Gay Texas judge refuses to wed straight couples

[William769]

Catholic priests have refused to marry same-sex couples for years.

Now, a Texas judge has an answer to that, saying she will no longer marry straight couples until gay marriage is legal in the state.

Judge Tonya Parker of Dallas County told the New York Daily News that she respectfully tells couples why she can’t conduct their marriage ceremony:

“I'm sorry. I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gay-texas-judge-refuses-to-wed-straight-couples/2012/02/24/gIQAwtKrXR_blog.html

[Drale]

1. While I support why she's doing this

I don't think its fair. When you do something like this you become just like the people to hate. Your punishing couples who just want to get married for something a small group of bigots in doing.

[xchrom]

3. she.

and i think she's right -- however there are probably plenty of judges who are marrying folk -- so i doubt there would be a backlog.

[William769]

4. I support why she is doing it and I also applaud why she is doing it.

It's called equal protection under the law. If one group of people is not protected, why should anther group of people be protected under the same law.

[Kellerfeller]

11. I'm curious

Would you support a judge who favored plural marriages doing the same until plural marriages were allowed in the state?

[morningfog]

12. I can't speak for William, but sure. I would support that judge.

I also don't see that as an issue. This is a santorumesque line of reasoning you are using.

I'm curious, do you support marriage equality?

[maddezmom]

14. I'm curious as well

and agree, this is something Rick or Rush would bring into the discussion.

[Kellerfeller]

15. I support consistency and logic.

Either I support leaving the definition of marriage as it is and traditionally has been or we need to open it up to all. Opening it up for specific groups with no logical basis isn't fair.

For example, some say strictly defining it as a man and woman is arbitrary an unfair. Others can just as legitimately say there is nothing magical about the number two.

On edit: Oops, I forgot to add that your position scares me. It gives license to any official to not perform part of their duties if they have a political statement to make.

On 2nd edit: stupid typos...

[morningfog]

21. Don't be scared, you must not have read the article.

The Lone Star state judge also points out that she is not required by law to perform marriages, as it was considered a “discretionary function” that is not to interfere with “mandatory judicial duties.”

She isn't abstaining from any required duty.

If a triad or a polyamorous group come forward and show that they are being denied rights because they can't legally marry, I would support them in their efforts. You are using the same 'slippery-slope' arguments of the right. You argument is disingenuous. You are admitting that being denied marriage is inherently unfair, yet seem to not want to actually change it.

You think it would be unfair to allow gays and lesbians to marry, unless it went whole cloth across the board? You realize how that is a very weak position to hold and one that won't be very popular. It ensures that moderates would be scared away. You are arguing for your first position, and I suspect, actual position: you want marriage to stay man and woman only. That is a bigoted position, by the way.

THe burden is on you, not to argue for polyamourous marriage right, but to defend not allowing same-sex couples to marry. I noticed you dodged the question, too.

Let me be clearer: Do you support the the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry?

[Kellerfeller]

29. The fact that it is not a required duty

makes it a lot easier to stomach. I did miss that part. If it is an expected duty, then it is a concern.

But to first answer your question, yes, I can support gay and lesbian couples to marry if marriage is truly equal and other forms of marriage between consenting humans is allowed.

If you can only support a position that is popular and "strong", then you really aren't interested in equality, just your own little niche of equality (not you personally, of course). I don't care to be popular. I prefer to stand for what is fair, right, logical , and consistent.

If you do not support plural marriage, you are the bigoted one.

THe burden is on you then to defend not allowing plural families to marry.

[morningfog]

31. I'm going to map out how I understand your reasoning.

Marriage as it stands now is unfair to anyone who is not in a singular heterosexual relationship.

You would support expanding the definition of marriage to be less unfair, but only if it was done so that it would be completely fair to every type of obscure consensual adult relationship imaginable.

Therefore, you are against marriage equality for gays and lesbians who want to marry. You refuse to support making marriage less unfair because of principle. Got it.

For the record, I don't believe you. I call bullshit. I think you are anti-marriage equality. You are spinning right wing bullshit under the guise of your profound and expansive understanding of fairness. Otherwise, you would, without reservation, support same-sex marriage as a worthy step to your ultimate vision of fairness.

[bongbong]

34. Ding Ding

> For the record, I don't believe you. I call bullshit.

Yep, lotsa Red Staters & other low-IQ folks are on these pages lately. I'm not saying anything about the guy you responded to, but just making an observation in general.

[2ndAmForComputers]

39. In your opinion, is allowing same-sex marriage...

...opening it up for a specific group with no logical basis?

[moriah]

43. I don't see an issue with more than two people in a marriage.

Do wonder how it would work in divorce court. Let's say a guy married two wives and then left them, they both stayed at home and took care of the household, and contributed to his career during the marriage. Would he split the alimony he might otherwise pay between them? Or would he be responsible for double alimony (enough to help support both of them if they decided not to live together?) Would all three be considered married to each other, and if one of the wives left would she be responsible for supporting both spouses, or just the one she was in love with?

It would be complicated but not undoable.

----

Still, there is a logical basis for saying gender shouldn't be important, in my opinion.

[uppityperson]

44. I know you are ppr'd, but by "traditional" do you mean between people of the same skin color or

between a 40 yr old man and a 15 yr old girl?

Opening up marriage to 2 people regardless of their sexual orientation is...scary?

[William769]

13. I'm curious also.

Answer the question about marriage equality and I will be more than happy your answer your question.

[Kellerfeller]

16. You didn't ask a question

So therefore my answer is 42.

[William769]

17. Let me make it simple for you.

Do you support marriage equality?

[Kellerfeller]

18. See my other response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=347864

[William769]

19. You think your cute with your answers.

But it is plain to see whats going on here.

This thread is about marriage equality, something you don't want to give a answer on which is fine I'll just assume I already know what your answer is.

And heres a tip, if you want your question answered or discussed in detail feel free to start a thread about that instead of trying to derail this thread. But I believe you already knew that so it begs to wonder why you even post in this thread.

[morningfog]

22. Let me cut through the bullshit.

I support the right of ANY consenting adults to enter into marriage. I am not so worried as you seem to be about a slippery-slope.

Now, your turn. Do you support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry?

[Kellerfeller]

24. Then you are consistent

and I can support that.

[sudopod]

27. God cries when you hide your candle under a bushel.

Say what you really believe.

[William769]

23. I'll take your answer as a no on marriage equality.

And as I said if you would like answers to your questions feel free to start a thread on the subject.

BTW I'm not promoting my form of marriage equality, I'm promoting equality. I realize some people have a problem with equality for all hiding behind cryptic answers, but that also is for another thread.

Enjoy yourself, I know after this week on whats happening with marriage equality and equality for all being passed at State & local Governments, I know I'll enjoy the good news and also enjoy knowing that people are foaming at the mouth because these laws are being passed.

If you need any of these

I'll be happy to get you some.

[Kellerfeller]

25. And I interpret you answer as "no" on marriage equality as well

Since you can't seem to come out and say you support plural marriage, it is plain to see where you stand on the topic.

And you still really haven't addressed the point of my post as you tried to derail it:

Are you fine with gov't officials refusing to do part of their job as long as they can tie it to a political stance or objective?

[morningfog]

26. You can't come out and support gay and lesbians right to marry, can you?

It seems to me you can't.

[morningfog]

28. She isn't refusing to do a part of her job that is mandatory or required.

It is discretionary.

Back to you. DO you support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry?

[2ndAmForComputers]

40. You ARE going to bring up man-on-dog and box turtles any minute now, aren't you?

[2ndAmForComputers]

38. Ah, you're against. Thanks for the clarification.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Plural marriage is illegal to ALL... thus, no discrimination.

[etherealtruth]

33. We have a winner!

[2ndAmForComputers]

37. No, wait, let me guess.

You're concerned about man-on-dog too, right?

[w8liftinglady]

42. Sorry- apples and oranges

And, for the record, Texas doesn't have "civil unions" either.
I completely support this judge... her actions are very brave in Texas.
I hate to break the news to you,but your remarks are very santorum-like.

[joeybee12]

5. I don't think this would be considered a part of her job responsibilities...

such as for a clerk who is comanded by law to issue licenses...some judges do, some don't.

[LanternWaste]

6. I see it rather as a judge who is simply applying a consistent ethical standard...

"our punishing couples who just want to get married for something a small group of bigots in doing..."

I see it rather as a judge who is simply applying a consistent ethical standard.

I certainly do not see any form of "punishment" in this scenario, as there are many of judges in Dallas who will indeed, marry straight couples only, and in no way deny these deserving young, straight couples from five to eleven years of marital bliss before they divorce.

[Evasporque]

9. 50% of the people voted to deny marriage in Cali and Wis.

SO don't tell me it is a small percentage of "bigots"....

[bongbong]

32. Not bigots

They're not bigots, mostly, but they are easily-led by the media, and also they are creatures of tradition.

The idea that seems radical in year X is "common sense" in year X+25.

[2ndAmForComputers]

36. Screw that. Each and everybody who voted for Prop H8 and similar abominations is a bigot. PERIOD.

[Posteritatis]

41. Nope, they're bigots. (nt)

[2ndAmForComputers]

35. Let me assuage your concern.

The couples immediately get other judge. She's not screwing over anybody's plans, just making a point.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Good

Equal rights for all is the foundation of America.

[William769]

10. ...

[bowens43]

7. Perfect.

We also be working on a Constitutional ban on heterosexual marriages.

[closeupready]

8. K&R. I suppose, in theory, she could argue that constitutional law prohibits her from discriminatin

discriminating. That is, that since the constitution - which she swore to uphold - mandates an equal application of laws, therefore she is actually prohibited from doing this, since as long as Texas denies marriage to one class of people, it therefore denies it to EVERYONE.

Anyway, regardless, for the courage this took to do.