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.
This ought to be interesting. What makes it different from the Kentucky case is that there are other available judges in the county to provide the service and judges in the county are not required to perform marriages as part of their job.
Quote:
Spokesman Patrick Korten said Day instructed his staff to tell couples that the judge will not perform same-sex marriages. The staffers were instructed to refer same-sex couples to other Marion County judges willing to issue them a marriage license.
Korten said Day took the action based on his “deeply-held religious beliefs.”
“It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment,” Korten said.
Day hasn’t performed any same-sex marriages since he joined the bench in 2011, but only stopped doing marriages of any kind this past spring. Judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages, and Marion County’s website lists five active judges and one retired judge who are available for marriage ceremonies.
That decision led to an ethics investigation by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness, Korten said.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
This ought to be interesting. What makes it different from the Kentucky case is that there are other available judges in the county to provide the service and judges in the county are not required to perform marriages as part of their job.
Not a required part of his job. As long as he is not performing any marriages, he is not discriminating.
"In Marion County, judges are not required to perform marriages. Marion County's website lists five active judges and one retired judge who are available for ceremonies. Day is not on that list."
If other judges are available to perform marriages, I don't think there's a problem. I'm gay but I think the media blows these situations way out of proportion.
This ought to be interesting. What makes it different from the Kentucky case is that there are other available judges in the county to provide the service and judges in the county are not required to perform marriages as part of their job.
It shouldn't be interesting at all. So long as the judge opts out of all marriages, I don't see what the problem is, especially considering there are other judges in that area who are still willing to perform marriages.
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.
