Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

He's at least making a reasonable accommodation unlike that chick. Still a bigoted ass, but at least he's not blocking people from getting married. He's only one of the judges there that can issue such.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
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.

It's not marriage, it's a civil union at best, marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman. Since the judge made other arrangements to handle LGBTQ unions and also retired, no harm, no foul. I know what the problem is here, the LGBTQ crowd won't be happy until everybody is LGBTQ.

I don't even know how these stupid laws get passed, except through lobbying and corruption, since more than 90% of the population is heterosexual. Must be a new version of democracy as well that allows the minority to control outcomes, you know, tail wag dog.

Cheers - Dave

I'd have to look into it further, but I did look into this story some. I get the impression that the judges are not required to do marriages, it's optional. I mean, why would I have found a list of judges in that area that do them if it was mandatory for the judges to do them? although, I agree that any judge that decides to quit doing marriages so he doesn't have to deal with homosexual marriages probably should recluse themself from any hearing that involves that issue, since he's obviously a tad bit bias on the issue.

but well, I'm going to look into it more and see if I am right about it not being a mandatory part of the job to begin with. since that would make a world of difference to me as far as I would look at this.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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

Can't imagine where he got that idea. Lol.

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...

Exactly. Which is what the Co-director of the gay-rights group questioned.

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

Unfortunately, you're right. I think we're seeing a repeat of inter-racial marriage. And it was the same players holding up human rights back then from what I've read.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It is marriage bleat all you want but it is.
Its law I suggest getting over it.
Does it effect you in the slightest gay folk getting wed? Nope? Then why does it bother you so much?.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

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

Not when you're an elected servant of the people. You take an oath to uphold the constitution. Can't do that? Don't run for office.

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

No it isn't. You have a right to have all the morals you want. But if you want to hold public office, you serve the people, not yourself.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
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

You didn't read the OP, or BH's earlier thread either, did you? We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
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.

I wouldn't disagree with what you propose here. On the other hand, if I can't fulfill my obligations to the people, it's time for me to go. Especially, if I have instructed those in my employ to also go against the SCOTUS ruling, as this judge and Kim Davis have both done.

a reply to: Klassified

Religious freedom is a part of the constitution - apart of the law - it is the law. Being a government employee does not exempt you from that right.

If I am wrong, show me the law that says it.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
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.

This judge IS part of the government at the moment. If his personal beliefs interfere with his service to the people who elected him, he needs to resign. His religious rights have not been infringed in the least. But he has infringed upon other peoples right to be married under the law.

This is an easy solution.

Get another judge. Or let this judge get his assistant to do it

The government should merely create a quasi official agency or just give it to a Notary Public to give out the legal licenses to people to get married.

This is all made complicated and it doesn’t have to be

Religious people are grandstanding

Many of them always do

The Koran calls it: religion to be seen of men

Religious vanity and fantasies of being a saint or holy person

Why don’t religious people carry out the best of their religion which is about love?

They always take the easy route which is about condemning others rather than loving them

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I did wonder about bias and upcoming cases as well as grounds for review in previous cases. If at any time he had to deal with a homosexual person... lawyers could have a field day with both old and upcoming cases. Thank-you for citing that.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Using the government to do so, no he absolutely does not. It is the very first thing the founders restricted the government from doing.

originally posted by: KlassifiedBut 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.

Except your article says he informed his staff to have the couples married, just by someone else. It sounds like the exact opposite of what you said.

originally posted by: Klassified

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

Judges in Oregon are not required to perform marriages. It is optional. It's not "their job". He is choosing not to perform any weddings, not just gay ones. That is his option, and his reasons don't matter. End of story. The article is misleading and smells of gay activism. Which is pretty smelly.

originally posted by: Willtell
This is an easy solution.

Get another judge. Or let this judge get his assistant to do it

The government should merely create a quasi official agency or just give it to a Notary Public to give out the legal licenses to people to get married.

This is all made complicated and it doesn’t have to be

Religious people are grandstanding

Many of them always do

The Koran calls it: religion to be seen of men

Religious vanity and fantasies of being a saint or holy person

Why don’t religious people carry out the best of their religion which is about love?

They always take the easy route which is about condemning others rather than loving them

The grandstanding in this case, and other recent ones, are from the gay activists. Judges are not required to perform marriage ceremonies. It's that simple. He is being attacked by gay activists on religious grounds. They are butthurt.

a reply to: UFGarvin

That would be valid if before he chose to stop performing weddings he hadn't refused to perform same-sex weddings.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UFGarvin

That would be valid if before he chose to stop performing weddings he hadn't refused to perform same-sex weddings.

Thank you. Beat me to it.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: boymonkey74
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.

It's not marriage, it's a civil union at best, marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman. Since the judge made other arrangements to handle LGBTQ unions and also retired, no harm, no foul. I know what the problem is here, the LGBTQ crowd won't be happy until everybody is LGBTQ.

I don't even know how these stupid laws get passed, except through lobbying and corruption, since more than 90% of the population is heterosexual. Must be a new version of democracy as well that allows the minority to control outcomes, you know, tail wag dog.

Cheers - Dave

How many states voted for gay marrinage, 3? It is being forced upon the country by activists in the white house, courts and the media. Voters have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
What you quoted from my OP was aimed at this whole fiasco, not just this case alone. But as was said above, he previously refused to perform same-sex weddings.