Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Conduct Marriage Ceremonies for Straight Couples Until Same-Sex Couples Can Also Wed
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've slapped yourself in the head a few too many times.
I know what she's doing isn't illegal.
She has chosen to refuse to perform a voluntary function because in her opinion the function supports an unequal, unconstitutional application of the law. She disagrees with the political decision and the courts' failure to recognize gay marriage in Texas. ok so far ?
In my opinion, this is the same as a judge who'd refuse to voluntarily perform gay marriages because they disagree with a court decision that forces it on a state. Or refuse to marry cousins if a law passed allowing it.
You choose to focus on the way she's protesting a law she doesn't like. I'm focusing on why she's protesting in the 1st place.
That's not really an apt analogy. It'd be the same a judge refusing to voluntarily preform gay marriages in a state where straight marriages were illegal and only gay marriages were illegal.
You've slapped yourself in the head a few too many times.
I know what she's doing isn't illegal.
She has chosen to refuse to perform a voluntary function because in her opinion the function supports an unequal, unconstitutional application of the law. She disagrees with the political decision and the courts' failure to recognize gay marriage in Texas. ok so far ?
In my opinion, this is the same as a judge who'd refuse to voluntarily perform gay marriages because they disagree with a court decision that forces it on a state. Or refuse to marry cousins if a law passed allowing it.
You choose to focus on the way she's protesting a law she doesn't like. I'm focusing on why she's protesting in the 1st place.
And I guarantee you almost every Conservative in this thread would have absolutely no problem with a judge refusing to marry a gay couple if it were legal. They would call it upholding solid morals.
It's only judicial activism when it challenges conservative viewpoints.
That's not really an apt analogy. It'd be the same a judge refusing to voluntarily preform gay marriages in a state where straight marriages were illegal and only gay marriages were illegal.
I'll try this way. A judge believes it's unconstitutional to forbid cousins from marrying and disagrees with the state law prohibiting cousins marrying. She decides not to perform any marriages.
I can understand why some people will wonder if the judge is right to base her decision solely on personal views of the law's equity.
After watching the video, Judge Parker sounds smart, funny, sensible, and fair. However, I think it's ok to discuss the role a judge's personal opinions have on their performing, or not, judicial functions, even voluntary ones.
I'll try this way. A judge believes it's unconstitutional to forbid cousins from marrying and disagrees with the state law prohibiting cousins marrying. She decides not to perform any marriages.
I can understand why some people will wonder if the judge is right to base her decision solely on personal views of the law's equity.
I don't see why it would be a problem at all, because she's being morally consistent. At least she's not conferring favor on one group over another. (Such as if gay marriage were legal and she decided to only marry gay people. Or only straight people because she was against gay marriage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
After watching the video, Judge Parker sounds smart, funny, sensible, and fair. However, I think it's ok to discuss the role a judge's personal opinions have on their performing, or not, judicial functions, even voluntary ones.
What if she just didn't believe in marriage at all, for anyone? The key is the discretionary part, IMO. It'd be a much different conversation if it was a mandated part of her job.
I'll try this way. A judge believes it's unconstitutional to forbid cousins from marrying and disagrees with the state law prohibiting cousins marrying. She decides not to perform any marriages.
I can understand why some people will wonder if the judge is right to base her decision solely on personal views of the law's equity.
After watching the video, Judge Parker sounds smart, funny, sensible, and fair. However, I think it's ok to discuss the role a judge's personal opinions have on their performing, or not, judicial functions, even voluntary ones.
It isn't. He's just saying that because he doesn't agree with Tonya Parker's decision and has no liable argument in a case that has already been justified time and again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
