Discussion for article #240152
How are Huck and Ted going to stand with Vance and stand with Kim at the same time?
4 Likes
It’s really quite simple: If you don’t like the laws, get out of the legal business.
5 Likes
The big difference here, insofar as I can tell, is that this judge didn’t bar his staff from performing same-sex marriages. Now, if all of his staff also refuse to perform the marriages, then we’re back to the same arguments.
1 Like
Attorneys for anyone who had gay clients before his court will be looking at this to see if they can get cases thrown out and/or appeals filed.
25 Likes
The crazies are everywhere
2 Likes
A distinction without a difference, however. A judge is supposed to apply the law, not his own religious beliefs. This man is unqualified to be a judge.
18 Likes
So, he’s not required to perform marriages as part of his job, he jettisoned performing marriages altogether, and he’s identified other paths for local folks to take for their marriages. OK, for being a religious hard-liner, he’s at least not being a total dick about it. On the other hand, if a judge is willing to go this far for his religious beliefs when he thinks they’re in conflict with the law he’s supposed to be adjudicating, then where does it stop? What other dogmatic or theological issues are stewing in his head when he’s the arbiter of cases that are legally sound, but for his direction in court driven by his religion?
As a first step.
13 Likes
Judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages.
So, I’m confused…not that that’s unusual for me, but does this mean he’ll perform some marriages and not others, won’t perform any marriages, or there are other people available to conduct same-sex marriages in his County?
An even bigger difference is that here, in Oregon, we have anti-discrimination laws that our courts are actively enforcing. You may remember the recent judgement that an Oregon bakery was in violation of the anti-discrimination laws and was fined $135K for their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian couple:
I would reason that since the judge is a not a religious organization (the only exemption to the legislation that I’m aware of), he will be held accountable in the same manner as Sweet Cakes bakery.
4 Likes
Well, he’s trying to cover his butt by refusing to perform any marriages. But if he’s allowed to do this, what happens if all of the other judges in this jurisdiction make the same choice?
That’s the fundamental problem with all of these “well, you can be a refusenik, as long as there are others who will do their duty” solutions.
3 Likes
How many wives does this one have?
9 Likes
Saw this on the front page of the paper yesterday. Let the fucker burn.
2 Likes
The distinction has the practical difference in that people who want to get married there can while the judge sits on his hands–which is an improvement, though not a solution.
As I’ve commented in similar threads before, a major underlying problem with this issue is that people fail to make the distinction between secular (i.e., legal) marriage and religious marriage.
They are two separate things. You can have one, or you can have the other, or you can have both, but they will still remain two separate things.
A religious marriage is performed by a minister of some kind, and effects only religious things.
A secular marriage is performed by the state, and effects only secular things.
The marriages that crazy lady and this judge are concerned about are religious marriages, but they’re reacting by mistakenly agitating against secular marriages instead because they are terminally confused people.
1 Like
I think this argument is a red herring. As stated in the article, “Judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages.” Simply stated, in that jurisdiction, it is not part of their job. Performing marriages is voluntary. This is vastly different from a county clerk whose job it is to issue marriage licenses to legally qualified applicants, and cake bakers who are offering a public accommodation that includes baking wedding cakes. In the two latter cases, the individuals refusing service to gays & lesbians are clearly breaking the law while the Judge choosing not to perform marriages is not.
As for possible judicial bias, it is perfectly appropriate for the Commission on Judicial Fitness to investigate the judge on that issue. But remember, personal beliefs do not necessarily result in bias of judicial judgements. If we make that assumption, then the entire judicial system is a train wreck.
1 Like
As per usual the Right Wing.Scourge of the Earth…more Wars and Destruction and Death is attributed to their foulness.
But in this case, it clearly has. This judge’s personal beliefs have caused him to alter the way he carries out his functions.
1 Like
Entirely possible for the Judge to be allowed, under statute, the ability to not perform any marriages and, at the same time, to have violated the code of ethics. Just like a lawyer being legally permitted to be an asshole in court but become persona not grata to the local bar association.
4 Likes
I’m guessing that you didn’t read the entire story. It says quite clearly that the judge instructed his staff to turn away same-sex couples. How is that not discrimination based upon sexual preference?
“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.”
He’s a public official, ordering his staff to violate state law. He will rue the day he made that order, as righteous judgement of law befalls him. He could be disbarred, fined, and possibly sued in civil court, just the same as the bakery.
3 Likes
This from Wikipedia re Justice of the Peace Bardwell of Louisiana is a roadmap for Judge Day’s future:
In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Robert, Louisiana, Justice of the Peace, refused to officiate the civil wedding of an interracial couple because of his personal views; current state and federal laws have no restrictions against such a marriage in the United States.
The story was first publicized by newswriter Don Ellzey of the Daily Star (Hammond, Louisiana).[1] Within a day the story was on the front page of the New Orleans Times-Picayune and was circulated by the Associated Press.[2] Bardwell has asserted that he is not a racist and that he did not prevent the couple from obtaining a license from another justice of the peace. His action was widely criticized, and many public officials in Louisiana called for his resignation. He resigned on November 3, 2009.[3]
11 Likes