Some people predicted this was coming.
A judge in Texas says that she doesn’t have to perform weddings for same-sex couples, citing the recent Supreme Court case which granted an evangelical web designer the right to refuse service to same-sex couples because gay marriage runs contrary to her Christian values.
Judge Dianne Hensley says the ruling legally justifies her refusal to perform same-sex weddings, but critics say she needs to follow the law and perform her job duties.
One thing that people can agree on: this is likely only the beginning of cases that will cite the controversial Supreme Court ruling to justify denying service to the LGBTQ community on religious grounds.
A Real Tex Mess
Judge Hensley has been in a years-long battle with the state of Texas over whether she, as a public official whose job duties include performing marriages at the courthouse, has to actually perform said marriages.
She claims that, as a judge, being forced to sign off on same-sex marriages violates her Christian beliefs.
The state argues that whether she approves or disapproves of the union at hand is entirely irrelevant; part of her job duties as a judge is officiating weddings, and same-sex marriage is legal – so performing the wedding is not optional.
Judge Hensley has since submitted a brief arguing that the Court's recent decision siding with the Christian web designer vindicates her entirely. Citing her “sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage,” it reads, “[the Supreme Court] rejects the idea of a ‘compelling interest’ in forcing wedding vendors to participate in same-sex and opposite-sex marriage ceremonies on equal terms.”
The judge seems to think the law is on her side, but is it?
Judge Not?
In 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct warned Judge Hensley that refusing to perform same-sex marriages for couples at the courthouse showed a bias which could damage “her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.”
She has reportedly tried to pass off her responsibilities to perform same-sex weddings on the bench to other judges in her district. However, Texas law holds that all judges are required to engage in certain “extra-judicial activities,” which often includes performing weddings at the courthouse.
Many legal experts aren’t buying what Hensley is selling. They point out that the recent Supreme Court case involved a web designer – a position that isn't exactly equivalent with a member of the judiciary.
“The service in [Hensley’s] case is the service of a government official, so if 303 Creative had involved that government denying services to a same-sex couple, then that’d be a very different case,” argues Dale Carpenter, chair of constitutional law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law. “I don’t think 303 helps the judge’s case at all.”
"The Law of the Land"
Other critics point out that same-sex marriage has explicit legal protections, thanks to the Court's landmark 2015 decision.
“The law of the land is marriage equality. It’s as simple as that,” said Johnathan Gooch, a spokesperson for Equality Texas. “If judges and justices of the peace were empowered to only enforce the laws that they agreed with, we would quickly descend into anarchy.”
Nevertheless, some LGBTQ activists fear that Texas courts could actually uphold the judge’s views, despite the shaky legal logic, potentially severely limit the rights of same-sex couples to marry – particularly those in rural areas.
What do you think? Should religious judges be allowed to pick and choose their duties based on their religious affiliation?
Or do legal protections around marriage equality override individual religious beliefs?
213 comments
-
Catherine
A judge is a public servant, not a business owner.
-
Noe Domingo Martinez
As much as I hate to say this, but I agree with you.
-
-
Gary Leu
This is ridiculous. The level of egocentrism of this judge’s argument is astounding. It’s either, “I don’t want to have do something that professionally and ethically I promised to do, just because my particular extreme view of a religion and I refuse to even consider that I might be wrong, and it makes me feel kinda uncomfortable if I do it.” Or, it’s a conscious political effort to undermine and outwardly defy something you personally don’t like. Either way it just reflects the narcissistic self importance of the opinion.
She could use her Christian faith to make the opposite argument and in my opinion would better reflect the Christian message. Jesus told us, sorry you don’t get to judge others, in fact you must serve them generously and love them as well as anyone you love. We’re supposed to forgive everyone, including our worst enemies. If we are his followers we’ll look after others, especially what some consider the least of us. Be giving, charitable, and loving. I think that someone is “loving” when the other person feels loved. This is why I despise the silliness of “love the sinner, hate the sin” when applied to these situations. The “sinner” most often doesn’t feel loved at all, just rejected.
The point is that she gets to interpret her faith the way she CHOOSES. Other’s rights shouldn’t be impinged upon because you chose an extreme position, and could very well be wrong. My opinion of Jesus is that two women wanting to love each other for the rest of their lives would be infinitely less worrisome that all the destruction brought about by the actions of those who oppose their very existence.
Grow up, get over yourself, and do the job…or quit.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Well writ.
-
Pastor George Day
Gary Leu, she has a right to her opinion. But I agree with you, she needs to discern what her professional position demands.
-
-
Pastor Jim
Elected officials and public service employees are bond by law to serve the public, which includes LGB individuals. This does not apply to private businesses. Any public official or public employee should find another job if the cannot serve the public in lawful transactions.
-
Russel A. Kester
I'm going with LGB henceforth because it's time for a divorce from the T. A person with male genetalia who claims to be a woman and has sex with a woman doesn't fit in with the LGB team. As many in the larger society have made clear, LGB is about sex and sexual attraction, but T is about gender.
-
Pastor Jim
Yeah, Russel, it's looking like the "T"s are suffering more from mental health issues about wanting to be the gender they are not.. No disrespect intended but I'm sure there will be those that choose to be offended.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Ignorance, especially willfully damaging ignorance, is offensive.
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/
-
Pastor Jim
Then choose to be offended with my blessing. I don't share the same opinion as you. Get over it, buttercup. Lol
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Do you always take joy in bigotry and prejudice?
LOL.
-
Rev Mark D
Anderson, I would report you if I could because I think your comments are way over the line and fully inappropriate. I suspect you were the kind of person that Custer is referring to about those extremist people. You really go for character assassination don't you? Where are the moderators, asleep or one of your radical flock?
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
The name is "Sanderson".
And you don't like what I say? You think I should be silenced?
This is for posterity, so please try to be honest...
What do you think this says about you?
-
Rev Mark D
Your ad hominems convict you. As people realize it, your voice will silence itself via all the auto self destruct you include. So, since you seem to be addicted to your own voice and screams...scoff and provoke all you like, my guess is that actual people do not hear you.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Do you feel that I have insulted you?
I certainly apologize if you do, but please, read my comments more carefully. What if I was to tell you I didn't judge the offender, I judge the offense. Would that make you feel better?
How about if you give me something specific? Then we could talk about it. I'm sure this is all just a big misunderstanding. I am positive that once I am able to give context and fully explain, you will feel silly at having assumed the worst of me.
What do you say?.
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, I'm not sure what in the posts just above caused you to use the term ignorance or a link to the Trevor project. The discussion was about an issue that is finally being addressed by the LGB community at large that the TQIAA+ people have hijacked the leaderships of the organizations started by the LGB community and it's way past time to separate the two. That's not ignorance, it's a long overdue acknowledgement. Many, including me, do not agree with the TQIAA+ community or their actions. They are guilty of trying to indoctrinate children and the LGB community is being blamed. I'm over them.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Because you're "not sure" about something isn't justification for bigotry and prejudice.
That you're "not sure" about something is a pretty close definition of ignorance.
That the "TQIAA+ community" are "indoctrinating children" is a right-wing propaganda standard. There is NO actual proof of this.
That gay marriage is invalidating and cheapening hetero marriage is also a right-wing propaganda standard. Picking and choosing are we?
-
Pastor Jim
Lol
-
Pastor George Day
Pastor Jim, instead of laughing, have you thought of thanking God, he didn't give you this struggle in life? It's called humility and charity for those, like us, who do.
-
Rev Mark D
Yes george, I know that the people like you who know everything, and discount everybody else, you find the rest of humanity irritating. I'm sure you will find that your time here, which you can never get back, is well spent on people who can never benefit from your wisdom.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Russel A. Kester I totally see your point and it makes full sense to me as a gay man.
-
Russel A. Kester
Thank you.
-
-
Rev Mark D
I suspect Kenneth is one of those people you were talking about. Anybody who isn't in his power rhetoric and propaganda group does not qualify as humane, I'm afraid. I think he's part of a specific agenda extreme power group, so you need to know that in order to not misunderstand his point...you're not going to convince him of anything, just look at the extreme nature of his comments and the truth shall make itself known. Just is what it is.
-
-
Pastor George Day
From firsthand experience, as a non-binary conservative minister, I have to say that what you say is reasonable, Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Pastor Jim, this may be your opinion, but with respect you aren't a medical doctor - unless I am mistaken in my assumption. I have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and from my medical history I have no sign of mental illness. This touches other aspects of the human person, which has been classified of late as gender identity. I agree this is inaccurate - because it isn't an identity but a wound. Yet, I'm sorry, it also isn't mental illness. I used to work with mentally ill patients. I know what that looks like.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Russel A. Kester, not that this changes much. It's still a wound, or - if you don't like this definition - it's still not normal. I have gender dysphoria, and I am of the same opinion as Nicol Gibson, who is a trans woman. Google her :-)
-
Russel A. Kester
Pastor Day, I'm so glad to see your posts to me. I have a wild theory about why people might be experiencing gender dysphoria based on my own metaphysical beliefs. Here goes, I suspect souls might be basically male or female (this comes from Plato) and if a predominantly female sole reincarnates into a male body, them it's like, 'whoa, what's this?' I think there might be a reason the soul decided to choose a male body this time which could be different for different people, but that's my current theory.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
What you are describing is a literal transgenderism, where a 'soul' is literally born in a body of the opposite sex to the body.
While I can neither agree nor disagree with your theory, I will point out that it only legitimizes the transgender condition. Have you thought of that? By your own theory, the transgender condition is completely real.
My personal response to any theory of transgenderism is that it doesn't matter. It simply is not my business to dictate to anybody else how to live their life. Gay, straight, lesbian, trans, all shades and combinations - as long as they are hurting nobody else, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
Transgenderism is a medical condition in that it is treatable to ease the condition. People can lead a full happy productive life AS LONG AS they are allowed to. There is NO GOOD REASON for not allowing it - for dictating to anybody else how to live their life.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/transgender-facts/art-20266812
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/transgender-facts/art-20266812
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, I do hope we get to hear back from Pastor Day. To respond to your comments, yes, my theory does make trans persons experiences real experiences, but a spiritual condition not necessarily a medical one. I also stated that the soul chose to be reincarnated into a body different than itself for a reason. It could be that in past lives the soul was terribly antagonistic toward men and the heavenly administration decided it would be good for it to experience life as a male to help with that problem. If so, then changing it's life experience as a man would defeat the purpose of the incarnation and cause it to have to relive it again in another body until the life lesson is learned. Heaven is patient.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
That transgenderism is a medical condition isn't just my opinion. As the link states, it is a medical FACT.,
And Spirit has its own agenda. Your interpretation is one view - but don't forget, it's a shared universe. What I do can affect you, and what you do can affect me. Maybe we are seeing so many trans people right now because there are so many prejudiced and bigoted people who need to learn not to be. Ever think of that?
I keep saying it over and over, and nobody ever has anything to say about it. The universe is bigger than me. Most people will agree with that - but have you considered what that actually means? Have you ever experienced it?
Because it's there. ALWAYS.
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, I don't agree that transgenderism is a medical fact in the sense that cancer is a medical fact. It does seem to be an issue that psychology might work with. Or a spiritual condition worthy of exploration. I stated clearly upfront that what I said was my theory, not divine truth from God's mouth to my ear. I then used the theory to explore how it could be interpreted. But I did so without telling others that they were wrong. As for why we're seeing more trans persons, I've been doing a little research and am working on a theory for that as well which I hope to share with a more appropriate post than this one. I don't dismiss your theory out of hand, but suspect it needs more work.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
So you are thinking perhaps we can just pray the trans away? Interesting.
And, no offence, but I'm going to trust the opinion of the medical community over yours about this. It's just something I do.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+
-
ServantOfJudgement
Work informed me today it's lgbttqiaa++. I think I've got like 68 genders to read up on.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
If you want. However, the overwhelming likelihood is that no genders new to you will ever have any contact with you - especially after you voice your opinions.
You can relax SOJ. You're safe.
-
Pastor George Day
SOJ??
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
For clarity, I often include the initials of who I am replying to.
-
-
-
Pastor Jim
You call it what you want to call it and I'll do the same. We still have a 1st Amendment you know.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Yes, that's right - YOU define humanity, and anybody who doesn't listen to you deserves what they get. After all, what could they possibly know that you do not?
-
Pastor Jim
I define humanity for myself and I share my take on that definition. I've lived long enough that I believe I can think independently and draw conclusions that serve me. What? You believe that anyone who doesn't think what you think is ignorant? Hmmm.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
I believe the universe is bigger than me.
Other people seem VERY satisfied that what they think defines the universe.
You're free to define what ignorance is to you.
-
-
-
-
Mark Gilgen
There is only 2 read your Bible
-
Lionheart
I have other books of fiction that I can recommend that are a much better read, and they are suitable for children as well.
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, how about the Book of Mormon? :-)
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Hey Mark, your Bible is a huge pile of rotted obsolete garbage. There’s more books out there. I’ve read them. They’re better at explaining reality. An it’s more complicated than your two genders nonsense.
-
Pastor George Day
Robert James Ruhnke, I am a transgender person by birth. Yet, my biology tells me that I can still impregnate an assign-at-birth female, not a male. What do you call that?
-
-
-
-
Pastor George Day
Some people are non-binary, and this includes those, like me, with gender dysphoria, and those who are intersex. One is emotional, the other biological. They are both medical conditions that cannot be cured but treated in several ways. The LGBT community is simply strumentalizing scientific fact for their own political purposes. By the way, I'm not a member of the political, campaigning LGBT community because it stands against my Christian principles.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Lol a living straw person stooge. Fascinating. You would gladly see your own community be butchered by your reich wing cohorts, just because you can’t break the chains of the superstition you were shamed and manipulated into. Which would explain your obsolete perspectives on politics.
-
-
-
-
Asa William Sprague, II
28 U.S.C. § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
If she took such an oath, she is either a liar, a fraud and or an oath-breaker: none of which are considered good Christian principles.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I'd like to hold all of our elected officials to their oath or be fired. The entire government would be cleared out by noon.
-
Rev Mark D
"...The entire government would be cleared out by noon."
And that's just the problem, isn't it?
-
ServantOfJudgement
D
Yes, it's a big problem. Antifa would love it but I like hot water and fresh food. Electing honorable people is the best way forward.
-
Rev Mark D
SOJ, I don't think that honorable people is what we are served up by the parties. Remember the parties control who we get to vote for. It's not really a choice. The political parties who control who gets to be elected or not honorable people, on the whole. We sleep with dogs. When you sleep with dogs you get up with fleas.
-
Pastor George Day
SOJ??
-
ServantOfJudgement
SOJ=Me
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
You know what, recently I saw a video of a book excerpt, both by the author, noted economist Thomas Sowell. He goes into some detail to state that the nature of politicians is such that you don't get honorable people. So he thinks that it is for the most part not possible to get honorable people as legislators and politicians. Thus we have to do something different or around them or despite them because they're not going to change.
-
-
-
-
Rev. Mike Eggleston
"If she took such an oath, she is either a liar, a fraud and or an oath-breaker: none of which are considered good Christian principles."
She is also a hypocrite as she made that oath before her god.
-
Brien
" impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” First I do agree with everything you said. I have been confused for awhile now over this path that public servants take. If a public servant is supposed to be non bias why do they swear an oath to a mythical deity that is associated with genocide and war? That last line, so help me god... How can you be impartial and swear an oath to a deity that not everyone believes in? The system needs an overhaul.
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
Actually that last line is now optional. Just like a person being sworn in can either say “I swear” or”I affirm” .The changes were made for people who have different views on religion, or no religion at all.
-
-
-
Clay Serenbetz
I thought that SCOTUS settled this ruse when Kim Davis, an Alabama Clerk, tried this trick. It didn't work for Ms. Davis and it should not work for this Texas Judge who is violating the ethical rules and her Oath of Office. This Judge would face defrocking and disbarment in any non-bigotted jurisdiction.
-
Rev Mark D
Well speaking of Alabama, the legislature just this week defied a direct order and ruling by the USSC on how they gerrymandered their congressional districts to shut out blacks. So when news of this one spreads, you're going to see a whole bunch of Southern governments, weather judiciary or legislative or governors, following suit on the principle of defying various laws and law bodies on issues they don't like... the barn door is now open.
-
Thomas H. Powers
Well are we now institutionalizing narcissism. We, as individuals or institutions, just do whatever suits us. No longer “United we stand.”
-
-
-
pjm
It is the couple's Constitutional right to marry... as already settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, far above her rank. If she were a minister in a church, she might be within her rights to marry whomever she chooses according to her religion. But she works for the state of Texas, is not a religious institution, it is a secular governmental entity. and as such she has to follow the law. Or am I misunderstanding how things work? If someone says they disagree with laws on the grounds of their religion then they don't have to follow them? That would be utter chaos.
Aside from that, what she is doing is exactly the opposite of what Christ taught anyway. Many times he admonished the "religious" people of his time for basically being so self-righteous that they were no earthly good, and he emphasized showing people love above all else. The only people that angered Jesus were the self-righteous hypocrites whom Jesus called "a nest of vipers".
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Well said PJM.
Too bad it's exactly the people who need to read that and see themselves that never will.
-
Pastor George Day
pjm, there is a difference between a civil marriage and religious marriage vows. I think she may be confused about that.
-
-
Minister Wilson
Greetings people,
I don't believe this person should be a judge....
There does this count?
I believe this very strongly, so, it should carry just as much weight as any other religious claim, right?
And this is the true crux of the issue, is it not?
Religion has been afforded deference where it's claims are more supported as secular understandings of facts. This is why believers, attack evolution, attack science, attack sociology, attack etc etc because any of those understandings /claims are generally supported by tangible reality.
Food for Thought,
Minister Wilson
-
Pastor George Day
Minister Wilson, are you aware that the Big Bang is only a theory, and that opinions on evolution vary every other decade?
-
Minister Wilson
Pastor Day,
Yes...
I am not going to come across crass, so I will presume that you do not have any ulterior motives for asking the question when in fact you could just speak your mind plainly.
Theory is defined as;
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
- such as; the wave theory of light, theory of gravity, germ theory
-
a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
-
an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
Or
2. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
an unproved assumption : conjecture
abstract thought : speculation
I think it becomes a real problem when people cannot distinguish between the two defined terms. a "theory" as noted in scientific terms "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". People can have different understandings of facts but they cannot simply disregard facts and evidence because they disagree with their conclusions.
For example, the theory of "evolution" has changed overtime based on our increased understanding and testing.
Evolution is the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization).
A contrary or opposing position of this understanding has to be based on more than just "nuh uh"
However, religion specifically christianity is primarily based on "belief" which is "...a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing"
The bible doesn't prove A "god" is real, and a belief in a "god" does not prove the bible to be "true" that is conjecture and speculation, which is not based on scientific facts that could be measured, analyzed or empirically investigated.
This creates an intrinsic problem because no theist can claim that "their god is true or real" without disregarding the same manner or type of subjective proof which is offered as facts for any other religion.
For example, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, or Christians, must each be given the same deference because the each make contrary positive assertions based on faith, scripture, prayers, or a "personal" relationship with a god. So, a christian theist has no more standing than any other non-christian theist just because they happen to "believe more" or "feel strongly" about something.
Evolution is not based on a "belief" or a "strongly held opinion" it is based on an understanding of facts and evidence that has been empirically tested repeatedly and conclusions based on those understandings are predictable.
See, scientific understandings are supposed to change and be reevaluated based on newer findings of evidence, whereas religion mistakenly believes that things never change. For example, how many slaves do you currently own, when was the last stoning you went to, should a rape victims father need compensation? These antiquated edicts show that scriptures are relegated to the past written by people who had, little to no, knowledge about germ theory, society, fairness, love, space, or broadband internet connections.
So, even though the Big Bang is a theory, it is based on current evidence of our human understanding which will probably change and become more precise overtime. However, evolution which can also be characterized as a theory has be rigorously tested and modified based on our understanding of objective facts in reality.
The big bang would be more closely situated with speculation or conjecture than the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity, for instance. But the big bang is still a better explanation for the origin of life than someone snapping their fingers like Thanos. IMHO
Take care,
Minister Wilson
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
A judge MUST do as the law permits. His fear and hate cannot override the law.
Fire him!-
Rev Mark D
Cite me a case wherein a judge was dismissed for not following the law. MUST is something you dreg wine from.
-
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
Public servants, elected or appointed are elected or appointed to serve the public. If the person can't fulfill the role, that is not the role for the person. As a therapist, (and I work for a private non-profit) I do not have the right to pick and choose who I serve based on anything other than safety or a conflict of interest. I meet people where they are at and respect any differences. I can think of two times in 35 years there has ever been a conflict, and I still served those people. Subsequently I do not feel a twinge of sorrow for these poor victimized butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers who want to use their religious views to make headlines, get attention and make money off of their "personal struggles." What martyrs to the cause! Thank g-d these days any damn fool can design a website, bake a cake, or (apparently, and thank goodness for the Monastery) officiate a wedding! If the judge can't do her tax-payer funded job, which includes taxes from people she may or may not cotton too... she needs to find another job...before her book comes out.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Many of you that have seen my other post will probably be shocked to find out but I disagree with the judge Hensley's position in this matter.
When you take a position as a secular public official then you should fulfill all the duties to the public that those officials have.
In this case I would say the only "out" she would have, at least philosophically, would be if when she became a judge same sex marriage was not legal. But this is far more complex than private individuals withholding their services that participate in or support things that are against their base religious beliefs
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. MichaelRS, I reiterate that there is a fundamental difference between civil marriage and marriage vows. Look at the case with Queen Camilla in the UK. It is thanks to this understanding that she can still be queen consort.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Wouldn't mind getting a look at that brief. The rub here seems to be about a government denying equal service for a legal act.
-
Rev Mark D
On the other hand, it IS Texas.
-
David Arthur Lewis
The United States should encourage Texas to secede.
-
Kevin Michael Zurrin
A judge swears an oath to serve all of the people equally according to the constitution and the standing laws of the state and country. A clergy member serves God and His principals a judge serves all of the people. This judge needs to either follow the laws or resign if her conscience won't allow he to fulfill her oath of office.
-
Clay Serenbetz
I thought that SCOTUS settled this ruse when Kim Davis, an Alabama Clerk, tried this trick. It didn't work for Ms. Davis and it should not work for this Texas Judge who is violating the ethical rules and her Oath of Office. This Judge would face defrosting and disbarment in any non-bogotted jurisdiction.
-
Rev Mark D
I'd guess defrosting is not a problem in Texas in the summer.
-
-
David Richard Procter
So I guess we could have fire companies not responding to fires in the houses of gay people because the fire chief is against homosexuality. Can it get as ridiculous as this? I doubt it, but public officials are in the same boat; they are required by law to do certain things, and their personal opinions have no bearing whatsoever. Wasn't there a case in Kentucky a couple of years ago where a woman clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple? Same thing. I think she was fired, but please correct me if I am wrong.
-
John Robert Milner
Tricky, but since she is either elected or appointed to a legal position she must follow the law and perform any legal marriage! She knows the law and has to accept the legal criteria the position required!
-
Rev. Rory
This happened in my town. The Clerk of the Court refused to conduct an annual marriage ceremony for dozens of couples on Valentine's Day because some of the couples that signed up were same sex couples and it was "against the Clerk's beliefs." A judge saved the day and performed the ceremony. The Clerk's Office made it policy that no employee needed to perform a marriage if it was against their beliefs and it is like that to this day.
It's interesting that the same Clerk's Office maintains a list of people like myself that will perform many different marriage ceremonies, but make it almost impossible for the public to gain access to the list. Every action taken by that office is to discourage anything they don't "like."
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Conservatives truly and honestly BELIEVE that they are the only REAL people, and so naturally have a right to dictate to everybody else what they should think and do.
They bitterly resent that they are limited in doing that - but like any delinquent they never miss an opportunity to cause trouble.
-
Andrew Scott Handeland
Criticizing people for having different beliefs and lumping all conservatives into one single box in the name of fairness...
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Feel free to describe how you're different.
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Rev Rory, thank you for the post. I was chilled that the clerk's office would go to such lengths to discourage same sex couples as it shows incredible bad faith.
-
-
Michael Anton Goedeker
Two things in my opnion that are important: 1st Amendment gives no one the right to abuse another. Using that as an excuse to abuse and attack others is asnine and those people should be ashamed of themselves. Its best to just shut up in my opinion.
2nd, we don't define humanity or sexuality as approppriate or not. Since none of us are the creator then thats just a no brainer.
Many people believe they have the right to push thier views and morals on anyone else and quite frankely thats not the case supported by any religion that cautions on not being over zealous or biggots or religious. These concepts are in multiple holy books and are not really debateable as to the moral idea of freedoms that we are given by our creator to live as ethically as we can based on our set of morals, values, relious beliefs. Anyone who pushes thier beliefs on others by any means of force commits a sin. This concept is also very clear. So I am not sure where all the psuedo christianity systems really get thier justification. I saw this in Germany in discriptions of what happended to the moral fabric of societies in Europe and Germany. My family who served on the front lines paid a heavy price for the freedoms we take for granted. Those Christians who fought up against Hiter and Co showed us younger generations what being Catholic really meant. Even when they had to go against what the Pope of that time failed to do correctly.
How ironic is it that we go through 2 World Wars, only to end up back at square one and do the same mistake over again for a potential World War 3. There are no winners in that war, only losers. But so is humanity in its arrogance, too proud to admit errors and too stupid to evolve. I still don't give up hope though.
-
Joseph Walter Kasper
Discrimination is illegal and immoral.
-
Pamela Parker-Visconage
She is not discriminating- she is choosing not to participate in a sinful union - much like conscientious objectors choose to say no to personal violence. The issue is her obligation as a federal employee and those rights and responsibilities
-
Russel A. Kester
Pamela, not so fast. First she chose the job and kept it knowing the duties that go with it. Second you state that she is refusing to participate in a sinful act - not true. You could have said that she was refusing to participate in a ceremony she believed for whatever reasons was a sinful act but neither her no your belief makes it so. What's wrong with your statement is an assertion as if you'd proven it was a fact which you didn't and which it isn't.
-
Pastor George Day
Pamela Parker-Visconage, I wonder: does the judge have a camera in the couple's bedroom? Then she would have a point if she could catch the sinful act! Until then, it's pure assumption :-)
-
-
-
George Wiley Clegg Jr.
Yes. If performing weddings is part of her job, in a state that allows same sex marriage, I believe she should do her job. A judge that is critical to same sex couples seems to raise the question of how she performs her other duties without bias. I am a 61 year old white male heterosexual but I don't discriminate against anyone that chooses to be in a same sex marriage.
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
It’s very simple, based on the judge’s legal brief. She states “wedding vendors”. Judges are not “vendors”. They are either elected or appointed judicial officials charged with upholding the law. Therefore she cannot just pick and choose which laws she will follow. If she has a problem between her official government position and her religious beliefs then she should simple resign.
-
Suzanne Barnes
A janitor doesn't get to choose what they mop up, a 5-star-chef doesn't get to choose which customers he will or will not cook for in someone else's restaurant, a nurse doesn't get to choose her patients and a judge doesn't get to choose who he will or will not try for a crime-- or legally marry. If they can't do what they signed up to do, then the door to unemployment is equally open for all of them; if they want a job where they can choose the clients, then I understand that sex workers can do that when they work their way up to be really high-demand. shrugs Best of luck to them; I suspect they'll find it's a much more difficult career field than they think.
In the meantime? Boot them to the curb if they can't do what they signed up for-- they knew the rules when they took their jobs.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
More negative press against Christians. Why is it Christians alway like to be in the headlines over child molestation, rapping/sexual abuse of women and hatred of their fellow man? No other religious group get so much press as Christians.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Well .. you never hear about pagans doing any of that nonsense.
-
ServantOfJudgement
A homosexual catholic priest that rapes a boy is a pagan. He's a pagan thar reads a Bible sometimes in a church. Still, he's a pagan.
-
James Mounts
Nope, not a pagan, just a sinner.
-
David Arthur Lewis
Raping boys is not the definition of "pagan". You need an education.
-
ServantOfJudgement
No David it's not, worshiping sex something some pagans do though. So we've got some dudes saying they're this when they're really that. Happens all day long. The preists that rape boys are definitely not christians. I think Jesus called them Wolves in Sheep's Clothing.
-
David Arthur Lewis
Dear Servant, You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own "facts". Please stop lying about things you know nothing about.
-
-
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
ServantOfJudgement A "Pagan" follows one of the old Native Polytheistic faiths of the ancient world
-
ServantOfJudgement
Nathaniel,
Right, I'm thinking they've put in for Ishtar.
-
-
Brien
No, he is one of YOUR believers.
-
-
-
Rev. Kev
Maybe because Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. and, at the same time, puts a lot of effort into inserting itself into the lives of everyone and legislating religious beliefs into law that everyone is forced to follow? It doesn't help when some of the most vocal critics of certain behaviours end up being caught doing the very thing they come out against.
-
Rev Mark D
Yes Rev Kev, that's probably it.
-
Pastor George Day
Douglas Robert Spindler, raping is spelled with just one p :-)!
-
-
Val Jester
Tough turd cookies. Go find another judge who will and stop looking for trouble.
-
Russel A. Kester
Val, such a sophisticated and thoughtful response. Are you sure you're not a legal scholar?.
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
Hopefully non Christian judges will start turning away Christians/magas , turn about is fair play
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Oh am I gonna get it for this. Since it's not possible for two people of the same sex to marry, this judge would merely be linking the two together legally. Just fill the forms out and go grab lunch, no big deal.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
What is love to you SOJ?
Does it involve a uterus, by chance?
-
ServantOfJudgement
Kenneth,
Not exactly. The front porch to the uterus is a very wonderful place to be. You're right, I dig it powerful much but that ain't love.
For you, here's a partial definition of love:It's a glimpse of a shadow from an angels wing cast from the rays of a golden ring that always shines bright when two lovers sing
It's the glitter and glint of the clear blue sea, with the sun shining down on a falling leaf making it's way through the blowing reeds
It's the one single thing that meant everything when she held out her hand and I gave her the ring and we sang golden songs only lovers could sing
It's the meeting of flower and light for the first time, the meeting of souls together entwined wandering through the universe like scrambling vines -SOJ
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
That's beautiful SOJ.
I wish you believed it.
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
SOJ, appreciated that you thought the judge should do her job impartially. But, clearly, we're using two different dictionaries define marriage. It's a legal union of two entities. In this case two persons. However, we also colloquially speak of the merging of two corporations as a marriage. I couldn't disappointed you! 😊
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
But corporations legally are people. Conservatives ensured that and want to do the same for fetuses - because of the same delusional imagination.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Kenneth,
I'm right in line with you that a corporation being a person as bogus law. In no wise should a corporation be considered the same as a human, ever. Corporations have more rights than humans do nowadays. Super spooky stuff.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Russell, right, in this context the judge merely fills the legal documents out and the two corporations(not human) are legally bound. The state can not marry two humans, only two corporations. It is a three member union between the State and two corporations where the state has replaced God with itself and converted the humans into numbers for control. There is zero spiritual or scientific aspect ro a judge marrying two or more people, as it should be. A judge should have no objection to a legal proceeding he was hired to carry out.
For two humans to technically, scientifically or spiritually marry they must be male and female. You have that, you don't need a judge or preacher to be married, just a vow between the two. I married my wife in the painted desert under a full moon at midnight next to a charcoal campfire.
-
Russel A. Kester
For two humans to SCIENTIFICALLY marry? Where on earth did you ever get the idea that marriage has anything to do with science? That's a humdinger of a statement. Exactly how would the scientific processes establish a marriage?
-
ServantOfJudgement
Russel Yea, I'm a strange thinker, I know. Feel bad for my boss. We use tons of engineering and scientific terms in our day to day conversations without realizing what they really mean. Our language at it's root implies everything was designed. A system such as our cardiovascular system or Earth's water system has several individual components that function independently designed to work in concert for particular purpose or outcome. Mate/marry is another engineering term we use. Marriage occurs when two unique unlike components that are designed to join together to become a new functional singular unit. A fastener comes to mind. A bolt and nut married become a fastener. Men and women were designed to mate or marry if you prefer, I'll use marry but both are correct. Men were not designed to marry with men and women were not designed to marry with women. Scientifically men can't marry men and women can't marry women, not technically.
Because science can't measure the uniqueness of man, his spiritual component, science must proceed in the dark or better said, science must proceed with incomplete data. If we want to lower the par and remove the spiritual component of mankind making them animals via evolution for the sake of science we get the same results.
Understand this:. I know that same sex couples can and do have meaningful relationships. They experience the full range of human emotions as a heterosexual couple can have. Homosexual couples should not be hindered by governments or citizens from seeking meaningful relationships with whom they desire. I can't think of a more painful feeling than loneliness for someone who desires love in their life. As I've said, the judge was elected to serve the citizens according to the law.
-
Russel A. Kester
SOJ, I sincerely appreciate your final paragraph. Thank you so much.
The rest of your argument I'm not so sure about. I'm not sure that married people would appreciate having their marriage compared to a bolt being inserted into a nut. It does seem to describe sex on so many levels I must confess with tongue in cheek. However, marriage as being used in this discussion is about a social contract. One, which I might add, has changed over the millennia from being mostly a property transaction (so sorry ladies) to today's idea of it being about love. Well, at least in much of the world.
So, I don't think you justified your statement that marriage can be scientifically proven.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
I agree, RAK.
Modern marriage very much is a social contract. Marriage, I think, is all about commitment.
When a person asks someone else to marry them, what they are asking is if they will commit to a lifelong partnership. The specific reasons may vary - for companionship, to raise children, etc - but it is a reasonable and pragmatic question of deep commitment and mutual responsibility.
Those who imagine it has anything to do with specific types of people or purpose or hinges specifically on sex or some other personal reflections are just fooling themselves.
-
-
-
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
One with uterus, one without. Check!
-
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
And THIS is why this site exists. The feeling is reciprocal at times.
-
Pastor George Day
Dr. Zerpersande, this 'site' is called Monastery. Next time I checked with the moderators, as a church this is our way to connect.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
“Next time I checked with the moderators,…” Do you mean ‘The next time I check…’ or ‘The last time I checked…’?
This site destroys the monopoly the clergy has on performing marriages handing out slips of paper that allow common people to do so. But they have also turned it into a money-making venture by selling plastic Sheriff badges to those that lacked the funds, commitment or intelligence to obtain clerical status in the conventional manner. Given your comment I’m rather certain of your reason for settling for a plastic badge.
-
-
-
Canadian Yankee
This one should be simple. He applied for and ran for the job. If it is a requirement to marry any lawful cuuple that comes before him he has no choice if he wished to keep the job.
-
Brien
I hate to say this, but it is the mythical beliefs that will rip this country apart. Zealots simply will not allow any other frame of thought than their own. On the other side, people of alternative beliefs simply won't leave the Zealots alone, just gotta keep poking the bee's nest. We are headed for a real civil war. It may not be a traditional war, more like states coming together and separating from the Union. But it will happen. We did well huh? Kind of like a scorched earth senario. No way to live in peace so lets trash it all. Do I think the judge should step down? Yes I do. Does that make me part of the problem? Yes, yes it does. There simply is no fix to this. The rift will get wider. It is already wider. Please grab your village and keep them close. I just see bad times ahead. Peace ✌️
-
Pastor George Day
Well said, Brien. We should learn to respectfully coexist with our different opinions. That's why I like ULC.
-
Brien
Unfortunately Pastor respect was lost a long time ago. People such as SOJ come on here and spit out the most vile thoughts, none of which are based in facts, but rather follow a belief that is based on fear and death. I am all for believing as you wish, as long as you don't turn your beliefs into a weapon of hate. I will always defend my friends against disgusting, hate filled people. Until these folks can holster their hate, or at least admit to it, there can be no respect. I came to ULC to find mutual respect and peace. I found plenty of hate instead. I'm tired and old. I don't have much fight left in me. The hate will continue.
-
-
-
David Messenger
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman under God. Two men or two women may have the same legal rights as a man and woman who are married, but it is still an abomination by God. It makes no sense to me whatsoever as to why anyone so opposed to Christianity in the first place would want to be married.
-
Brien
Umm, no. You may associate marriage with a mythical belief but it is really the federal and state laws that require marriage in some instances. Taxes, someone to speak for you legally if you're incapable, ect. Again, you Zealots try to lay claim to everything, but the mythical nonsense does not work here. If you wish a religious ceremony, that is your right. You may have your joyous occasion as you see fit. Why do you deny others that same right? Because you don't like it? Who made you judge? Who gave you the right to impede on someone else's happiness? Your God is not believed by everyone else. Alot of people are very successful thinking for themselves. You are free to be as blind and brainwashed as you wish. You may not use your beliefs as a weapon against others. That makes you a toxic person to be ignored.
-
Pastor George Day
David Messenger, maybe for legal protection? Next time you choose your word, check the scientific facts. Homosexuality is a condition, not a choice. People are entitled to relate to their homosexual orientation as they see fit. I agree that same-sex unions should not be called marriage, but civil partnerships.
-
-
Michael Anton Goedeker
That is incorrect and a lie. There are many religons where love is the important item along with a bond to protect one another and love one another as equal partners. To say the least eventhough I am not Gay I certainly know that homosexuality and same sex partnerships are as old as time.
It is not some "woke" ideaology that suddently sprung up. Sometimes reading history books does wonders for understanding facts and hiistory rather than fabricating some nonsensical lie and pushing it as a psudeo truth. Second, who are you to say what God views or doesn't view as an abomination, did you get this first hand or from a book?
Religions such as Shamanism and by definition all of them in some capacity suggest connecting directly to the creator and ask these questions in direct line questioning to understand what is meant in books. Indeed most religous practices of prayer explain the direct connection to source or creator "God" when asking questions rather than depending on someone elses "book" or opnion because of bias and subjective interpretations.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Michael,
The bible claims to be the word of God. That's where it's states that it's an abomination. When one repeats gods word from the Bible, he isn't deciding what God thinks, he's repeating what God thinks.
You can say God doesn't exist, that's fine. You can say that God is content with homosexualism, that's fine too. You can't say the God of the Bible or the Bible is fine with homosexualism, that's not ok. There is no document in existence where the God of the universe states and takes the position that homosexualism is groovy. If you don't like that, just choose not to believe in the God of the Bible, done. Ishtar is cool with it, pick her to worship if you must.
-
Russel A. Kester
SOJ, your first paragraph seems to be a circular argument. You start with "[t]he bible claims to be the word of God." And then.go continue using it as an authoritative source. But it is that very claim, that the Bible is the word of God, that must be proven first.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Russel,
I finished with 'If you don't like that, just choose not to believe in the God of the Bible, done' Nobody has to believe anything, some don't believe anything. Some think it's all an illusion or hologram. Not sure whose casting the illusion spell or running the hologram dials but to each his own. My point is you can deny the Bible but you can't deny what it says.
-
Brien
Yes, SOJ, I deny every word that the fictional book says. Why? Because it is FICTION. First there is no proof of history. There are plenty of assumptions. Second, you said "word of God", did your mythical being sit down and put pen to paper? If not, who did? See, if you say man, then it is NOT the word of God, but the word of man. Could have been someone with as much hate as yourself. Third, any word on the current book of fiction has been translated so many times that a literal translation doesn't exist. And finally, according to most accepted scientific research only around 15 to 20 percent of the "scrolls" that refer to as "word of God" were available to translate. Fiction on top of lies turned into fear and hate. That is a man made creation.
-
-
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Without sinners, how can there be sin?
In this way the different are human sacrificed to this day.
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, your response still didn't proven the claim that the Bible is the word of God, it was only a deflection.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
I never claimed that. SOJ did.
Try to keep up.
-
Russel A. Kester
Touche. You're right.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
What did you have to go and say that for??
Now I feel bad. I apologize for my previous snippy remark to you. You didn't deserve it. That was really about me.
-
-
-
-
Brien
Word of God? Are you nuts? Were you there? Did you witness your mythical being make any of those statements? You are referring to a book, written by MAN, translated poorly so many times that every word is subject to argument. And still, no proof at all of your mythical beings existence. Anyone can be married, joined together. Wake up.
-
Pastor George Day
ServantOfJudgement, the Bible also clearly states that God blesses the eunuchs, and Yeshua said some people are born eunuchs. If by homosexuality you mean the LGBT campaign to promote a lifestyle, I totally agree with you. If you mean a wound or struggle some people have not of their own choosing, I'm sorry, I utterly disagree. The Bible points to a Saviour, and Yeshua would spend dinner with eunuchs. We have plenty of examples in the gospels.
-
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
@David Messenger, this has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion, and what it says we can or cannot do. She is a public serverent who has duties to be carried out, and is refusing to do so.
-
Russel A. Kester
David, I'm gonna go out in a limb here and assume you identify as a Christian. Here's a shocker, people in every country with many different beliefs and even none at all have been getting married for as long as we've been around, so it not a Christian thing. It's a human thing. You say that gay marriages are an abomination to God, but you don't know that and you certainly don't speak for God. God speaks for God. And so far it seems God has been silent about it. As for the scriptures you will want to quote as justification for your assumed knowledge of what God does or doesn't think, that's a no go. God didn't write those scriptures, people did. And they were very, very fallible people at that. They included many things assumed right because it was their culture, not because a divine being told them so, which explains so many of the truly ugly things approved of in the Christian bible..So there you have it, marriage is what we as people decide it is and there is no divine authority saying anything to the contrary.
-
Pastor George Day
Russel A. Kester, you are right that Christianity didn't invent marriage. It's been around since the week of creation. However, by its very definition, marriage has always been between man and woman, even in ancient cultures where homosexual behavior and polygamy were largely practiced and promoted. In other words, there is something peculiar about this union that makes it unique - not necessarily better. As for the Bible, there's no such thing as a 'Christian' Bible. There may be biblical translations, but the ancient manuscript has the authority imparted them by tradition. A close analysis of historic facts would dictate that the Hebrew and Greek witness accounts have authoritative value, and I choose to listen. You can choose otherwise based on your own judgement.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Marriage, traditionally, besides the financial goal of consolidating fortunes, has been for the purpose of raising families.
In this day and age anybody of means can raise a family. Adoption has never been easier, but we also have IVF and other medical interventions, and surrogacy. SO many options.
In this day and age, the traditional need for a man-woman couple is no longer necessary to have a family. Times have changed. Humanity has changed - for the better, if the regressive cave types would just let go and let it grow.
-
-
-
Lionheart
Which mythical God are you referring to, there are so many that mankind has created, or is yours the real one 🤭
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, I have really missed you, you know! Keep it on!
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
David,
Have you noticed how the left slams Mormons for polygamy but when they have a three or four or five way bump session they call it polyamory and then it's fine. They like to redefine old words and create new words that mean the same thing as an old word they don't like. Polygamy and polyamory are very bad.
This is what they're doing with marriage. They're simply doing what they do, redefining an old word to mean what they want it to mean.
Consider this: Because they've been taught in school that they're animals, they become trained animals when they leave school. Even a trained animal cannot understand what marriage actually is, they just can't. Let's make sure we're square here, I'm not calling them animals, they're telling me they're animals, trained ones at that. Shucks, we've set some animals here that have PhD and masters degrees. Pretty good for an animal huh?
-
Pastor George Day
ServantOfJudgement:
Polygamy and polyamory are two completely unrelated things.
This has nothing to do, intrinsically speaking, with the definition of marriage.
Marriage by its very nature is between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is a new concept whose implications within society we still must discover.
Polygamy has always existed in different cultures, but it doesn't redefine marriage. It simply extends it. The same is for polyhundry (a woman with many husbands), which does not enjoy the extension as polygamy, though.
Polyamory is a new concept related to 'free love.' It is basically a form of promiscuity while maintaining primary relationships.
Once we have a clear definition of things, we can discuss them.
As for this judge, she has a duty bound to her civil role. If same-sex marriage is the law of the land, she has no choice. She isn't a minister of religion - which is a separate issue.
-
-
-
Michael Holland
Marriage is a promise to two people that love each other! If that minister doesnt want to marry you for whatever reason move on and find someone that will, there are plenty of us!
-
James Riggle-Johnson
I’m impressed… I thought this would take longer, but here we are. Yes, I agree with everyone that she, as a public servernt, must perform her duties without prejudice, but SCOTUS has been waiting for the right case to come along. One that will challenge the 2015 rulling on Obergefell v. Hodges, or the legalization of same sex marriage. I don’t know if this is that case, but with their recent ruling, eventually one will come along that they will hear and rule on. It’s all just a matter of time.
-
Daniel Gray
This judge needs to do her job or quit. There is a major difference between running your own business and dealing with the Customers you want to deal with according to your religion, and swearing in as a public official after you swore to treat everyone equally. If this is allowed to stand, then whats next? A police officer refusing to help a person because they are gay? A fireman refusing to put out a fire at a gay persons house? An EMT or a doctor refusing to give treatment or a hospital refusing to admit a patient because they are gay?
As I said I can see doing this if its your own private business and you are following the teachings of your religion as this is covered by the 1st Amendment. But in doing this, its just wrong. You go so far and thats it and only then if it would violate your religion AND you OWN the business in question.
-
Thomas Edwin Peterson
Just perform the duties as prescribed by law. As a judicial official your bond could be forfeit if you don't follow the mandate. The other choice would be resignation. As well perhaps a judicial disciplinary board could become involved.
-
Thomas Edwin Peterson
Here is a question about marriage I think needs discussion. Why should a spouse be required to relinquish half of their social security to the government instead of receiving the full amount they are due monthly were they single. This leads me to advise a civil joining rather than an actual marriage in some cases. Perhaps a separate discussion should occur regarding this subject.
-
Rev. Rory
It's complicated. I would suggest that any couple discuss such matters with a wise accountant before getting married.
Is this correct? I'm not sure.
If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your former spouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce, or annulment). However, Social Security rules allow widows to continue collecting Social Security survivor benefits even if they remarry after age 60. If you remarry before age 60, you forfeit the benefit and face a marriage penalty. There is no penalty if the remarriage occurs at 60 years of age or later.
-
-
-
Daniel Ginther
Comment has been removed.
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
and its my right to ban and refuse all service to christians, conservatives and trumpies
-
-
Merlin
Remove courthouse marriage responsibilities from Judges. We definitely have an alternative solution.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
The difference here, is that the SCOTUS ruling was for a private company, not a state agency, and therefore she is not just "some wedding vendor." This could start a slippery slope. If a judge is an orthodox Rabbi, should that judge be able to not perform a wedding unless both parties are Jewish (and Orthodox)? Same would hold for clergy of any faith, especially those that require both parties to hold the same religious views. Her job is to perform weddings, and as a public servant, she cannot pick and choose which "public" she serves any more than a policeperson or fireperson can.
-
Timothy Allen Foss
According to a Judge yes, According to God no!!! Think on that a minute.
-
Amber Fry
Yes, she is. It's law not to discriminate and if she cannot do that then she should step down and do something more religious specific like become a pastor somewhere. This isn't brain surgery.
-
Sam Prater
No she’s not out of order. The gender confused animals are out of order. God didn’t make any mistakes.
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
Nature is full of gay and bisexual relationships among animals , its common in nature
-
Pastor George Day
Sam Prater, this cheap statement of yours gets the attention it deserves. I'm not wasting my energy debating with you!
-
-
Windsor Durant Thompson III
She should be counseled on the conditions and rewuirements of the position she holds. She should be given the opportunity to change her stance on performing all of her assigned duties. If she cannot, she should be separated. Her personal religious affiliation 1)has no place on the bench when it obstructs a party's right to service 2) should not inhibit her from conducting the duties of her position. I'm a nurse. Sometimes people invest or reject medical treatment plans that I personally do or do not support. As their RN I am the advocate of their wishes and an instrument of the wellness path they chose. Same situation.
-
Pastor George Day
Windsor Durant Thompson III, thank you for this contribution. It is helpful to put things in perspective.
-
-
Windsor Durant Thompson III
She should be counseled on the conditions and requirements of the position she holds. She should be given the opportunity to change her stance on not performing all of her assigned duties. If she cannot, she should be separated. Her personal religious affiliation 1)has no place on the bench when it obstructs a party's right to service 2) should not inhibit her from conducting the duties of her position. I'm a nurse. Sometimes people invest or reject medical treatment plans that I personally do or do not support. As their RN I am the advocate of their wishes and an instrument of the wellness path they chose. Same situation.
-
Pamela Parker-Visconage
As Christians (and I realize in this forum some are not) we are to love, encourage and embrace all created in the image of a holy God (Imago Dei). We are also called to bring sinners to repentance. We are not however called to affirm, embrace or approve of their biblically identified indwelling sin - whether homosexuality is nature, nurture or biology, the Bible identifies homosexuality as sin. As we all must mortify the flesh for our own indwelling sin - those who battle same sex attraction are no different. No Christian should affirm sin and therefore deny an individual their repentance and salvation. She is in her rights to refuse and biblically correct. It gets sticky as a government employee and her required duties as a public servant.
-
Daniel Ginther
On the other hand to be fair if your going to refuse to do Homosexual marriage ceremonies you should also refrain to do Heterosexual ones as well, Impartiality is crucial for a judge and on that note it should be the law of the land that no judge recognize or conform to one party political belief or another, if you do than how do you be impartial ?
-
Russel A. Kester
Daniel, I read your first post and thought to myself, 'wow, this guy is really worked up about some stuff.' Then I read your next post and thought, 'okay, this gentleman can be very reasonable.' I appreciate your second post. As to your first post, may I suggest it isn't gay, lesbian, or bisexual people your angy at, it's the transgender community that is raising this ire in us including many gays and lesbians. I'm gay and mad as hell at the antics, indoctrination, and very bad actions of the transgendered community. Please don't beat us all up for the actions of a misguided, albeit very vociferous and imfluencial, few who belong as a separate group all on there own. ☺️
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
After homosexuality has become more and more accepted, regressive voices have gone after a new target that is easier to paint as abnormal and evil: trans people. Some of these voices are gay themselves, but basically it is the same playbook as used before: "They are deviant, they are unnatural, they are coming for your children - If we all vote conservative we can stop this menace!"
The Heritage Foundation has been telling conservatives what to think for decades. Divisiveness really brings out the votes!
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, I don't think of trans persons as evil and neither do the gays and lesbians with whom I've exchanged conversations. And I have my own spiritual ideas as to why some persons might experience gender dysphoria. And perhaps not a few are themselves victims of a trans healthcare model gone wrong. However, none of the above excuses the bad behavior and outright probative statements of many trans persons.
In the late 70s and early 80s when I came out, we as a community made it very clear that we were not coming for anyone's children. Period. But actors, activists really, in the trans community are going after people's children and are trying to indoctrinate them into a particular perspective on the subject. That is wrong and the GBL community is starting to stand up with others in the straight community to stop these efforts by trans persons and far left activists.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
Pull your head out of the right-wing nut-job propaganda echo chamber.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/05/scicheck-young-children-do-not-receive-medical-gender-transition-treatment/
Personally, I resent it when people try to exploit and manipulate me. Who knew the LGB community would be so willing?
-
Russel A. Kester
Kenneth, a doctor testified recently before congress about how these surgeries are done, and I believe he said he'd also perform them on children but was uncomfortable about it. There's also a young gal in the news who went from a girl to a boy which included having her barely teenage breast material removed. Now she realizes she made a mistake, but her natural breasts are gone. So I do believe children have received life changing medical procedures as part of their healthcare treatment for gender dysphoria.
-
Kenneth Lafe Eric Sanderson
You are talking about this, perhaps?
https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/detransitioner-tells-congress-her-childhood-was-ruined-by-gender-reassignment/
Sensationalized on right-wing media, of course. This is the literal definition of cherry-picking anecdotal 'proof'.
This is not an issue to be decided by a few people from a few instances. The VAST majority of trans patients are SAVED by life-affirming treatment and surgery. Trans youths suffer inordinately high risk of suicide and self-harm because of social stigma and the difficulty of receiving proper treatment - and conservatives are zealously doing everything they can think of to make it WORSE.
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/
And let's be clear - for literally YEARS Chloe Cole had to INSIST that she was transexual, had to LIVE in the gender role she chose, had to demonstrate that she felt as she said - those close to her were only giving her the support SHE demanded. Then, defying the VAST majority of cases, she changed her mind - but conservatives choose to believe her NOW despite her demonstrating she can do a 180 at any time. If next year she decides she was right all along, changing her mind again, is right-wing media going to be so vociferous about that?
Transsexuality is a REAL medical condition that is successfully treated every day - but right-wing propaganda is EXPERT at finding the outlier to give the message they want to hear. Pick an issue - that's what they always do. The black man who says race doesn't exist, the scientist who says climate change is a hoax, the doctor who says vaccinations are bad for you... You name it. That's the literal definition of FRINGE.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/gender-is-not-a-binary-the-science-is-in-and-there-s-no-legitimate-debate-opinion/ar-AA1dI0AJ?
https://socgen.ucla.edu/2015/03/01/challenging-gender-identity-biologists-say-gender-expands-across-a-spectrum-rather-than-simply-boy-and-girl/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Karen Robinson-West
I have read most all of the comments here. It seems like everyone has there opinion about this Judge. Yes I agree with David about what the Bible says about marriage. Texas is one of the states that considers itself to be the Bible belt. Probably back in the day when this Judge took office same sex marriage was not a thing. Now that it is everyone gets to throw a fit and judge others whom are against it and refuse to become a part of the norm. With the Judge being a Christian she does have a right to refuse to do something that goes against her religious beliefs. That's just like everyone is entitled to refuse to do anything that they don't agree with or it goes against their moral compass. It's just like racism. Parents teach their kids to hate and even though they grow up and know that it's wrong they still hate someone because of their skin color. It's also like Parents who go into a store and their child is hungry, they go grab a bag of grapes, a bunch of bananas, or even food from the deli. They give it to their child before paying for the items first. Now you have shown your child or children that it's okay to steal or take what you want without doing the right thing. This gas been the issue with homosexuality. The funny thing is that I have friends that are gay and they are no so offended when they are refused certain things, they just find someone that is willing to provide the service. Someone said that the Judge just wants media attention but I beg to differ. She just wants to have the same 1st Ammendment rights as everyone else.
-
Tom Herman
She was elected or appointed to do a job under the standards of the Constitution. Those standards require support, protect and defend. It is the law of the land. Judges don't get to pick and choose which laws they protect and defend because they don't like them. First Amendment rights do not apply in an employment situation and there are numerous court decisions affirming this. Either do the job you're hired for or quit or get fired.
-
Aron Mark Doherty
So are you saying that it’s wrong to hate people that have a different skin color to oneself, but ok to hate people with a different sexuality to oneself? Are you also saying people that are gay are the same as people that are thieves and are in fact gay due to a lack of discipline as children?
I call BS that you have any gay friends. If a friend of mine was denied service because they are gay they would make one hell of a stink and I would be right there next to them, as it should be. What this ‘judge’ wants is the right to discriminate against anyone she dislikes, it’s as simple as that.
-
-
Michael Wilkinson
NO SAME SEX IS WRONG, THEY NEED TO READ SODOM AND GOMORAH
-
Lionheart
I don't remember seeing that book referenced in the Bible. Is it akin to The Songs of Solomon?
What makes loving someone of the same sex wrong......a book written from tales by goat herders?
🦁♥️
-
Pastor George Day
I think love and genital expression are two things, or sometimes two sides of the same coin. In the case of same-sex attraction we have a dilemma of an unchosen sexual orientation and the innate need to express intimate love that, in an ordinary scenario, would develop into sexual intimacy. This needs both columns of theological and pastoral approach and is one of those cases that are deemed very sensitive in nature. The cheap statement of our friend Michael Wilkinson deserves little attention. He can't even quote the bible passage, let alone the book!
-
Russel A. Kester
No, Michael, same sex marriage isn't wrong, and one does need to shout about it, we can discuss things rationally. The story about Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitality. And before recommending it, notice this guy was pleading with the men to rape his two virgin daughters instead of the two men under his protection. Really, his two daughters? Explain how it was moral to have allowed his two daughters to be raped. It isn't, and this is just a story poorly told which never actually happened. There's a great article here on the ULC website. I encourage you to read it and look at the ENTIRE story written.
-
-
-
Keith David Harry
DO YOUR JOB!! Or BE TERMINATED!
Simple
-
Tom Herman
Either uphold your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution or resign. There is no middle ground. Leave your personal beliefs at home when you go to a job you're being paid to perform under the standards you are hired or in this case elected or appointed for. If you don't like their standards then don't take the job. This judge should be impeached.
-
Rev. Jim Sutton
The judge's argument using the recent Supreme Court rulings is a non sequitur. The web designer is a PRIVATE BUSINESS (to me, the "evangelical" part is inconsequential --- it's a private business with the right to refuse service to anyone). The judge is a PUBLIC SERVANT. The two are not the same or equal. As a Public Servant, her job is to, obviously, "serve the public." And if her job description duties include marrying people, then she needs to do her job. The only way I can see her not losing the case is by forfeiting the performing of ANY marriages. It's either all or nothing. (Aren't there other judges who could perform the marriages? In some places, the Clerk of the Court has the power to marry. It just seems that if there are so many options as to who performs the ceremony, then this is, kind of, an ado over nothing and borders on an exercise in futility.)
-
Keith David Harry
I’m going to assume that there was an oath of office administered at the time the Judge elected/appointed(?). I may be in err, but I don’t believe that anywhere in the oath that once installed; “ you may ignore the oath and do what you wish”. Do the job you were installed to do. Should that job conflict with your personal beliefs, go out into the real world and get a job that more coincides with your agenda.
-
Gregory Jerry McCoy
I think the word of God says render to ceasar what's ceasar.
-
Lionheart
Which man made god is that?
🦁♥️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, don't you get exhausted by asking this question all the time? lol
-
-
-
Sharon Wynette Taylor
Why do we not want to be forced beyond our beliefs, but refuse to let others live in their beliefs. I would marry same sex couples, but she should not be forced. If I were her I would step into another position! Just because you have a JOB does not mean you have to do things you believe are immoral.
Same sex marriage likely wasn’t even a topic when she got in office. Leave her alone!
-
Morris Meadow
TSK,TSK!
Ms Judge bought the whole package when she agreed to be a judge! Employees don't get to cherry pick the tasks that they are willing to do.
If same sex marriage is legal where she presides, she is required to perform the act. This is not a private citizen's business she administers.
-
Joseph Walter Kasper
The purpose of the black robe is to cover/remove the personal individuality of judges.
-
Pastor George Day
Joseph Walter Kasper, this is a very good point. It is the same for traditional ministers who were paraments. I do.
-
-
Lesbian ministry
First and foremost she is a judge. Part of her job description is to protect civilians to the extent of the law. If she has a problem with LGBTQ community then she should be removed from all cases that pertains to that community. She should not be made to go against her beliefs but she should also not have a day in any case or matter that pertains to LGBTQ community. It's a lot like jury selection. The courthouse has judges that have no problem performing said ceremonies, let that judge do it.
-
Russel A. Kester
Lesbian ministry, your approach seems far more charitable then the judges. I pondered your post with a feeling of ill ease. At first I wasn't sure why. Then I it when you reasoned that she should not be made to go against her beliefs. I'm not sure that's true. If it is a sin that a Muslim shouldn't sell alcohol can he or she then refuse to ring up a sale for a six-pack of beer at the grocery store as a cashier? No, because it is the store selling the product not him. Likewise, it is the state that married a couple not the judge or county clerk.
-
Rev Mark D
"If it is a sin that a Muslim shouldn't sell alcohol can he or she then refuse to ring up a sale for a six-pack of beer at the grocery store as a cashier? No, because it is the store selling the product not him."
Sounds just like what the Germans and Nazis themselves said when called to account for killing all those millions of jews. Hitler and Himmler didn't do all that with their own two little arms you know.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Lesbian ministry, it becomes a case of being biased. She should not be in the office.
-
-
Paul Andrew Breda
By answering the question as posed, are we in danger of accepting as fact the premise that homosexuality, same sex marriage, etc. is, in fact counter to Christian principles or values? I am a Christian, and I reject that premise.
By my faith, everything in the Christian Bible points to the ministry of Jesus. And he ate and associated with everyone in his society - prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors being most frequently mentioned. What, there were no homosexuals in those times? And when did he give me the authority to pass judgment on anyone, other than maybe those who neglect widows, orphans, the poor and the oppressed? No, Christ(ianity) does not reject homosexuality outright.
Going back further and considering the Ten Commandments - no to adultery, bearing false witness, covetousness, taking the Lord's name in vain. But no mention of homosexuality - it apparently doesn't make the list of "thou shalt nots"!
So before debating the legalities of the judge's position (on which we seem to have agreement), let's be sure to push back on her notion of what a Christian is, also.
-
Rev Mark D
I think your cherry picking there. There are plenty of injunctions on homosexual behavior in the bible. Also there is the statement that the Roman empire will determine for itself where the boundary is between what is the authority and intervention and administration by Rome, and what is left to the local tribes and society. Thus, the final governing authority also determines where it will intervene and where it will not, and has the right to move and change as it will. That's the judge in this case, unless the court system censures and reverses the judge.
-
-
Alice Iline Wieland
Y'all remember a judge is not a minister of religious law therefore should not be marrying anybody anyways. Do we have judges baptizing people too? She was only following her belief. REMEMBER they took church out of State HANDS. THE separation of church. Neither one should be influencing each other or padding each other's pocketbook with greed. We are all someone's creation & child. We are all flesh and blood human given the Breath of Life and free will to choose our path through life. Not to be forced by a Corporation. Government state & corporation has no right meddling in church or minister of religious law. This is the United Life Church Which means all kinds of denominations of belief. Somebody else could have done it or they could have went somewhere else if they didn't like the service. A judge is a banker. Jesus tore up the church for lining the tax collectors pocket with money. If you agree with this judge you are judging your own peers and we are not here to be judges of people. We are here to administer religious understanding and belief to help each other and support each other. Not to stab each other in the back. We're all supposed to embrace each other's religion beliefs and understanding. May your lord God or creator whom you have a religious belief in forgive you for agreeing with the corporation that a person is guilty of upholding their faith & religious beliefs in their GOD. The courts are not feeling police. They don't care about feelings nor does the flaming tongue of truth. IT sounds like some of you are not upholding the faith and understanding of other people's religion. This is the United Life Church. You know not what you do. You are playing judge jury and executioner. Judging your own peers. These people that condemn this person should be ashamed of their own selves for not upholding each other's religion. And maybe these people were offensive & rude to the judge in their behavior and how they talked. Either way a judge has no right to marry people because they are part of a corporation not a church or ministry.
-
Rev Mark D
Alice You believe in the Bible don't you? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Caesar gets to decide what is Caesar's, and if you go against that, scissor will crucify you, which is why Jesus said render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Well it looks like Caesar separated church and state and then changed his mind. What do you do if Cesar changes his mind? Caesar gets to say what's Caesar's. So Caesar made a change and said no separation here I'm going to marry people. Or not. Or maybe I'll marry this person but not that person. I'm Caesar, what are you going to do? You're going to go along and Jesus says to do what I say. Are you going to argue with Jesus? Sure, that'll work."
-
-
Alice Iline Wieland
You failed to notice that Jesus was talking about taxes nothing else. Religion was the first law of the land before Caesar ever existed Moses was before Jesus The ten commandments existed before Caesar 1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV / 2,141 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 2,030 helpful votes You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 1,613 helpful votes If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
-
Alice Iline Wieland
You failed to notice that Jesus was talking about taxes nothing else. Religion was the first law of the land before Caesar ever existed Moses was before Jesus The ten commandments existed before Caesar 1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV / 2,141 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 2,030 helpful votes You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 1,613 helpful votes If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
-
Dr. Darryl G Dykes
No one should be required or forced to perform any marriage for any reason. Should a Catholic priest be required to perform a Wicken union or a non-binary union or LBG alphabet wedding yeah that won't ever happen. As a non government employee ordained Minister I have the right to refuse to perform any marriage.i do not have to give any reason.
Absolutely not! This judge is not impartial and should not even be allowed on the bench. What will be the next thing, refusal to marry 2 divorced people? Or marry a couple that has been living together previously? This is a slippery slope and Ned's to be stopped and that judge unseated.
Exactly!
Comment removed by user.
I agree. When you get a job you agree to do what that job calls for. You can have all the opinions you want but once your on the clock its your employers opinions that must be acted on. If you can't handle that get yourself another job. It seems to me that the judge wants to be in the news or maybe trying to get a payday somehow.
I agree!
Colleen McAllister, I agree with you in the case of this judge. But there needs to be freedom of speech, including her ability to express her understanding of best practice, and religious organizations still need to be exempted, otherwise this won't be anarchy but dictatorship.