Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

What would you say if I told you I have a coworker who was straight, was married, unhappy in her marriage, and decided to be a lesbian. Dated only girls for about 6 years. Then she decided girls were too much drama and now she is back to dating guys and considers herself heterosexual now.

I would say she was actually bisexual. It happens.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

What would you say if I told you I have a coworker who was straight, was married, unhappy in her marriage, and decided to be a lesbian. Dated only girls for about 6 years. Then she decided girls were too much drama and now she is back to dating guys and considers herself heterosexual now.

I would say she was actually bisexual. It happens.

She wouldn't. Who are you to tell her what her orientation is? She identified as lesbian, now identifies as straight, those are the words she uses not me. She did not touch any guys while a lesbian, and now does not mess with any girls.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Doesn't matter who she does or doesn't mess with. Sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual activity. You don't choose who you are attracted to. You DO choose who you have sex with. If you are capable of being attracted to men, and you are capable of being attracted to women, then you are bisexual. Lots of bisexuals choose to settle down with one gender. I know a bisexual girl who fell in love with a man and married him. Before that, she had lots of relationships with women. Now she doesn't because she is faithful to her man. She's still a bisexual.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Doesn't matter who she does or doesn't mess with. Sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual activity.

Who decides her orientation, you? Can I decide people's orientations too? I am not calling her a lesbian, SHE did.

You don't choose who you are attracted to. You DO choose who you have sex with. If you are capable of being attracted to men, and you are capable of being attracted to women, then you are bisexual.

So now you decide people's orientations.

Lots of bisexuals choose to settle down with one gender. I know a bisexual girl who fell in love with a man and married him. Before that, she had lots of relationships with women. Now she doesn't because she is faithful to her man. She's still a bisexual.

Good for her. My coworker had no sexual interest in men. Now she has no sexual interest in women. Your mind is trapped in this tiny little box because you need a false paradigm to be true. Attraction is not nature or nurture, it's a combination.

It's quite possible to grow up being disgusted by the idea of sex with a certain gender to then do a complete 180. Just because it throws a monkey wrench in what you want to be true doesn't make it any less true.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Personally, I think either you or she is being dishonest. Easy to claim anything on the internet. I don't know you and I don't know her, so who knows what the real truth is? You may have made the whole thing up to help your argument.

No, no one just decides "today I am going to be homosexual" and then a year or two later decide "today I am going to be heterosexual". It just doesn't work that way. You don't choose who you are attracted to. You do choose who you will have a relationship with. You do choose who you have sex with. That's a fact. Your co-worker (assuming she's real) did not choose to be a hetero, then choose to be gay, then choose to be hetero again. She just chose who she would have relationships with. If she was capable of being attracted to men and capable of being attracted to women, then she is bisexual.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Personally, I think either you or she is being dishonest. Easy to claim anything on the internet. I don't know you and I don't know her, so who knows what the real truth is? You may have made the whole thing up to help your argument.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant, when you have to resort to believing things are lies that contradict your views it's time to rethink your views.

No, no one just decides "today I am going to be homosexual" and then a year or two later decide "today I am going to be heterosexual". It just doesn't work that way. You don't choose who you are attracted to. You do choose who you will have a relationship with. You do choose who you have sex with. That's a fact. Your co-worker (assuming she's real) did not choose to be a hetero, then choose to be gay, then choose to be hetero again. She just chose who she would have relationships with. If she was capable of being attracted to men and capable of being attracted to women, then she is bisexual.

Just like no one used the argument they were born this way so it must be alright, and then I proved they do. Feel free to keep believing in things that are untrue, I used my coworker as an example but that is not the only example from my personal life that proves your belief wrong. You are obviously invested to the point it seems your world view would shatter so there is no point in moving forward.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Klassified
First off, that remark is quite offensive, ad hominem, and uncalled for.

You created a scenario that did not happen to prove this is wrong. That's called lying.

No. I gave an example of the kind of crap that's going to end up happening, if you let these people cherry pick who they serve, and who they don't. It's not my problem you lack the ability to comprehend obvious sarcasm. Lying is what I'm about to do right now...

It has been a pleasure chatting with you.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Klassified

What about the rights of Muslims? I don't think any muslims should have to issue licenses to women at the DMV, they don't want to anger Allah. Agree or disagree?

There is a reason government and religion was kept separate when the US was in its infancy.

Exactly. And since said Muslim is the boss at the local DMV, none of the other clerks can issue license to women either. Guess they'll have to go to another county.

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

In 1989 an american writer and researcher called A. Ralph Epperson wrote a book called The New World Order. There is a very interesting passage on page 20 of the introduction. Makes you wonder about the fact that the issue at hand, if not the whole LGBT thing is by design.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
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.

Because the same logic could allow a Muslim government official to refuse women driver's licenses, or a Jewish government official to declare it illegal to work on Saturdays, etc. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If your job is to act as the middle-man between the government and the citizens, YOU CANNOT PERFORM THAT JOB WITH A RELIGIOUS BIAS. End of story.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
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.

Because the same logic could allow a Muslim government official to refuse women driver's licenses, or a Jewish government official to declare it illegal to work on Saturdays, etc. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If your job is to act as the middle-man between the government and the citizens, YOU CANNOT PERFORM THAT JOB WITH A RELIGIOUS BIAS. End of story.

Thank you. For some reason this has had to be repeated endlessly across more than one thread. Some just can't, or don't want, to "get it".

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: muse7
Off to jail he goes

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

IS it really him denying them their rights? They can go elsewhere to get married so its not really a violation of their rights unfortunatly.

Yes he is denying them their rights.

A judge can't pick and choose which laws he's going to uphold.

Oh, but the POTUS can???? As I've said before, follow the leader, trickle down behaviors etc., the little minion leaders are doing as they see the great leader doing.

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013


Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program.

Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities

Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times.

Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments.

Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Klassified

Noir detectives gotta stick together.

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

I'm not inclined to get deeply involved with yet another discussion with the people (not you) who don't know the law, but this point really concerned me... My question is CAN this Judge do his Job???

He is sworn to uphold the Constitution and US Law. Yet he has shown that when it comes to his personal beliefs, THEY outweigh the Constitution in his mind. So, can he effectively judge ANY case, knowing that if a case involves his personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, the people cannot trust him to uphold the Constitution over his personal beliefs? He would have to recuse himself if ANY of his personal beliefs about the plaintiff OR defendant contradict the Constitution.

I know I wouldn't trust him to do his job. Oath Judges Take

“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.”

Clearly, he's already broken his oath.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Klassified
First off, that remark is quite offensive, ad hominem, and uncalled for.

You created a scenario that did not happen to prove this is wrong. That's called lying.

No. I gave an example of the kind of crap that's going to end up happening, if you let these people cherry pick who they serve, and who they don't. It's not my problem you lack the ability to comprehend obvious sarcasm. Lying is what I'm about to do right now...

It has been a pleasure chatting with you.

thanks for my morning chuckle...well said

a reply to: Telos

except for that one thing about homosexual marriage, nothing that you showed us on that page of the "new world order" book has happened, nor will it happen......although, for me personally, I would like to see some restrictions on religion, due to the fact that they keep wanting the rest of us to obey 2000 year old laws, inspired by a mythical being.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Telos

except for that one thing about homosexual marriage, nothing that you showed us on that page of the "new world order" book has happened, nor will it happen...

Well one has happened. Others not yet (or maybe never will). What the author doesn't say is that is going to happen at the same time. So for you to say hasn't happened is a reality check. For you to say never will happen is pure arrogance and wishful thinking. I'm sure back in those day many people laughed at him for just entertaining the idea of same sex marriage. How about now?

a reply to: Telos

He's a Christian conspiracy theorist. There are MANY here on ATS. Anyone could have foreseen that.

In 1989, when he published the book, other countries were already permitting same-sex unions and gay marriage was already a going concern here in the US (since about 1970). Gay people were actually issued marriage licenses, but then the Christians (like Epperson) rose up and whined until the courts made it illegal.

It's not a big statement to Epperson's foresight to know that marriage equality would soon be the law.

the problem is for Judges to all have the same "job description".
it makes sense some people do not like homosexuality in any fashion and will not 'marry same sex couples' because they object personally
the city, county, state officials obviously have a challenge on their hands, it makes sense that SOMEONE in the office can perform a gay/straight "marriage" without the lovebirds finding another office somewhere else to get married (inconvenient to drive to another town etc)

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

He's a Christian conspiracy theorist. There are MANY here on ATS. Anyone could have foreseen that.

I know he is a "christian" but it doesn't mean that because of that, what he wrote is biased.

In 1989, when he published the book, other countries were already permitting same-sex unions and gay marriage was already a going concern here in the US (since about 1970). Gay people were actually issued marriage licenses, but then the Christians (like Epperson) rose up and whined until the courts made it illegal.

It's not a big statement to Epperson's foresight to know that marriage equality would soon be the law.

Actually a part from a very very small number of people who tried for same sex union (not marriage) the issue was totally unexpected and unheard off. At the time no one would take gay people seriously, let alone thinking of their marriage. Unless we're talking about people with a sixth sense who could predict what would happen, Epperson was dead on.