In reading the comments on the pcmgazette page, someone pointed out this story was first brought to light in 2012, so is this story even relevant today?

CBJ, you are asking the correct question (twice). Unless Texas has some unusual statutory scheme there is no obligation for any judge to marry anyone. Many judges, state and federal, never conduct a marriage ceremony in their entire career. Others love doing it and marry hundreds of couples. Some limited jurisdiction judges conduct ceremonies during their lunch hours or after their daily duties are done. And they get paid extra for it. Most judges, however, perform marriages only for relatives or close friends. The bottom line is that there is no requirement or "duty" to perform marriages. It certainly is not part of the the job description and there is absolute discretion to not perform any marriage for any or no reason. Again, this is assuming there is nothing weird about Texas law. I'm guessing that if there were such a requirement in Texas it would have been mentioned in the article.

I'll ask again, "Is she required by law to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone in her jurisdiction who requests it?" If so, her situation and Kim Davis's are comparable. If not, not. Judges pick and choose all the time - for example, the Supreme Court chooses which cases it will hear. The question here is whether, as part of her job description, this judge does or does not have the discretion to decline to perform certain services for citizens who are legally eligible to receive them.

CBJ, any judge can perform civil ceremonies. She is also a government employee. From her statements it would appear that the 'judge' picks and chooses whom she marries in order to teach a lesson about equality under the law. If she wants to teach then she needs to be on the faculty of a law school. She is in her current position to adhere to and to uphold the law. According to your arguments, government employees are not allowed to pick and chose among those whom they are obligated by law to serve. [Well unless you somehow find judges to be 'above the law.' ] How bout them apples?

I could be mistaken, but as a youngster I was taught that the priest, minister, judge, mayor, tug boat captain, whatever doesn't marry a couple...they marry each other and the person officiating is the legally appointed official whose primary function is to be the state's witness as it were to validate the existence of the Legal fiction known as a marriage. Now it's been 50 years or so since I was told that, so I would like to know if that's still true.

I agree that government should have no place in marriage, but the two situations are not necessarily comparable.

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.

I respectfully disagree.

A bakery was sued out of existence because they wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, and that was a private enterprise.

They have a right to choose who to provide service to? Is this written in law? fact? I'm not arguing it just curious if this is fact or conjecture. It seems to me if your job is a judge to uphold the law and someone wants to be lawfully married then its your duty to do it. If you disagree with the law you are sworn to uphold its time to find a new job. Like I said i'm not disagreeing with you, I am ignorant to the rules of said position and am interested in learning more. If you could provide any reference it would be appreciated.

Pardon me but anyone licensed to do the marriage ceremony has every right to choose who to provide this service for. Ministers, judges, county clerks, whomever. It has been that way forever.

it's worse than a shame that there's no one who can or will knock some heads together and tell ALL of these showboating morons to stop the nonsense and get back to doing what they're being paid for!!! As far as marriage is concerned, it's government's place to record the marriage for legal reasons...inheritance, medical powers, etc and NOT to give or withhold permission!!!

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.