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.
The legal question is whether judges are assigned marriage duties as a part of their role that they accept when they are sworn in, or is it simply a role that they can accept if they choose to. It's a critical difference for a public official. A county clerk has an assigned role to issue marriage licenses. If a judge is assigned that role, then I would think he would be required to perform his duties or be removed from the bench. If it is merely an option that he may choose to exercise, then he would not be required to perform it if he chose not to do so.
Some of us who are conservative by nature get pretty turned off by the antics of most of our fellow conservatives when it comes to religion and human equality. I like to call it Evolved Conservatism (™)
Ah, at last, someone on the "right" who isn't simply regurgitating propaganda. Trust me in that I know not all conservatives are "wing nuts." Unfortunately, however, the loudest ones usually are, and they leave a bad taste in the mouths of staunch liberals like myself.
Yet even I hold some conservative viewpoints, meaning there is never any such thing as being completely at odds.
Unfortunately, there are those who bring religion into the political arena -- not that long ago, Trump was ranting about how we know very little about Hillary's religious beliefs.
And I'm thinking ... so what? Only the wingnuts think it's important. The last time I checked, there are no religious tests to hold the office of POTUS and I'm certainly not voting for a Pope. G.W. Bush managed to get elected in 2004 at the eleventh hour thanks to his unconstitutional promises to the wingnuts (fundamentalists and evangelicals) concerning abortion and gay marriage -- and then G.W. Bush promptly ignored them once he was elected. (LOL!) The moral of the story is that religion shouldn't be a big issue during elections but it has gotten that way of late and, to tell the truth, that (in addition to the SSM issue) is what brought me out of my apathetic slumber regarding religion.
I have no quarrel with sane conservatives even if we don't agree on everything. I just wish there were more sane conservatives policing their own ranks on boards like this one.
The legal question is whether judges are assigned marriage duties as a part of their role that they accept when they are sworn in, or is it simply a role that they can accept if they choose to. It's a critical difference for a public official. A county clerk has an assigned role to issue marriage licenses. If a judge is assigned that role, then I would think he would be required to perform his duties or be removed from the bench. If it is merely an option that he may choose to exercise, then he would not be required to perform it if he chose not to do so.
Well, I think the bottom line is that, while the law itself is unclear as to whether judges are assigned marriage duties HAVE to officiate over gay weddings, there is one thing that is very clear:
Judges are required to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct -- and that means they must discharge their duties, including officiating over weddings, without bias or prejudice.
IF judges must perform marriages, they have to perform ALL marriages. They can't pick and choose, electing to marry straight people but not gay people since that would be a clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
However, I'm fairly certain that judges and justices are not actually required to officiate over weddings. I'm fairly certain they simply have the legal authority to do so ... but it is still their choice whether to do so or not.
Which means that a judge or justice will have to decide to either perform no weddings or perform all weddings. Regardless of anything else, he/she cannot pick and choose which legal marriages over which to officiate.
The legal question is whether judges are assigned marriage duties as a part of their role that they accept when they are sworn in, or is it simply a role that they can accept if they choose to. It's a critical difference for a public official. A county clerk has an assigned role to issue marriage licenses. If a judge is assigned that role, then I would think he would be required to perform his duties or be removed from the bench. If it is merely an option that he may choose to exercise, then he would not be required to perform it if he chose not to do so.
Great analysis. I hold to the position that it is not an assigned role, and that he has the right to pick and choose whomever he wants to marry for any reason. That means that he can reject hetero couples if he feels that it's not one he wants to be a part of, as well as same-gender couples.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Ah, at last, someone on the "right" who isn't simply regurgitating propaganda. Trust me in that I know not all conservatives are "wing nuts." Unfortunately, however, the loudest ones usually are, and they leave a bad taste in the mouths of staunch liberals like myself.
Yet even I hold some conservative viewpoints, meaning there is never any such thing as being completely at odds.
Unfortunately, there are those who bring religion into the political arena -- not that long ago, Trump was ranting about how we know very little about Hillary's religious beliefs.
And I'm thinking ... so what? Only the wingnuts think it's important. The last time I checked, there are no religious tests to hold the office of POTUS and I'm certainly not voting for a Pope. G.W. Bush managed to get elected in 2004 at the eleventh hour thanks to his unconstitutional promises to the wingnuts (fundamentalists and evangelicals) concerning abortion and gay marriage -- and then G.W. Bush promptly ignored them once he was elected. (LOL!) The moral of the story is that religion shouldn't be a big issue during elections but it has gotten that way of late and, to tell the truth, that (in addition to the SSM issue) is what brought me out of my apathetic slumber regarding religion.
I have no quarrel with sane conservatives even if we don't agree on everything. I just wish there were more sane conservatives policing their own ranks on boards like this one.
To steal a euphemism, "Lord knows I've tried".
Most of my fellow conservatives have accused me of being a socialist, a commie, a ******* and similar epitaphs. They do not recognized how ignorant their rantings make them sound. I've learned long ago one can't fight emotions with reason, and that is why you get fundies and wing-nuts like those who follow the Trumps of this world, who have excelled in tying into that emotional reactive mind.
It gets tough having a rational and intellectual conversation with the emotional skewed cohort of the population.
402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue.No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued bythe clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female iseighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her applicationin person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.Effective: July 13, 1984History: Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14. --Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1. -- Recodified 194
[LEFT]Solemnization refers to the performance of a formal marriage ceremony before witnesses. In other words, it is the public performance of a sacrament or solemn ceremony with all appropriate rituals.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]For all who may solemnize, it is the ceremony. Those who are authorized ARE NOT ACTING IN A 'LEGAL CAPACITY'.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Do ministers, priests, rabbis have legal/public, positions. Categorically NO.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]See the bold above for the actual legal capacity. That is why Kim Davis got in trouble.
[/LEFT]
Its obvious the entire KRS state of 402 was only read by me, probably because I live here, and probably because I read CFR regulations all day long. The opinions people are countering with are to validate a slanted website, FFRF.
Legally, that cite didn't bother to read KRS Statutes, or even the definition of the word solemnization.
People are free to make fun of this judge, I have 0 issue with that. I actually think he is making a fool of himself. BUT LEGALLY, he has every right NOT to perform a ceremonial position when the legal granting of marriage status SOLELY COMES FROM THE COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE IN THIS STATE.
Some common sense things to think of:
1. Those performing the ceremony, if they were acting in a public position, how do residents of one state, or country for that matter, elope in Vegas? They don't. They apply back in their state of residence where the official in charge of granting the legal status is.
2. I was married by some New Age crazy lady my ex wife found down on Venice Beach, FL. You would think that those out of state would recognize that those in state may actually know how their laws operate.
3. And for the love of pete, when people read Fed and State Statutes, read the whole thing. It may be boring but they usually explain themselves....
Well, I think the bottom line is that, while the law itself is unclear as to whether judges are assigned marriage duties HAVE to officiate over gay weddings, there is one thing that is very clear:
Judges are required to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct -- and that means they must discharge their duties, including officiating over weddings, without bias or prejudice.
IF judges must perform marriages, they have to perform ALL marriages. They can't pick and choose, electing to marry straight people but not gay people since that would be a clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
However, I'm fairly certain that judges and justices are not actually required to officiate over weddings. I'm fairly certain they simply have the legal authority to do so ... but it is still their choice whether to do so or not.
Which means that a judge or justice will have to decide to either perform no weddings or perform all weddings. Regardless of anything else, he/she cannot pick and choose which legal marriages over which to officiate.
In this particular case, the judge is willing to perform the ceremony. However, he insists he will reference "God", even though the couple in question have stated they want a secular ceremony not a religious one.
The linked article says he told them to find another officiant. But, they didn't really "find" him. They merely went to the county clerk's office to arrange their ceremony and filled out the appropriate paperwork.
Great analysis. I hold to the position that it is not an assigned role, and that he has the right to pick and choose whomever he wants to marry for any reason. That means that he can reject hetero couples if he feels that it's not one he wants to be a part of, as well as same-gender couples.
But it's a branch of public government. What other public services should be optional on the part of the government employee? It seems to me that if a couple go to the county clerk's office, fill out their paperwork and pay their fees, the county clerk's office needs to provide them an officiant for their ceremony. They should not be told "no" anymore than they should be told "no" if they pay to have their garbage collected, their dog licensed, or any other service provided by local government.
But it's a branch of public government. What other public services should be optional on the part of the government employee? It seems to me that if a couple go to the county clerk's office, fill out their paperwork and pay their fees, the county clerk's office needs to provide them an officiant for their ceremony. They should not be told "no" anymore than they should be told "no" if they pay to have their garbage collected, their dog licensed, or any other service provided by local government.
I put the law up there for you.
Those who 'solemnize' a marriage are merely performing the ceremony. That's it.
The county clerks in the state of KY are those who actually legalize a marriage.
Judges, RETIRED JUDGES, justice of the peace, any ordained minister of any denomination or religion, pagans... all you have to do is apply. It's a private thing. All legalities are done by the county clerks office... hence why Kim Davis got in trouble.
Read the article, but if you want the legalities of why this judge came out this way, read the KRS Statutes, starting on 402.05.
I can apply to solemnize a wedding and then conduct the wedding any way I want. It's akin to going to Vegas and getting married by Elvis.
Great analysis. I hold to the position that it is not an assigned role, and that he has the right to pick and choose whomever he wants to marry for any reason. That means that he can reject hetero couples if he feels that it's not one he wants to be a part of, as well as same-gender couples.
Cool! You mean like a cafeteria christian? He can "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible he wants to follow? You betcha! By golly gosh darn.
Now he can refuse to marry black and white couples, or any other couple he deems offensive. Kind of like the way you pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow.
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.
You betcha! By golly gosh darn. 
