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.
Her "agenda driven behavior" is not anywhere near the judiciary. He ability to preform or not to preform civil marriages is not part of her judicial duties.
Is she or is she not a member of the judiciary? Is she or is she not using her position as a member of the judiciary to make a statement?
With regard to the statement regarding her ability and duty to perform civil marriages reference the portion of my post that you quoted which you opted to ignore.
the judge is a political activist and that is whats wrong with this judge. if she wants to change the laws run for office and stop hiding behind that black robe. the liberals don't have the backing of the American people. anything that is put to a popular vote they loose miserably. so liberal seek out judges like this fool of judge to over turn the will of the
people!!
Which is why we've always put civil liberties up for popular vote. I'm so glad women can't vote and blacks are second class citizens!
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
Is she or is she not a member of the judiciary? Is she or is she not using her position as a member of the judiciary to make a statement?
With regard to the statement regarding her ability and duty to perform civil marriages reference the portion of my post that you quoted which you opted to ignore.
Her legal standing has little to do with her ability to marry others. If a priest made the same claim, would you be deriding him or her for not allowing straight people to marry, claiming he's an activist abusing his power as a spiritual leader?
Is she or is she not a member of the judiciary? Is she or is she not using her position as a member of the judiciary to make a statement?
With regard to the statement regarding her ability and duty to perform civil marriages reference the portion of my post that you quoted which you opted to ignore.
Yes she's part of the judiciary (specifically a judge). Still, this is not part of her judiciary duties.
In Texas, and I believe in all 50 states, marriages licenses are issued by local government (county or perish clerks). The local government is charged with verifying that the application of marriage is valid. It's a bureaucratic job. To get married, I don't need a judge or minister. I can simply grab my mate, make sure we have our IDs, and go down to the county clerk's office to file the paperwork with a government employed desk jockey. That desk jockey verifies everything is in order and then gives us a marriage certificate.
All states allow for subcontracting of this work to a degree. They let certain other, trusted people do this work if they choose to do it (I see it as a convenience thing). All states let leaders of religious congregations do this kind of bureaucratic work if they choose. Just because a minister can, doesn't mean he has to. Most, if not all, states let judges do this kind of bureaucratic work too. Just because a judge can, doesn't mean he has to. Some states even let notary publics do this. They to are not bound by duty to do it. Hell, in some states I think anybody take take a test and if passed is allowed to oversee a civil marriage.
Question: If a minister oversees a civil marriage, does that mean minister a judicial position?
If a priest made the same claim, would you be deriding him or her for not allowing straight people to marry, claiming he's an activist abusing his power as a spiritual leader?
Is a priest occupying a public office or being paid by the public?
Yes she's part of the judiciary (specifically a judge). Still, this is not part of her judiciary duties.
In Texas, and I believe in all 50 states, marriages licenses are issued by local government (county or perish clerks). The local government is charged with verifying that the application of marriage is valid. It's a bureaucratic job. To get married, I don't need a judge or minister. I can simply grab my mate, make sure we have our IDs, and go down to the county clerk's office to file the paperwork with a government employed desk jockey. That desk jockey verifies everything is in order and then gives us a marriage certificate.
All states allow for subcontracting of this work to a degree. They let certain other, trusted people do this work if they choose to do it (I see it as a convenience thing). All states let leaders of religious congregations do this kind of bureaucratic work if they choose. Just because a minister can, doesn't mean he has to. Most, if not all, states let judges do this kind of bureaucratic work too. Just because a judge can, doesn't mean he has to. Some states even let notary publics do this. They to are not bound by duty to do it. Hell, in some states I think anybody take take a test and if passed is allowed to oversee a civil marriage.
Question: If a minister oversees a civil marriage, does that mean minister a judicial position?
Does the minister collect a public salary? Is the minister employed by the people in a position that requires them to exercise impartial judgment? Are the parishioners that contribute to pay that minister's salary coerced to make those contributions by the threat of seizure of their property should they decline to contribute?
Does the minister collect a public salary? Is the minister employed by the people in a position that requires them to exercise impartial judgment?
You're attempting to compare apples and oranges.
No I'm not. Basically, a judge/minister is afforded the option to oversee marriages during his or her own private time. Personally, I'd have a problem with a judge who did so while on the clock - especially if that judge charged a fee. I've only been to one wedding that was presided over by a judge. The judge came to the wedding hall (and I believe charged a fee).
Ask yourself this: What is the judiciary? What do judges do?
Judges apply laws to cases. Marriages aren't cases. Regardless of who does the work - a minister, a judge, a county clerk desk jockey, a notary public, me after registering with the state to do so - overseeing the filing of a civil marriage is not related to judiciary duties.
Whether a judge, for whatever reason, chooses to preform civil marriages or not, does not reflect on that judge's job as a judge. It's not a judiciary task or duty. They are completely unrelated. You're the one comparing apples to Cadillacs.
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.
