Texas Judge Refusing to Perform Marriage Ceremonies Until Gay Marriage is Legalized

DallasVoice.com

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.

“I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the Judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. If my deputy is not busy, I will even ask him to escort or help these individuals find another Judge who performs the ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness.

When I first read this, my immediate reaction was that this Judge has a double standard here. Upon reflecting a little bit, I do understand her point of view.

I am straight, I am Republican, but I do believe that gays have a right to get married just as I do.

The performance of the marriage ceremony is not one of her duties, rather it is a privilege afforded to her under the family code.

I wonder what her stance would be if she was the only available judge due to unforeseen circumstances...she states she wont impede, but simply chooses to do perform the ceremony.

Interesting side note here...
In Texas, judges are elected officials, might this have an impact on her re-election?

What say you ATS?

If I proclaimed that I was NOT going to engage in the work I was being paid to do, I would expect to be fired.

reply to post by tkwasny


Shes not paid to do it though. Thats the point.

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by tkwasny

 

Shes not paid to do it though. Thats the point.

Something's not right with that story. I'm not buying the comment that she's not required to perform activities she is being paid to do. Maybe she is unaware of her responsibilities. Me-thinks she'll have those pointed out to her by legal controlling authorities above her pay grade.

reply to post by youdidntseeme

It is a right and privilege

Well, which is it?

Gay marriage should be legalized. It doesn't hurt a soul and I have yet to see a good argument against it. It makes me mildly uncomfortable but so what? I'm allowed to own guns. That makes a ton of people uncomfortable.

After all that, I have to say that I find the judge's actions rather hypocritical. She would deny other couples the right to marriage because certain couples are not granted that right? I suppose you could argue that the action got media attention, in turn bringing more attention to the issue at hand, but still... Perhaps there are more appropriate ways to highlight the loss of one groups rights than to deny others theirs.

reply to post by tkwasny



According to TX Family Code Chapter 2 subchapter C: ceremony

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:

(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;

(2) a Jewish rabbi;

(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and

(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

Read the code here

Nowhere in the family code does it state that a judge is bound by duty or law to perform the ceremony, just that they are allowed by law to do so.

Originally posted by Domo1

After all that, I have to say that I find the judge's actions rather hypocritical. She would deny other couples the right to marriage because certain couples are not granted that right? I suppose you could argue that the action got media attention, in turn bringing more attention to the issue at hand, but still... Perhaps there are more appropriate ways to highlight the loss of one groups rights than to deny others theirs.

That was my first reaction as well...well i suppose I do still find it hypocritical, but I dont feel that she is denying others the right, she is just denying them her presence at their ceremony.

I know in my town the mayor, any judge or any religious official can perform the ceremony, it isnt limited to one person, and they can refuse to do it as well, in fact the mayor's office told a friend of mine 'The mayor is not performing any ceremonies in the near future.'

Hypocritical, yes, denial of marriages to others, no.
And star for you my friend.

Awesome for her! We need more officials willing to stand up like this. I don't find it hypocritical in the least. Impeding peoples rights to get married? Ha! There's the hypocrisy right there. Call a person out for denying a right while denying thousands and thousands that same right. This country is an insane asylum.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
DallasVoice.com

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.

“I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the Judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. If my deputy is not busy, I will even ask him to escort or help these individuals find another Judge who performs the ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness.

When I first read this, my immediate reaction was that this Judge has a double standard here. Upon reflecting a little bit, I do understand her point of view.

I am straight, I am Republican, but I do believe that gays have a right to get married just as I do.

The performance of the marriage ceremony is not one of her duties, rather it is a privilege afforded to her under the family code.

I wonder what her stance would be if she was the only available judge due to unforeseen circumstances...she states she wont impede, but simply chooses to do perform the ceremony.

Interesting side note here...
In Texas, judges are elected officials, might this have an impact on her re-election?

What say you ATS?

Somehow I doubt your a Republican. And I doubt even more that your straight.
And the fact that your supposition relies on the read believing such statements as being truth(kind of like I am ...... and even I... fallacy argument).

She won't win re-election.

Originally posted by korathin

Somehow I doubt your a Republican. And I doubt even more that your straight.
And the fact that your supposition relies on the read believing such statements as being truth(kind of like I am ...... and even I... fallacy argument).

She won't win re-election.

You are entitled to your doubts, but what I stated is the truth...we can disagree with that.
But we will agree on her chances of being re-elected now, not a chance.

Star for you on that one!

Since when have gays not had the right to marry?

They have the same rights to marry as everyone else in all 50 states.

reply to post by Carseller4


I suspect trolling here but I'll respond anyway. No, they don't have the right to get married in all 50 states. Not even half the states...I think we're up to 6 states that "allow" same sex marriage.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Carseller4

 

I suspect trolling here but I'll respond anyway. No, they don't have the right to get married in all 50 states. Not even half the states...I think we're up to 6 states that "allow" same sex marriage.

I didn't say anything about "same sex" marriage.

I said they have the right to marry just like everyone else.

reply to post by Carseller4


Ah, there's the trollery.