The issue of same-sex weddings is "the weightiest" of several allegations against Day that are being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, [the spokesman] said....There's an important line to be drawn here, and it's not clear from the article what the Board of Professional Conduct is doing. We're hearing from the judge's spokesperson about an investigation in which there are a number of allegations. What are they? And it's one thing to say that after a judge opts out of performing all weddings because of opposition to same-sex marriage, he should be disqualified from ruling in cases where sexual orientation is an issue. It's quite another to say that a judge is unfit because he's stopped performing weddings.
Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct said judges can't refuse to marry same-sex couples on personal, moral or religious grounds. 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.
५ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
To avoid performing same-sex weddings, a judge stopped performing all weddings, and now he's under investigation by a a judicial fitness commission.
Marion County Judge Vance Day "made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," a spokesman told AP.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
What a fucking mess you've created with your Brain in a Jar stupidity.
And, you thought that this was an intellectual/legal issue.
You're smarter than thousands of years of human experience and theology, huh, asshole?
The usual idiot Year Zero madness.
This is one of those instances where the "ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe them" rationale applies.
You fucked up big time. It was take decades to undo your fucking idiocy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this leads us to violence on a scale you cannot imagine.
The Board of Professional Conduct now has an allegedly neutral standard to punish conservatives. Probably only Christian conservatives who wanted to avoid controversy.
I suppose there is no hope that the same standard would disqualify Muslim or Orthodox Judges. They would also be bigots on the bench. (Not that I have anything against Jewish Judges, but I wanted to be thorough :)
From Steve Sailer today:
The big Bayesian question is whether Westerners can still learn from reality.
We already know the answer in regard to the Nutty Perfesser.
Another reason to abolish recognition of "marriage" by government altogether.
For governmental purposes, only "civil unions," sworn to and notarized in the County Clerk's office.
Wouldn't performing weddings as a judge be a part-time voluntary activity rather than an essential and required job duty?
It is in Nebraska.
Being against gay marriage is not equated to bigotry against gays nor discrimination based on sexual orientation. Professor you have always mistaken having a moral code that happens to coincide with religious moral code as god based but I do not believe god and do not like religion. I still have an objection to same sex marriage which I find to be anti-definitional and do not want to partake in a huge social experiment for which I will be proven 100% correct is a failure that will lead to a cascade of bad possibilities.
And it's one thing to say that after a judge opts out of performing all weddings because of opposition to same-sex marriage, he should be disqualified from ruling in cases where sexual orientation is an issue.
Some judges volunteered to perform same sex marriages when they were illegal. Does that make them disqualified to rule in cases where traditional beliefs are an issue?
Professor, you are so over the edge on this issue, you do not think.
unknown wrote:
"Professor you have always mistaken having a moral code that happens to coincide with religious moral code as god based but I do not believe god and do not like religion."
The pagan Greeks and Romans would have laughed themselves silly over the idea of a homosexual marriage.
"The pagan Greeks and Romans would have laughed themselves silly..."
Why would anyone purport to know what Greeks and Romans laughed themselves silly over... or even that laughing oneself silly was a thing that went on amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans?
"You fucked up big time. It was take decades to undo your fucking idiocy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this leads us to violence on a scale you cannot imagine."
Be careful ST. Harrogate will accuse you of terrorism.
Black Lives Matter are peaceful protestors and the Tea Party are terrorists.
If you politely decline an invitation to a gay wedding, will you be now be hauled before some wedding board to explain the basis of your last 6 RSVPs?
It's Kim Davis.
It's gamergate.
Is everything gamergate?
Is Kim Davis Martin Luther King? She should write a letter.
"Comrade, you have been found insufficiently supportive of the state. You will be given an opportunity for re-education."
Dr. Zhivago: You have no right to call me from work.
Communist Political Officer: -As a Soviet Deputy, l-- -
Dr. Zhivago: That gives you power, not the right.
Communist Political Officer: It's noticed, you know. Your attitude is noticed.
A more accurate title would be: to avoid condoning selective exclusion under The Supreme Court's ruling for congruence ("="), a judge stopped performing all weddings.
Whether it is abortion/indiscriminate killing, diversity/institutional discrimination, or congruence/selective exclusion, the State-established pro-choice cult continues to create moral hazards and claim new victims.
"Why would anyone purport to know what Greeks and Romans laughed themselves silly over... or even that laughing oneself silly was a thing that went on amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans?"
The Pagan Greeks and Romans laughed themselves silly over hetero marriages, professor. They wrote these things called "comedies" that were light entertainment or farces. Marriage was a topic for comedies, not a topic for more serious tragedies and histories. What we call "love" was considered by the Classical civilizations to be a kind of madness, not something to build a life upon.
You don't think that the 20th century idea of marriage and romantic love is some kind of historical norm, do you?
We should investigate all Doctors who choose not to perform abortions.
"Why would anyone purport to know what Greeks and Romans laughed themselves silly over... or even that laughing oneself silly was a thing that went on amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans?"
They left behind some writing. Who knew?
As usual, Althouse sheds 30 IQ points every time the topic turns to gay marriage.
It's like a mental illness.
"The pagan Greeks and Romans would have laughed themselves silly..."
Not so. About Nero, Suetonius wrote:
“Having castrated the slave boy Sporus and willing even to change his nature to feminine, he took him to wife by the usual ceremony of marriage with a dowry and bridal veil.”
Nero may be well known for tormenting Christians, but perhaps he should be known as father of the modern gay marriage and gender fluidity movements too.
"It's quite another to say that a judge is unfit because he's stopped performing weddings."
So nice of you to make these fine distinctions. Now get real and get with the pogrom program.
Ann, is there any way in which your mind could be changed?
To the Greeks and Romans, sex had two aspects. One was necessity, and one was entertainment (or "fun"). The necessity aspect involved procreation and family, and was of central importance when marrying. This is all from the male POV, women did not have much input on who they married.
Actual scholars have written books about the place of marriage and sex in Classical civilization. Homosexual marriage to the classicals would have had the same appeal as wine that could not make you drunk, but gave you a hangover. It would have been thought of as a farce.
Cog wrote:
“Having castrated the slave boy Sporus and willing even to change his nature to feminine, he took him to wife by the usual ceremony of marriage with a dowry and bridal veil.”
Suetonius (and he may not be relied upon) treated the "marriage" of Nero as a monstrosity. Even Suetonius says the people of the time made jokes about it (they said the world would have been better if Nero's father had taken such a wife). This is the same section of Suetonius where Nero's lust for his mother is mentioned.
Objection is not bias.
Coleridge wrote that conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
Mental fitness committees don't know that.
That's the boomerang effect.
It's good to stamp out such people, if you're a gay activist.
Cog: "The pagan Greeks and Romans would have laughed themselves silly..."
Not so. About Nero, Suetonius wrote...
And if you knew anything about Nero and the Romans (like, you know, by reading the rest of Suetonius), you wouldn't be offering his "gay marriage" as evidence that the Romans wouldn't have laughed themselves silly about gay marriage.
Though I'll grant that a lot of them probably waited until he was good and dead before having a relaxed public larf at his expense.
"Arguments that don't seem to work" would be a good tag.
Galatians 6:7
While Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, more than 30 magistrates in North Carolina have legally refused to perform weddings for gay couples.
"As CBN reports, almost immediately after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing state officials to opt out of performing all marriages.
...
Similarly, in Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill in March allowing state officials to refuse to marry any couples, including same-sex couples, for religious reasons."
Some people are really, really angry that gay marriage is happening nationwide and many were doubltess angered (and remain angry) over _Lawrence v Texas_.
If you think these angry people are in any way being "oppressed" or have lost anything at all, then please, get therapy. Therapy is not stigmatized like it used to be (although some people are angry about that too!), and perhaps especially in concert with medication, it can really help alleviate paranoid delusional suffering.
Wasn't Lawrence about two faggots doing their shot in hiding behind closed doors? Most people would allow that especially if not obliged to think about it.
The whole "in your face" thing is where this is breaking down. The comeuppance will be the greater for the extent of it. You can't normalize gayness any more than you can normalize Tay-Sachs.
A complaint was filed (to what is, in essence, a judicial ethics board) on Judge Day about this in June and will eventully be acted upon. It is unlikely that the board will refer on the judge's request to not perform same sex marriages since it is not a duty of his office and he made accomodations for his reluctance. The code of judicial ethics in Oregon does make vague references to discrimination due to sexual orientation or membershhip in organizations that discriminate (Judge Day was the chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon at one point and I don't think that they have changed their official views yet) but otherwise there are shaky grounds for anything other than a wrist slap if that. This is nothing like the Kim Davis case.
Even if it is referred, there are several steps that have to be taken even before any kind of punishment is administered (eventually, by the Supreme Court of OR) as this board is advisory in nature. Judge Day has broken no laws, has not shirked judicial duties, and has been extremely polite (as required by the judical ethics document) about the whole affair. It is unlikely that anything will happen although he might recuse himself from a same sex divorce.
Odd that the article referenced an Ohio ruling implying it should apply in Oregon.
If the judge is, ultimately, required to recuse himself in same-sex cases, should he recuse himself in any case involving one or more gay individuals? If so, what litmus test? Does that reverse apply (I'm thinking of the judge that started the same-sex ball rolling in California.)
Oh how complicated for a subject sold as, "It's simple, just stop discriminating".
The Commision on Judicial Fitness and Disability has the same ecological niche as the Ohio baord mentioned above: it is advisory only and the proceedings are confidential until late in the game. The OR board uses the judicial ethics document and the OR constitution as their only rules to give decisions (which are advisory only, did I mention that?) and they answer to the specifics of the complaint.
The Ohio advisory mentioned by Professor Althouse states that you cannot stop performing marriages based on the fact that they are same sex marriages. However, it very clearly states that they did not rule on whether judges have an obligation to marry anyone as so many others can perform the same act. In other words, the advisory is theoretical (and non-binding) in nature.
The rules that both OR and OH work with are modifications of the ABA code of judicial ethics. They both state that judges shall not discriminate due to sexual orientation but they don't say that judges have to perform marriages unless that is a duty, under law, in their states. OH has a very elaborate set of rules that sound like a judicial opinion with footnotes and comparisons with the ABA document while OR just states the rules and leaves it at that.
I guess my main concern is how this information about the complaint got out in the first place unless they have reached the open hearing stage.
Wow. Just wow.
Why would anyone purport to know what Greeks and Romans laughed themselves silly over... or even that laughing oneself silly was a thing that went on amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans?
Seriously?
Aristophanes ring a bell? He had an entire play about women withholding sex to try to end the war and all the male characters suffering from raging hard-ons. The women we only doing better in the sense that they didn't get erections so their distress was not as obvious.
The tragedies also featured satyr plays to try to provide some comic relief after all the depressing stuff and to stiffen up the audience for more depressing stuff. Involved a bunch of cowardly but extremely horny satyrs with ever present exaggerated naked physical erections (unless the character was old, in which case it was droopy) running around making jackasses of themselves.
The Athenian festival that featured these plays started with a parade of phalluses (yes, giant dildos) and by the end of it pretty much everyone drunk out of their gourd multiple times. I'm pretty sure they were not reserved for the rest of the festivities. It was the festival of Dionysus, the god of getting hammered, so I'm sure there was no silliness going on.
Aristophanes was also known for making fun of effeminate men. By name. While said person was in the audience.
Pretty sure this did not involve golf claps.
"I'm angry that I lost the first inning, I'm taking my ball and going home". Childish behavior from a Judge. The temper tantrum continues.
Hey, memory bell just (finally) rang re: the jailed clerk. When same-sex marriage was outlawed in California were there not several court clerks that continued to issue licenses in violation of the law?
I believe there were.
Were they hauled into jail?
No, they were not.
Were they the personalized subject of hate and ridicule?
No, as I recall they were celebrated.
Hmmmm, it is almost like there is a double standard.
From my perspective both (sets of) clerks should have been fired or reassigned.
When the law required the public pool to be integrated, they opted to close it.
JAORE said...
Hey, memory bell just (finally) rang re: the jailed clerk. When same-sex marriage was outlawed in California were there not several court clerks that continued to issue licenses in violation of the law?
Althouse blogged many of those events and if she didn't, the questions were raised in the comments. I think the record shows that Althouse was strongly in favor of those clerks' civil disobedience. Because, you know, "right side of history" and all.
What's sad is how many commenters who gave valuable input came and went. Frustrated I suppose, at the blatant and transparent double standard.
In Oregon, the magistrate that levied those crippling fines against Sweet Cakes by Melissa had longstanding ties to pro-gay rights activists long before the events that took place in the case occurred.
Is that cretin getting hauled before any kind of review board? Is anyone reviewing his temperament and whether he should be hearing any other cases?
No?
Then shut the fuck up, libtards.
SJW's will not allow any non-conformance.
Jason,
Oregon already had a law forbidding discrimination based on sexual preference and same sex marriage was legal then. Since this party was managing an entity that served the public, they were subject to the state laws regarding discrimination under which they were charged. At the time it was a states rights issue. The law was very clear in this case and any appeals would have lost.
All incorrect thought must be crushed.
O'Brien: What are your feelings towards Big Brother?
Winston Smith: I hate him.
O'Brien: You must love him. It is not enough to obey him. You must love him
At least a half a dozen times on Althouse's blog, I have had cause to turn to this part of Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas. Remember that Scalia wrote these words 12 years ago. "Prescient" is the word that comes to mind for me. Justice Scalia, pointing out that lawyers and judges had taken over the debate on public acceptance of homosexuality. And as of 12 years ago, Scalia knew that the legal profession, taking its lead from law schools, had already decided on a winner.
So here we go again, with the Scalia dissent in Lawrence. I'd say that I was sorry for yet another re-post of this quote but not once have any of Althouse's readers criticized me for calling attention to this opinion:
"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653."
And meanwhile, in Detroit, the federal district court judge who presided over the trial of April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse v. Richard Snyder, et al, (joined as plaintiff/appellants in the Obergefell arguments) took it upon himself to perform the couple's same-sex marriage late this summer.
Meanwhile, that same district judge (Bernard Friedman) continues to preside over the case, including the plaintiff attorneys' request for nearly $2 million in attorney fees and costs under the applicable federal civil rights statutes.
It is an astonishingly apparent conflict of interest; to perform the wedding of litigants whom the judge did not know previously and with whom the judge would have had no contact but for the case he is adjudicating. With "marriage" being the crux of the pending litigation.
Just imagine a malpractice case, where the judge is featured in a local paper going for surgery to the surgeon whose case that judge is overseeing. What would the malpractice plaintiff say? Or a criminal case, where the judge performs the wedding of one of the prosecutors, or one of the defendants, during the trial.
The Detroit Free Press covered the splashy DeBoer/Rowse wedding story -- with gushingly favorable tones, of course -- without a mention of the potential and/or apparent conflict on the part of Judge Friedman.
Jason said...
"As usual, Althouse sheds 30 IQ points every time the topic turns to gay marriage.
It's like a mental illness."
Actually, it's a condition called "motherhood". Whether it constitutes a mental illness is debatable. If so, it is a very common one.
Setting aside the particulars of the case, the more general question is, to what extent is it acceptable for a judge to have religious views which bear upon the cases brought before him? Is a Muslim fit to be a judge, in a country whose laws are frequently contrary to what he claims to know is the will of God? Private employers are forbidden, by law, from discriminating on the basis of religion. Is the government, to the contrary, required to discriminate on that basis?
to what extent is it acceptable for a judge to have religious views which bear upon the cases brought before him?
If he rules according to the law, what is the issue?
Or are you saying religious judges are incapable of making a distinction between their personal beliefs and the law when ruling?
and, as if, Progressivism isn't a religion.
If the public is served -- if couples still have access to have their partnership solemnized by an authorized official, by what right does the public demand a particular individual comply?
Do county-employed doctors, nurses and pharmacists have the right to opt out of participating in abortion? administering the lethal cocktail at a death penalty?
It's almost funny--almost--that so many, expressing their own disagreement with or unhappiness about the extension to gay men and women the legal right to marry same sex partners--a right taken for granted by men who wish to marry women and women who wish to marry men, (though only relatively recently in all states for men and women of different races who wished to marry each other)--attempt to compare this to various totalitarian states, real and imaginary, (e.g., the many references to Orwell's 1984). This is not because the Supreme Court has decided to restrict and oppress the rights of a group of American citizens, but because it removed an oppressive restriction from a group of American citizens and has allowed people who could not freely marry partners of their choice to have that freedom.
It is to laugh--almost.
Robert Cooke
Last I looked you can laugh all you want at the religious beliefs of others, I'm sure all those abolitionists who disagree with slavery because religion would find you quaint.
The fact of the matter in these cases is not whether YOUR religious belief that sex isn't relevant factor in marriage (does that also extend to number of partners? consanguinity of participants?) is, itself, irrelevant.
There are all manner of statutory relief systems to balance the rights of individuals (RFRA, ADA, FMLA) to be accommodated without unduly burdening the public.
Sikhs can be police officers and still have beards, 7th day Adventists & Jews can be probation officers and have their sunset to sunset Fri/Saturday observance accommodated.
The public in Rowan county is entitled to marriage license, but not to having it issued BY a certain individual.
1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to book.
Darleen asked; "Or are you saying religious judges are incapable of making a distinction between their personal beliefs and the law when ruling?"
I'm not. It seemed as if Althouse was. But in what sense are religious convictions the same as "personal beliefs"? I don't like eating chicken, but I'm not inclined to make it illegal. If I thought God didn't like people eating chicken, that might be a different story.
Cookie,
Maybe you could tell us how long you have thought that men should be able to marry other men? You write as if this is so obvious that only a dim-witted, religion-addled fool could think otherwise. But I'm guessing it never once crossed your doctrinaire little mind before all your Commie buddies decided it was the outrage du jour.
Blogger harrogate said...
Some people are really, really angry that gay marriage is happening nationwide and many were doubltess angered (and remain angry) over _Lawrence v Texas_.
If you think these angry people are in any way being "oppressed" or have lost anything at all, then please, get therapy. Therapy is not stigmatized like it used to be (although some people are angry about that too!), and perhaps especially in concert with medication, it can really help alleviate paranoid delusional suffering.
Is therapy the new word for reeducation?
If you disagree, we'll give you therapy and medicine.
If I thought God didn't like people eating chicken,
If it is a sincere belief, who cares what the source? Can the person separate out the belief from their duties to the law?
Some can, some can't. Judge Vaughn Walker couldn't.
I'm glad you brought up Vaughn Walker, Darleen. The comparison is apt.
When is this judge going to be hauled off to jail!
Ann Althouse said...It's quite another to say that a judge is unfit because he's stopped performing weddings.
Well, but let's not be coy. The REASON he stopped performing weddings is what's important, and since that REASON is contrary to what the governing authority will allow members to express, well, that's all we need to know. We can pretend it's not about enforcing goodthink, or that it's important to look at what other allegations there are, but let's pretend we're law professors creating a hypothetical, shall we?
If the judge publicly said he won't perform any marriages because he doesn't want to be forced to perform SSMs, would that refusal (for that reason) qualify as professional misconduct/make him unfit for office?
This is where your side led us Anne. Sorry, but it's true. It went from, we just want recognition, to YOU SHALL OBEY. As all totalitarian movements tend to end up as.
Heller happened a long time ago. So why aren't all of the clerks that are refusing to issue conceal carry permits in DC going to jail?
"Last I looked you can laugh all you want at the religious beliefs of others, I'm sure all those abolitionists who disagree with slavery because religion would find you quaint."
Religious beliefs have no bearing on civil law in a society such as ours--thank god--that is a secular state and not a theocratic state. That those with religious faith are compelled thereby to advocate for the social good is commendable, and is what one would hope for. Slavery is objectively bad, a social and human ill. Marriage between same sex adults is not objectively bad or a social or human ill. When religious faith--which should be generous and forbearing--leads to ungenerous behavior and thinking, when it leads the faithful to want to extend religious restrictions to those not of their faith, it is a perversion of what that faith should be.
On reddit, I got into a discussion with someone whose response to my noting the Democrat party allegiance of the county clerk, was to say, "Huh, would have thought she was a Republican." When pressed on this internal-only moral equivalence, he insisted that both parties are equally bad. Except he would never admit the real person in this real case was a Democrat.
Cognitive dissonance is no problem for those who know with absolute certainty that their moral righteousness requires no mere facts for proof. Indeed, the moral righteousness allows reality to be ignored completely.
leftist ideas are not voluntary (at least for long) because they are usually pretty terrible and are easily refuted by logic and reality. They cannot survive without coercion. They must be mandatory. This ideology cannot survive in a world with free thought. It must be imposed and all opposing viewpoints must be extinguished, and those that hold them must be "re-educated" and/or punished.
"If the public is served -- if couples still have access to have their partnership solemnized by an authorized official, by what right does the public demand a particular individual comply?"
In this case, it was the county clerk whose job it was to issue marriage licenses. She wouldn't, and also forbade those working under her to issue the license. After she was jailed for contempt of court, another clerk in her office issued the license. It's not that the gay couple insisted that she be the one to issue the license. They just wanted a license and she was blocking them from getting it.
It's not that the gay couple insisted that she be the one to issue the license. They just wanted a license and she was blocking them from getting it.
No doubt that "gay" couple is celebrating her detention. Unfortunately, we all know the type.
I'm sure the gay couple is celebrating their imminent (or recent) wedding, and are not likely focused overmuch on the county clerk. After all, for them, this is not about her, but about them.
Cookie, after the behavior of the Sweetcakes queers, I'm just as sure that it IS, about her, and her defiance of the gaystapo.
riage between same sex adults is not objectively bad or a social or human ill.
Of course it is, Robert. That's one of the many toads we are expected to swallow. Perhaps you like toads.
9/5/15, 8:18 AM: Terry, she doesn't read. Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Bill Bryson is not reading.
The gay couple that aren't even from Kentucky? The gay couple that drove all the way from Ohio, outside the state, to get a gay marriage license from the ONLY county in Kentucky they know wasn't issuing them? The ones who brought the media with them? That gay couple?
Jason said...
The gay couple that aren't even from Kentucky? The gay couple that drove all the way from Ohio, outside the state, to get a gay marriage license from the ONLY county in Kentucky they know wasn't issuing them? The ones who brought the media with them? That gay couple?
And so as usual, Robert Cook was full of it when he answered me thusly:
Robert Cook said...
I'm sure the gay couple is celebrating their imminent (or recent) wedding, and are not likely focused overmuch on the county clerk. After all, for them, this is not about her, but about them.
9/6/15, 4:14 PM
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा