Squirrel!!? :)

Government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

yes, this was completely mis-represented. The whole push against gay marriage is such a side show. There are so many important problems to address in the US than that-for goodness sakes. You always have to snap your fingers in front of a Conservative and say "hey, over here-it's the economy, stupid." but no, this primary season will be riddled with dumb stuff like legislating morality-theirs.

The misleading article not only omitted the time period, but misrepresented what Judge Parker did and why under what different circumstances in 2012. More here on this page http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts.... The religious trolls here voted you down for your observation. Facts don't matter to them, they want a mob stampeded into the equivalent of a 'lynching'.

We are discussing a fallacious attempt to equate the Judge Parker case to Kim Davis. You don't get to tell other people what to write about. This is not a discussion of the bakery case, which has nothing to do with the controversy over ideologically motivated government officials behaving improperly in marriage processing. I have commented directly on the abuse of the bakery elsewhere in addition to alluding to it on this page http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts..., where I mistakenly gave the article this thread is based on too much benefit of the doubt and subsequently corrected that.

jabuttrick, my comment was addressed to ewv (sorry for the confusion), who in a previous post had his arms higher than Michael Brown [claimed] over Davis, yet a timid response with regard to the bakery case.

If you could see my arms you would note they are up. However, the baker case does not excuse Davis' behavior. She should do her job or resign.

No, the entire point here is to destroy the institutions that made America what it was. The intent is to re-define everything. This is the eternal dialectic - the eternal class struggle. Note, that even when class distinctions do not exist, they will be created. This is the lifeblood of the Party.

The Rainbow is now considered protected.

Of course, as you noted yourself, a bakery is not required to bake for anyone, yet it was. In all fairness, you did note that, but I don't see you infuriated and up in arms about it.

Looking into this farther it appears that the reason Judge Parker's choice was not legally challenged is that her protest consisted of choosing not to perform any marriage ceremonies, which she was not required to do, at a time when same-sex marriages were not allowed -- back in 2012 when this occurred. The quoted statement at the top of this thread is false: "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." Nor did she "abuse her position".

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.

Davis is not only required to issue the licenses according to law, as County Clerk she runs the department that is supposed to do so, among other management functions. She ordered the entire department to refuse to issue licenses she personally doesn't approve of -- specifically because of her religion. She was jailed when she refused to follow a court order to follow the law. She was released today under the condition that she cease interfering with the department's issuing legal marriage licenses. Bureaucrats do not make the law.

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.

more-so if true, since it shows which came first the chicken or the egg.

Judges, be they state or federal, are not "required by virtue of their positions to perform" marriages. As noted above, many go their entire career without ever marrying anyone. Most only marry close friends or relatives. They are able to perform the ceremony and sign the license as are virtually all clergy according to the applicable state statute but are not required to do so. Davis on the other hand is required to issue licenses.

"Government should have no place in marriage" -- or anything else except the protection of its citizens and providing courts.

There is no law compelling any to perform the marriage ceremony. In Illinois there has been no divorce or estate actions held in dispute form a self-solemnizing even of the marriage. The marriage license is the binding agreement that transfers legal obligations onto the parties having a distinction in such obligations from the marriage license being granted.

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...

Seems to me that this is no different than the Kim Davis case. Both are required by virtue of their positions to perform certain public duties and both are refusing. However, in the case of Davis, she is claiming abridgement of her First Amendment rights. This judge is merely being an activist and refusing to perform legal and lawful ceremonies according to the law of the land because the ones she favors have not yet been recognized.

I think one can only claim "prejudice" if they are considered a "protected group". Not sure if there is an actual, written list of "protected groups", or if case law simply establishes which "groups" are protected. Try not to hold me to that assessment. It's a guess at best. In terms of providing service or not: I suppose one can choose not to provide a service. But, if they give a reason that is considered biased, prejudice, etc, then they may be putting themselves through the gauntlet of laws and/or public opinion. If you are going to be outspoken about your reasons for decision making, then perhaps you should expect to encounter opposition from time to time. Otherwise, you could always just "not provide the service", and also not indicate a reason "why" you did "not provide the service". Not sure if that kind of view might advocate "unspoken prejudice" (people doing or not doing things for prejudice/racist reasons but never indicating those actual reasons). For me, this is what came to mind for this topic.

Perhaps a government should not issue a marriage license, but a court certainly has the power to enforce the resultant contract.

If that is true of Texas law and the role of judges in marriages there then it answers the question of why this case is not the same as the Kim Davis case -- where as a public official Davis refused to legally certify marriages under the requirements of her job as a public official and in defiance of a court order to do her government job in accordance with civil rights of private citizens. It shows why Davis is and should be in jail while this judge should not be.

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.

Ahhhh, the hippocracy of the new age, Alister Crowley, be what ever you will crowd of the left.

The judiciary from top to bottom is now infested with all kinds of miscreants from those who out and out reject the US Constitution to those who think that just because they were "appointed" they are now judge, jury and executioner!

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!!!

Since when? Discrimination is discrimination, even if Democrats do it. If this Judge??? marries anyone she is guilty of discrimination for not marrying all who request it and can not send people of different sexual preferences packing.

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>>>>

Agree a government should get out of marriage.

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.