LGBT News Christian Post says judges should be able to refuse to marry gay couples

He should have the right to abstain from participating but not to deny the law.

 

They do.

It's called resigning.

 

I think they should have to obey the law.

 

:lol: Pretty much.

 

A judge has a right to recuse himself from a case if it is a conflict of interest or they feel unable to judge fairly. I think this might apply. Would you really want a KKK member preceding over your wedding?

 

Yeah, I think the judge would have his own freedom of religion that should excuse him from such a duty.

 

I'm getting tired of people using religion as an excuse for everything. That tares it. I'm starting my own religion

1. A Man may not lie with a women like a man lies with a man.
2. You cannot marry your own race.
3. You must wear an LGBT bracelet at all times.
4. You must pay no taxes. Taxes are evil.
5. Don't judge others in a court room. Stay home and watch tv instead.

Then if anyone tries getting to make me taxes I can just say that my religion is against it, I can say you can't marry your own race, and you must be gay. Something tells me if I said that and tried the "it's against my religion" card, people would think I was cray cray.

 

Here's what I think...everyone has their own beliefs, and even if they don't line up with what we hope they will, we have to acknowledge that. Otherwise, we set a precedent that religious freedom can be trumped by the passing of a law. Then, it works both ways; and if we (God forbid) end up with a crazy right wing government at some point, they'll have grounds to deny people the right to freedom FROM religion as well. And then we're back in the reign of Henry VIII...and we're the ones holding the metaphorical rosaries, if you catch my drift. Besides, if we allow them their small acts of rebellion in light of major progress, they'll be much more likely to see reason later on. If we drag them, kicking and screaming, we'll just alienate even more people.

 

That's kinda what the allies tried with Hitler before WWII. They let him have small victories over and over again, until eventually, he held too much power.

While I do believe that a judge would have to uphold the law, as that is kinda their job, they should be able to recuse themselves from performing weddings for gay and lesbian couples if they don't want to, for whatever reason. And besides, why would gay or lesbian couples want a homophobic judge to preside over their wedding?

 

I would definitely draw the line well before genocide. I just mean that a judge should be able to opt out of specific ceremonies based on personal beliefs. Like you said, there are other judges who would do it willingly.

 

Judges have a duty to perform. If they can't obey the laws, then they must resign.

A civil judge opposing same-sex marriage on traditional Christian grounds is ironic. Exact interpretation of scriptural marriage means that only priests may solemnise a wedding. Now, why don't judges refuse to preside over marriages not between fertile, virginal male-female partners (ceremonially) conducted by priests? Oh, that's right, because that's not the real reason.

 

So this is a fun one. Technically I believe that they can not continuously object as public civil servants on any grounds. Since I am a pastor, I can marry folks and could object to marrying a particular couple. Perhaps I will start a new trend and object to marrying bigoted straight couples? I kid (a little anyway), the point is, I don't work for the state, so at least for now no matter how popular my choice might be, I can do that and enjoy a certain amount of protection.

The real issue here is that for the whopping three weddings I have officiated over, I was entrusted as a legal proxy for the state. That means I get to sign the marriage certificate which is what makes it legal (that and of course filing said legal document). The ceremony itself is important only for the sake of the participants, their families, etc. Can be religious, can be skipped. None of that portion is actually "legal." As far as I know, a judge is a civil servant, not a religious one. This of course could become a free speech war or something, but an unbiased approach to serving as a judge ought to be pre-requisite for serving in that capacity to begin with.

 

Which is strongly encouraged, in the case of homophobic judges.

 

I can see both sides, I guess. I just feel like it hurts the cause to force their hands because we might not hold the same beliefs they do. Do I think it's wrong for them to object? Sure...but is it our place to tell them they have to marry us? A judge can refuse to hear a case if they feel they cannot be impartial. Is it really that different? Do we need to wrestle them into doing something they feel is wrong? Can we tell them to just go through the motions because it's what's expected of them? Isn't that what countless LGBT people have been told about relationships and marriage; just meet a nice member of the opposite sex and fake it if you have to? Equality and nondiscrimination are vital, but we could probably ease them into it more slowly for the sake of better relations in the future. If I marry a girl, I want the option of a supportive person presiding over it. I feel like that has to go both ways until we can effectively bridge our differences.

 

Don't apply for a job you can't do. Simple as that.

---------- Post added 7th Nov 2013 at 01:04 PM ----------

This is an idiotic analogy, plain an simple. Every job implies doing something. Every job is also optional. When you decide to take on a job, you accept to take on the responsibility of fulfilling every aspect which that job implies. Don't like the tasks required of someone holding a job? Simple: don't take that job. No one's forcing you to do it.

 

Look, I appreciate your viewpoint, but calling me "idiotic" is not helping anything. You've been very adamant about your hatred of Christians in many posts, and you're entitled to that. But, are you supposed to do everything an employer tells you to do? No. Not if it violates your moral code. Is it sad and hurtful that some people feel that way? Absolutely. This isn't a forum for immature name-calling. Please try to be a bit more respectful of other people's opinions.

 

I didn't call you idiotic, I called your analogy idiotic, and I think it helps plenty to point that out. It has about as much validity as comparing being gay to necrophilia.

And please, no faux Christian "persecution" whining. You're the one who took it there.

No, you do not have to do everything your employer tells you to do. For example, if your employer tells you to change your name to "Princess Banana Pants", you certainly don't have to do that. However, believe it or not, when you have a job, that doesn't mean you can do whatever your whims tell you to do. Most jobs have job descriptions, and by taking a certain job, you agree to fulfill the tasks that are mentioned in said job's job description. If your "moral code" goes against a certain job's job description, the simple solution to that is to look for another job which better aligns with your values. For example, if you think abortion is murder, you can't possibly expect to get a job as an abortion doctor in an abortion clinic and then not have to do any abortions (i.e. do your job) while still getting payed.

 

There's an analogy I disagree with. Should a judge who believes gay marriage is wrong apply to work exclusively in a gay wedding chapel? Yeah, probably not. BUT, a doctor can still be a doctor and refuse to perform abortions if they're against his or her convictions.

And when was I whining? And where exactly did I take it? I told you were entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Calling someone's argument idiotic is just about as rude as calling the person idiotic. I didn't say anything offensive or mean. The post is here for the purpose of discussion. All I did was politely state my stance on it. You can disagree, but why is it necessary to attack people? Why does this have to be a catfight rather than an intelligent, respectful conversation?

 

Judges don't work in chapels. They're civil servants who work in a court of law, where they are invested with the power and obligation to apply existing law. If marrying gay people is in a judge's job description, then he/she has to do it. Their freedom of religion/conscience should in no way interfere with the application of the law.

And yes, you did say something that seemed extremely offensive to me (and I'm sure to many others). Saying something insulting in a "polite" way doesn't make it any less insulting. Also, catfights and intelligent conversations aren't mutually exclusive, nor are respectful conversations necessarily intelligent.