Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

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.

Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

Any of this sound familiar? In my opinion, this now has less to do with equal rights for the LGBT community, and more to do with human rights. On the surface, this is a group of people standing up for their right not to be involved in a practice they believe is "sinful" or wrong. I get that. But below the surface, I see a group of people who still want to project their beliefs, doctrine, and tenets on everyone else. They want us to comply.

I understand this has been discussed a lot on ATS lately. However, I feel this is an important issue, and cannot be ignored. The outcome of these cases may very well set precedent, and dictate the course of this country for the forseeable future.

Do we allow elected and/or appointed "officials, who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States to pass their duty on to others willing to fulfill their obligations? Or do we take a stand and push our representatives to impeach and terminate those who refuse to give equal rights to those they deem unworthy?

And what happens when all of these "officials" refuse to do their job, effectively "filibustering" the constitution? If Americans don't take a firm stand, these people will, and they will set equal rights back a hundred years.

Day's move concerned Jeana Frazzini, co-director of the gay-rights group Basic Rights Oregon.

"Taking that kind of a step really calls into question how an LGBTQ person could expect to be treated in a court of law," Frazzini said. "It goes beyond marriage and gets to serious questions about judicial integrity."

Indeed.
Article Link

a reply to: Klassified

Practice your religion in your private life, do not use your gov job to push it on others.
Or at least keep it consistent, stick to all the beliefs about marriage that your religions spells out.

Off to jail he goes

You can't use Government to force people to practice your religion and to abide by your personal morals

Looks like someone just lost their Cascadian citizenship.

a reply to: Klassified

If it's required of him he will have to or he'll have to step down or be the next one to sit in a jail cell. You can't violate people's 1st and 14th amendment rights without consequence.

Why can't they have a different judge perform the ceremony? Why do the rights of gays get to be more important than the rights of this man? Surely there are many people happy to marry these people? Why does someone have to suffer? This seems like religious hating vindictiveness to me.

a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?

a reply to: Metallicus

I'm sure people said the same and made excuses when it was interracial marriage....
If you are a judge you have to follow the law end of.
Religious beliefs do not trump the law of the land.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Why can't they have a different judge perform the ceremony? Why do the rights of gays get to be more important than the rights of this man? Surely there are many people happy to marry these people? Why does someone have to suffer? This seems like religious hating vindictiveness to me.

This man has a job to do and that job is to uphold the law of the land set forth by the constitution and the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Why can't they have a different judge perform the ceremony? Why do the rights of gays get to be more important than the rights of this man? Surely there are many people happy to marry these people? Why does someone have to suffer? This seems like religious hating vindictiveness to me.

Did you actually read the OP?

And what happens when all of these "officials" refuse to do their job, effectively "filibustering" the constitution? If Americans don't take a firm stand, these people will, and they will set equal rights back a hundred years.

What happens when these "officials" band together and refuse to give you a marriage, hunting, fishing, drivers, or other license? It doesn't stop at refusing LGBT. If they can do this, what's next?

a reply to: Klassified

He's actually refusing to perform ALL marriages, but he still may be in legal hot water.

Judges who stop performing all marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples may be interpreted as biased and could be disqualified from any case where sexual orientation is an issue, the Ohio board ruled.

How can he be a judge in a case involving ANY LGBT person, if he has such bias against them? He clearly has bias against them if he won't fulfill his oath to the Constitution. I don't think he can be a good judge, if he can't perform his duties because of bias...

It's one of MANY cases to come, I'm afraid.

a reply to: Klassified

I see no reason why religious exemption shouldn't apply.

Nations are built by people, not people by nations. With that being the case, the promise to work together in order to build and uphold an agreed upon plan must therefor be on each individuals terms, otherwise, it is slavery, and no promise at all.

Religious exemption has always been one of the fundamental clauses to the agreement.

Really what it is asking is to put country before person morality or honor, and that is simply illogical.

Who here will give their morals to the country to decide upon?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?

Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.

a reply to: Metallicus

The only assholes are the people denying people the right to marry when it is there job to do so.
I wonder why you bleat freedom but don't like some groups to have that freedom?.

a reply to: Klassified

Lol! Who is forcing whose beliefs on who? Don't get your panties in a knot. If the judge wants to exercise his beliefs, he has that right. Just like you have the right to exercise yours. Nobody has to agree with him, you, all the religious folks or all the LGBTQ's or all the atheists. If you force him to do what he doesn't want to do, then you've infringed on his rights.

As soon as someone is unable to say no and there are extortive consequences or retaliation, THERE IS NO FREEDOM, PERIOD.

Forcing the judge to marry someone is like raping someone, just not physically.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Klassified

The personal assertion of religious beliefs that goes against government legislation should, imo, be outlawed - keep them separate lest you become Taliban 2.0.

There is however an issue that definitely needs addressing and that is the introduction of mandated legislation that did not previously exist - where the employees personal beliefs are at logger-heads with the new legislation but they were not before.

As with the private sector, there should be cooling off periods and time to adjust to the new laws for both employees of the state as well as her citizens so that appropriate arrangements can be made to ensure the new law is enacted as it was designed to do.

So, if you happen to be in the government employ, and you hold strong religious beliefs that are counter to proposed legislation, I think that the employee and employer need to hash-out their future employment arrangements and job description before it get's to this point.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?

Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.

Are the rights of this judge being violated?

As far as I know he can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

The only rights being violated are those of gay people that want to marry and this judge is not allowing them to marry

a reply to: Metallicus

Or easily solved by him doing his job.
Sorry the courts didn't take your religious belief into account when they decided our gov has no place to tell two consenting adults if they can get married.

Why are his religious rights more important then their civil rights?

No matter how you phrase it there is a flip side where his rights are trampling others.
Our freedom ends where the freedom of others begins.
Your words.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The judges job is to uphold the law correct? It is law that gay folk can get wed, If he can not do it he should give up his job.
Your religious rights stop when it infringes on others which is what has happened.
He is in a government position which should not have anything to do with any brand of religion.

He is not disobeying the law by practicing his religion - that right is apart of the law.

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The clause is that the government will not infringe upon the religious beliefs of the individual, not the other way around - that is impossible - all we are is our beliefs.

Let me say that more clearly: the state is to stay out of religion, but religion can go where it pleases. Your own personal religion is the highest order - that is the clause.