the conservative "Law of the Land", only their rhetoric.
The Kim Davis defiance of the law is much more fundamental than a legal case. She is an hysterical "born again" religionist militantly trying to impose what she calls "Gods law", promoting religious faith and religious moral dogma both in ideology and politics, and demanding that her irrationalism be given a privileged position to redefine and impose law regardless of civil rights of other people who must rely on marriage licenses.
This idiot judge who refuses to marry straight couples is emblematic of just how insane our country has now become. The inmates are truly running the asylum!!!
All they have to do is change the terminology from marriage to contractual partnership or some such term and define the term marriage as a. what they want it to be and b. place it out of bounds.
Doesn't remove Article IV though.
Wasn't the whole initial point of all this to get medical benefits for AIDs victims. Same as gays in the military. I distinctly recall that from the early days of AIDs when the government decided not to declare it a controllable epidemic and thus sponsored it's rapid spread..