Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GeisterFahrer
Her freedom has not been impinged upon. She was not jailed because of her religious beliefs, she was jailed because she defied a court order, which was also her right. It was her choice.

She took a job which entailed certain responsibilities, carrying out the law of the land being one of them. Her bias, yes, bias, made her refuse to carry out those duties. Her beliefs should have prevented her from issuing marriage licenses at all, since her beliefs do not include divorce. Instead, it was only because it became legal for gays to be married, she decided that no, I cannot do that.

Aside from the hypocrisy, she refused to do her job. That is the bottom line. Because of her bigotry, based on religion or not, she prevented anyone in her jurisdiction from obtaining licenses which they are legally entitled to.

Rights include responsibilities, she shirked hers.

Obama refused to enforce DOMA whe it was a law - he shirked his presidential responsibilities - just like he is doing when he is refusing to enforce federal immigration laws - why isn't he in jail?

By that measure Bush also refused to enforce DOMA and immigration laws. :facepalm:

Well really almost all of th e presidents have been crooks and criminals then. lincoln should had been UNDER the jail regardless o f him issuing a freeing of the slaves.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Dont the supreme court have the ability to remove certain parts of a law to "edit" it so to speak to make it constitutional?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: boymonkey74
Blech.

Bourbon!

I'll take the scotch

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: boymonkey74
Blech.

Bourbon!

I'll take the scotch

And Ill have the Vodka!

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Dont the supreme court have the ability to remove certain parts of a law to "edit" it so to speak to make it constitutional?

No. The Supreme Court can ONLY interpret the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of existing laws. On gay marriage, for example, since the 14th amendment says that states can't make laws that don't protect ALL citizens of the state, the Supreme Court determined that state marriage laws that banned gay marriage were violating the 14th and therefore unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Klassified

There is already precedent set for all of these cases when they legalized interracial marriage. We are just repeating history with gay marriage here.

Exactly.

It would have been illegal for my parents to marry had they been born in those days.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Klassified

There is already precedent set for all of these cases when they legalized interracial marriage. We are just repeating history with gay marriage here.

Agreed on both points. But I'm beginning to wonder if this is going to turn into a much bigger fiasco than interracial marriage was.

How much wiggle room are we going to give these people not to do their frickin job. I don't think they should be allowed to pass it off to the next person, or the next county. But that seems to be what some are shooting for.

a reply to: Klassified

They shouldn't be given ANY wiggle room. Wiggle room just opens the door to discrimination. One person wiggles until he gets his way, then someone else steps in behind them and automatically assumes the concession made to the first person, then THEY proceed to wiggle and it gets worse.

These people should be forced to resign or get fired. If they feel like their faith is interfering with their jobs, then they need to change careers. They'd have to do EXACTLY that if they worked in the private sector. It's just that because they are government employee's, they likely are taking their mandated job security perk for granted with these issues.

a reply to: JadeStar

Yea, and back then, the religious were using the EXACT same arguments against interracial marriage as they are using now. Justifying their intolerance with the bible? Check. Asserting that the first amendment gives them the right to religiously discriminate? Check. Asserting that the new ruling changes the sanctity of marriage? Check. Declaring that their religious rights are being trampled upon? Check.

Though if you bring this point up to a Christian that opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, they are likely to ignore you.

a reply to: Kali74

i dont think as a judge he has to marry any one BUT if he will do straight marriages that would be a violation so its either no marriages at all or all of them but he does have the option to not perform marriage ceremony as long as he chooses to not do ANY www.aol.com...

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday. SEE MORE: Kentucky clerk won't accept gay marriage deal, goes to jail Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said. "He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said. In an email, Day declined to comment and referred questions to Korten. The issue of same-sex weddings is "the weightiest" of several allegations against Day that are being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, Korten said. He declined to detail any of the allegations, saying he didn't want to defy the commission, which considers complaints confidential until it is ready to make them public.

so if he stops all marrages that he was gonan do he should be golden as far as the law goes (ie hes under no legal obligation to marry any one at all if he so chooses

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

Yea, and back then, the religious were using the EXACT same arguments against interracial marriage as they are using now. Justifying their intolerance with the bible? Check. Asserting that the first amendment gives them the right to religiously discriminate? Check. Asserting that the new ruling changes the sanctity of marriage? Check. Declaring that their religious rights are being trampled upon? Check.

Though if you bring this point up to a Christian that opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, they are likely to ignore you.

I'm glad you said "Christian that opposes gay marriage for religious reasons" because not all Christians oppose gay marriage and not all Christians who oppose gay marriage oppose them on religious grounds, so that is an important distinction to make.

And yes, my parents told me people used to think interracial marriages were an "abomination in the eyes of god" quoting scripture on what would be interfaith marriages and applying that to interracial ones and then resorting to stupidity like "if god wanted a white man and a black woman to be together they would have put them on the same continent. The races were separated for a reason." and other ignorant stuff.

It seems like ignorance just finds new people to target in this country. First it was the native american indians. Then the slaves and the Irish. Then the Chinese and Italians. Then the freed blacks. Then the latinos and hispanics. Then the gays and lesbians. Now its the transgender.

Why can't people learn from history? It's never ok to ignorantly discount or dehumanize people because of a real or perceived difference.

a reply to: JadeStar

What's even more idiotic is that these bigots think they are crafting brand new arguments for their points, when in reality they've been hashed and rehashed so many times it's not even funny.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

What's even more idiotic is that these bigots think they are crafting brand new arguments for their points, when in reality they've been hashed and rehashed so many times it's not even funny.

"The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting the same result." Benjamin Franklin via Albert Einstein

And yet the bigots call us the crazy ones.

a reply to: JadeStar

They're hysterical because they're losing. We can expect more of the same for the near future. Wait til weed gets legalized, and then watch the fireworks, it'll be grand!!!!

a reply to: JadeStar

You know I will say this. When someone comes up with an argument along the lines of what I'm talking about, it just exposes them as a helpful idiot to the Conservative propaganda machine. Someone who can't even be bothered to research his claims beyond face details as long as the claims say something the person agrees with.

Well like Mike Huckabee said you only have to Uphold the law if it's "Right"... ... i mean let's ignore the Constitution that is supposed to represent the "Law" right? while we are at it lets take away Guns. if it's "Right" and your Freedom of Religion? well, if it's "Right" lets take that away too... i think anyone who supports this Guy and Kim Davis would support that as well?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Well like Mike Huckabee said you only have to Uphold the law if it's "Right"... ... i mean let's ignore the Constitution that is supposed to represent the "Law" right? while we are at it lets take away Guns. if it's "Right" and your Freedom of Religion? well, if it's "Right" lets take that away too... i think anyone who supports this Guy and Kim Davis would support that as well?

Watch from 10:45



Kim Davis is a nasty piece of work. She was offered the opportunity to stand aside and let the 5 out of 6 deputies who agreed to comply issue licenses, but she point blank refused. Her son works there and it sounds like he will not issue licenses either, he has been warned not to get up to shenanigans either but it sounds like they will not force him to issue them either. (So religious freedom has been preserved)

This woman was offered freedom of religion in being spared from having to issue the licences personally, but still refused and refused to let other deputy clerks issue them as well. I dont think anyone would really care who issues the license as long as somebody in the office does.

Let her rot in prison until she understands that religious freedom does not trump secular law I say

ETA, actually the way the judge who jailed Kim handled this is probably the way forward. The job of issuing marriage licenses may simply need to be redefined in that whoever in the state is responsible for issuing them needs to 'apply' or simply even sign an agreement form that ensures the understanding and compliance of same sex licenses. Every office would have one or more marriage license officers, who have that as a specific role that may be combined with other civil duties, while those who do not wish to issue licences to everyone opt out.

This would give the current people who morally object an out clause. i.e. You do not sign the new agreement, you cannot issue licenses to anyone and your authority is removed but the rest of your public duties remain intact.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

As one of the LGBTQ crowd, I find your posts oozing with malice. Clearly you do not like us.

Well guess what? We're here, we're queer and we're definitely not going anywhere!

I never asked or particularly wanted to be gay at the start, but I am. I had to deal with it and get on with my life. Maybe you should too.

I'm just as sick of arguing over rights as you are. But until I'm treated the same as you I will not give up because this is MY life and I sure as hell and am not going to be forced into second class citizenship because of your heterosexual ignorance.

Did you not read my posts? I support equality, do you just want a debate over something we both agree with? BTW, my opinion means very little as to whether or not I agree or disagree with LGBT lifestyle. You should simply be happy that there are people that support equality and that hopefully soon it will come right. But people do have a right to their opinions and businesses will make bad decisions and go bankrupt.

And my point Phage was that a rule should be applied equally to everyone, otherwise the rule is both ethically and morally invalid. You can't have black panthers and AL sharpten going off about killing whites and legitimize that or have feminazis attacking men or gays spitting on religious groups. One rule fits all or that rule should not exist.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: JadeStar

Im for anyone being able to marry. Not against it at all,but what I am not for is blackmailing someone into doing something. Judges LOOOOVEEEEEE to use Contept of court to strongarm people. Yeah she was a jerk fo rnot marrying them i agree. but the judge was a jerk wanting to make a example out of someone. He could had issues the marriage himself but this is a me want right now society instead of good things come to those who wait one.

There were other options. MArriages are recognized under law in all 50 states now for everyone. Another county could had done it too. This was done for political reasons as i am sure the ACLU told them to do it. not knocking th eACLU because they help alot of people out though. Change takes time though and its just too soon for some to handle it just yet.

Jade Im glad your parents got married. Otherwise you might not be here today.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: JadeStar
Jade Im glad your parents got married. Otherwise you might not be here today.

Correct you are. As devout Christians neither believed in having children outside of marriage.