As a gay male, I have to say this case is entirely different than the clerk’s case. The article says that judges in Oregon are not legally required to perform marriages; therefore, the judge is not denying any one equality before the law. The is a difference between being legally qualified to marry two people and being legally required to do so. Yes, I would hope a judge would be able to put his beliefs aside in this case, but I don’t think he should be required to do so. Davis, one the other hand, refused to issue licenses that people were legally entitled to and refused to let her subordinates do so in her place. Think about it. If you were a judge who had the authority to marry Kim Davis and her probable fifth husband at some point in the future, would you want to be required to do so?
On the question of the investigation, I would be surprised if a 13 count ethics complaint revolves around his refusal to marry people. I may be wrong, but it seems far more likely that some friend or supporter of the judge has floated that story to build public support for him in the upcoming hearing.
This is just fu*king infuriating, and not for the same reasons that put Kim Davis in jail. Judicial miscreant Vance Day is glaringly and obviously nothing more than a greedy publicity and media whore. He made a statement that he won’t perform same sex marriages even though he’s not required to perform ANY frackin’ marriages.
And reports are that he’s set up a “legal-defense fund” i.e. slush fund. Seem to be working like a charm for him so far. Religious zelots, bigots and Fundie scum (sorry, I repeat myself) are evidently ready to rush forward for $$$Martyrdom for Money$$$…more to come. Count on it.
If judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages, he could hardly be being investigated for refusing to perform gay marriages.
The investigation must be about something else.
If the article is correct, performing marriages is not a required duty of his position (or of any other judges). So it’s conceivable that they all could stop doing marriages at any time, for any reason or no reason.
If the duty is optional, and he’s opting out for some personal reason, I have no problem with it (I mean, besides completely disagreeing with his “deeply-held religious belief”). I think the point made above by Lestatdelc, about reviewing this judge’s decisions in any GLBT cases, is a good one.
Your wording isn’t great there. The way it reads, if I have a religious marriage, it doesn’t count if I want to file taxes jointly, and if I have a secular (civil) marriage, it doesn’t count if I want my kid baptized. They don’t work that way.
The argument breaks down with the judge is not required to perform a marriage meme. I’m not sure where that comes from, but the article could very well be wrong for the reasons that follow. It is NOT different than the Kentucky case, because the couple are entitled to a marriage license by law. If the couple has a distaste for having a religious person perform the marriage and want a strictly secular wedding, then they are being denied their right not to have someone make then embrace a religion just to get married. In other words, a gay person doesn’t have a right to be an atheist when getting married. Just referring gay and lesbian people to other judges isn’t an option, if he performs or has performed even ONE heterosexual couple, because he is denying them a right that they are legally entitled to and that is a distinction that is no longer allowed. Thus he is treating some people differently, based on an impermissible distinction of a suspect classification.
by doing this he is, of course, in violation of said 1A, as is Kim Davis, the KY county court clerk. they have both established, by their inactions, a gov’t religion. the judge might be able to get away with it, since he’s chosen to perform no marriages, and this isn’t a part of his regular duties.
Well yeah, but then what? Say I want to get married. My partner and I get a marriage license. But until someone performs some kind of ceremony, it’s not official. I’m an atheist, so getting a “man of the cloth” to sprinkle some fairy dust over us is not an option. There’s no judge who will perform the ceremony. Apparently, I can’t get married. How is this not a violation of my Constitutional rights?
I’d like to see marriage dealt with as a purely secular matter. If you get a marriage license from the county clerk, you’re married. That’s it. If you want to have some sort of church service, that’s fine, but it has no legal force or effect. It should be like getting a driver’s license - once you have the license in your hot little hands, you can drive. You don’t have to have someone conduct a ceremony, welcoming you into the brotherhood of road warriors.
