What are we becoming as a society?

Do we really all want to live like this?

I know I don't.

And why do we care if she performs marriages or not?

Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen

If I were a gay person living in Texas, I wouldn't even publicly acknowledge it in public. Who knows what those crazy people would do.

How about this kid. He is not from Texas

Matthew Wayne Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998) was a student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming, in October 1998. He was attacked on the night of October 6–7, and died at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado, on October 12 from severe head injuries.

@ hungrymongoose ~"Do we really all want to live like this?"

Like what? How would this affect you in anyway? I just don't get it. I live in Washington State which just passed an equal mariage law and, guess what? I've been married for almost 40 years in my one and only marriage and it hasn't changed our life at all. I believe in Clint Eastwood's take on same sex marriage:

"These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage?" Eastwood tells the magazine. "I don't give a f*ck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

“So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘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..."

Well lady, you are in Texas...Hell will freeze over before they (Texans) allow gay marriage...I think man will be extinct before Texans allow that, even then, the aliens living in Texas wont allow it either....

Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen

If I were a gay person living in Texas, I wouldn't even publicly acknowledge it in public. Who knows what those crazy people would do.

You should visit Houston, San Antonio, Dallas or Austin. You'd be surprised how many moes there are and how publically open they are (moi inclusive).

Of course, podunkville might be another issue...

It is refreshing to hear of a Texas public servant using her post to proudly demonstrate an inequity without denying those she refuses since she refers them to other judges.

OK I didnt have a problem with the gay hairdresser not cutting someones hair because of their political views. It is after all his business.

This woman, a sitting court judge, is an ELECTED OFFICAL.. If marriage comes up on her docket, then she better damn well perform it. She was elected to do the job of a JUDGE, not be a political lightning rod.

She will not be getting relected. I can pretty much guarentee that.

Turnabout is fair play.

Actually Jeremy, I don't think any state has a law that requires their local judges to perform marriage ceremonies whether they want to or not. Such a ceremony is NOT part of their "docket". And I bet she does get re-elected to the Dallas bench when her term expires because the voters will be voting on her judicial judgements (which do NOT include whether she performs marriage ceremonies.)

doc says Hell will freeze over before they (Texans) allow gay marriage.

Well, you'd have thought the same would have been true about interracial marriages in some of our less progressive states, but then the US Supreme Court said, whoa nelly, time to join the 20th century. Presto change-o. And the same might well happen with same-sex marriage if enough of our current Supremes have the same measure of courage and wisdom the Warren Court had back in 1967. Here's a-hopin'.

I'm with you on this Jeremy...... I have NO probelm with ANYONE getting married. Man to man, women to women, it is not for me to (excuse the pun here) Judge.

An elected Official not preforming her duty as a SWORN Officer, she needs to put her personal views aside and take care of business. The law states a man and a women can be married, she better do her job or throw her out on insubordination.

It would be equal to my boss asking me to make a spread sheet on how much money he has. I wouldn't want to do it, to be reminded on who has all the wealth, but I would do it or I could be fired.

SAME THING.........she is breaking the law herself. FIRE HER!

Okay, what I find funny about this, is just yesterday, there was an article and discussion thread about the pharmacists in Washington state being made to sell the morning after pill against their will and religious beliefs. The liberals came on the discussion in droves stating its their job to do that and if they don't like it the pharmacists should look for another line of work. Same principles at play here. The judge doesn't want to do something due to her personal beliefs thats part of her job. Yet, the left will support her because her ideals conform with theirs. What I also find funny is the liberals screaming about the health insurance mandate to force Catholic organizations to pay for contraceptives against their beliefs. And when converatives state that employees can chose to work elsewhere, the liberals all whine about that not being a viable option. And yet, here is another social issue where both sides are miles apart and once again the left is advocating for the judge because her beliefs are congruent with theirs.

This judge can't pick and choose. The system doesn't work that way. She is discriminating and that's against the law.

hungrymongoose and Jo Ann

What are we becoming as a society?

Do we really all want to live like this?

I know I don't.

What part of non-violent protest against denial of human and Constitutional rights bothers you?

Chester, read the article. She is a LOCAL judge, ELECTED by the citizens of Dallas. And there is NO law that REQUIRES her to perform any marriage ceremonies.

Marriages aren't part of a judges duties! It's just something they can "legally" do, so greg over it!

I'm with Jeremy on this. If I were a pharmacist at Walgreens and refused to dispense birth control because I was Catholic, they would be well within their rights to fire me (and they would do it, too). And if I were a judge and refused to perform legal marriages because of my own personal beliefs, or as some form of protest, I certainly wouldn't assume that I would enjoy continued employment.

Personally, I look forward to the day when gay couples can marry, because every gay couple I know is indistinguishable from a straight couple in the way they interact with one another, for better or worse. But the people who object to same-sex marriage will not be swayed by this kind of petty grandstanding--in fact, it's liable to make them dig their heels in and be all the more closed-minded. There are better (and more adult) ways to prove a point than making yourself a laughingstock.

Don't mix me up with the 2 n's Jo Ann!!

I have a solution.

Nobody gets married.

Personally, I think once people got over their s**t about it, they'd actually realize that with the divorce rate the way it is, that's what the country is doing anyway.

Derek,

Your "dad-ness" is showing, lol. "Fine, nobody gets to then!!!"

I like it! And I like what this judge is doing.

By the way, the picture... STILL GREAT!

So Gays want to discriminate against Straights and then demand we dont do the same. thats all i need to say forget gays they will NOT get any support from me. damn two faced hypocrites.

I do not think government should be involved in marriage at all. Prior to the government take over and regulation of marriage people still were wed either by religious ceromony of choice or by just moving in together and claiming marriage in abscence of any clergy. There are many states that refuse to acknowledge common law marriage even between a male & female.

If you want to form a civil union and claim marriage....go for it.

If you want a religious marriage...seek out your clergy.

If you want to marry several wives (or husbands) go knock yourself out.

But the government should stay out of the marriage business. That would solve a lot of issues.

Firstly, if I'm not mistaken, this judge was probably elected in the gay section of town (yes, we in Dallas have a Gay Community, and even a Gay Parade on Halloween. My wife's been before, and she said it was pretty amazing. Wanted to go myself last year, but had to work). So, I'd say that the chances of her being reelected, if this is the case, are actually pretty good, as long as she follows the rules in the other section of her work.

The fact of the matter is, as the article states, that state judges, though vested with the power to perform marriages, are not required to. Since they are not required to, they can even charge for the service. Most churches will charge for the service. The judge that performed at our ceremony charged us a decent fee. And he could have refused to do the marriage entirely, and we would have had to find another judge or JP or anyone with a license to marry folks. That's the way the law is.

I find it so funny, these are the people who are so up in arms about how "gays have the same rights to marry as straight people now, they just don't want to marry somebody of the opposite sex," yet this judge refusing to marry anyone, equally since she can't marry gays, are whining away about her not doing her job. She's not forced to marry people. Judges cannot be forced to marry people, just like others cannot be forced to marry people. It's when they pick and choose based on criteria that match protected statuses (sexuality, sex, race, wealth, etc.) that there is a problem.

For the people screaming that if it was a judge in a same-sex marriage state that refused to perform same-sex marriages, well, there would be two questions I would have to ask: 1) Is that judge required to perform all marriages that are requested? I can hardly think so, as scheduling conflicts would arise. But, if so, then they should be held accountable to perform all marriages or risk penalties. It's like that judge in Louisiana that refused to perform an interracial marriage in 2009 or 2010. 2) Is that judge refusing just same-sex marriages, or are they not performing any marriages? If they choose not to perform marriages, then that sounds like something their opponent could use to run against them. If they are being discriminatory and performing only straight marriages, then they can face the consequences of their actions by refusing to perform their duties in an unbiased manner, up to impeachment.

Somebody mentioned that pharmacists are required to dispense birth control and abortifacents to all prescription holders (unless it conflicts with other medicines, blah blah blah pharmacists knowledge of chemical interactions blah blah blah safety of the patient; spare me, that's not at stake here). The truth of the matter is, many states are considering (or passing) conscience clauses for pharmacists, if they refuse to issue a prescription due to moral considerations. Of course, wait until you get a SDA or Christian Scientist pharmacist, who refuses to dispense your antibiotics because you must not have prayed hard enough. Most pharmacies are being responsible, at least, indicating that if somebody has a moral objection, there will be another pharmacist on site willing to dispense the medication. But what if they're the only pharmacist in town, and the next one is 50 or more miles away? Texas is a big place, and, though I am reluctant to wish harm upon people, I can only hope some pharmacist would recognize a loud mouth jackass that supported the law and refuse to dispense or transfer their prescription and give them a taste of what it's like to drive for an hour or two and have to call their doctor to get the prescription re-written and sent to another pharmacy. It would be sweet justice.

As for those complaining about the health care adjudication, well, Obama sidestepped the Catholics. I don't think he was wrong in the first place: these institutions are providing a public service, with public money, but all of a sudden they want to balk at serving all of the public in ways that have been approved by the governing bodies (AMA, FDA, etc.)? There is no medical objection to it. There is only stupid religious bigotry, and that has no place in a public facility.

Good for her,it's what she believes in and let it be so just as long as any Catering Facility,DJ,Videographer or Band can do the same if it is against their belief to cover a Gay union or affair.

@Sarah: \o/

hooray for the pictures/avatar. Lets face it, you gave me the idea. And it was one of your best.

Derek,

I totally want a t-shirt like that.

Judges ARE allowed to pick and choose what shows up on their docket. It's how they keep from having conflicts of interest within a case. Marriage ceremonies are NOT required of judges, so that argument is completely irrelevant. There are judges who choose not to perform them at all because they do not believe in the institution of marriage.

I'm just going to come out and say it, if this was a judge in a state that gay marriage was legal and refused to perfrom them, there would be protests and people calling for them to be thrown off the bench, not loose the next election, but thrown off the bench. Groups like GLAAD and others would have a sit in and otherwise disrupt any proceedings until the judge either quit or agreed to do it. And the same people praising this jude would be spewing violent things.

Big deal...Who would want her to officiate at a normal wedding anyway?

bass679Kudos to the lady for standing up for her principles but I think for a texas judge, she's going to be waiting quite a while

Would you say Kudos for standing up for his/ or her principles, to a Judge who was straight and refuses to wed gay couples ? Im curious.

Happy you are not NORMAL

You are simply AVERAGE

And that is simply boring

so any gay that dies due to violence is only cause hes gay right? no other reason whatsoever.

The irony in this story is that Judge Parker was elected to uphold the Constitution of the State of Texas, chooses to use her position as a platform to attempt to sway/bully those who elected her to do so, and that those voters didn't see it coming.

Gov. Perry signed Senate Bill 6, the Defense of Marriage Act, specifying that Texas does not legally recognize a same-sex marriage or civil union. Two years later, Gov. Perry supported strengthening the law with a constitutional amendment, the Texas Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” It was approved by Texas voters in November 2005.

Good luck Texas.

Well since the general election for county officers originally scheduled for the first week in may now has its primary the last week in may she gets an extra couple of weeks to stand on her platform. She can thank the 3 stooges AKA federal judges in San Anotnio for the extended platform.

If marriage comes up on her docket, then she better damn well perform it.

I would tend to agree with that. But, I wonder how many people would applaud and defend her if gay marriage was legal and she refused to perform one on religious grounds. The right-wing would be yelling about religious freedom and have her on all the talk shows.

The other question is whether Texas has a law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. If not, then I'd say she's within her rights.

EvanWNY -

Learn to read. Just addressed that idiotic fallacy 4 posts above you. See, this is why you don't get any respect. You state your stupid argument, somebody actually takes the time to reply (or, in this case, preempt), and yet, you come back with the same stupid argument, word for word. You don't care about right and wrong, you don't care about law, you don't care about issues. You just like seeing your name in print, don't you?

JoiseyJem -

Once again, the Constitution of Texas does not require her to perform marriages. In no way can this be seen as bullying, as she is happy to redirect any marriage requests to other judges she knows are willing to perform the services; nor does she discriminate against straights by performing only gay marriages, since gay marriages are not legally recognized here. Plenty of other judges in Texas don't perform marriages. The only difference is that she states a different reason for the action, which is not against the law either.

As I said, isn't it funny how these right-wingers who always claim gays have the exact same right not to be married, how marriage is a privilege and not a right, now complain that a judge exercises her right not to perform a ceremony and her right to freedom of speech? What are you complaining about? You're being given the exact same opportunity to not be married as gay people are. Congratulations, there's equality for you!

I find it funny that the same people bashing the Judge for standing up for her beliefs are the same ones that are all for the Catholics not allowing birth control in hospitals and pharmacies. Or the pharmacists not dispensing pills because of their beliefs. Oh well, good for her at least she'll give the marriage to someone else... . see if a catholic pharmacist will transfer your RX to someone who will fill it.

Jeremy-960164

What about the judges in California that wouldnt marry gay couples after prop 8 was overturned the first time? Did you have a problem with that or is it just when a gay judge does it?

Romney you remember the guy from Queer eye and DWTS he is from Texas and constantly kids about running for governor. If he did I wouldn't be surprised if he got elected. I know Texans you don't.

There is a big difference between refusing to marry some people (as with a judge who refuses to marry interracial couples, or refuses to marry homosexual couples in a state where that is allowed, while happily performing ceremonies for straight white couples) and refusing to marry any people. Discrimination requires different treatment of equally situated people. She isn't discriminating, she's opting out of discrimination. Which is her right.

Codger64, the issue is that judges can not simply decide what job functions they will or will not perform based on their own personal biases.

Would you still think it was no big deal if let's say a police officer decided not to intervene if a gay person were being mugged simply because the cop does not like gay people? No, because that's his freaking job. How about here in NY where gay marriage is legal, would it be okay with you if some activist judge decided not to perform gay marriages because they did not support it?

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

JoAnn-666954.......that's funny since the LAW itself is discriminating against homosexuals! You don't even see what is wrong about your statement!! The judge can't refuse to marry heterosexuals because that is discrimination, but it's okay to say that homosexuals can't get married in the first place?? That is not discrimination??

I stand whole-heartedly behind this judge. Good for her!! Equality for all!!

@Demar ~ judges are not required to preform marriages so your comment has no value.

Typical kneejerk post. Try checking your facts before you post. You won't look so weak. I'm through with you.

I'd like to see her at least reprimanded, if not punished.

I'm guessing though that she might lose her career as a judge,

I don't know, it doesn't seem like she's doing anything illegal and if people dislike her they probably wouldn't have elected her in 2010.

While I like her logic, she cannot simply discriminate against straight people for EXACTLY the same reasons I don't think gay people should be denied gay marriage.

An eye for an eye and soon we are all blind.

she cannot simply discriminate against straight people for EXACTLY the same reasons I don't think gay people should be denied gay marriage.

Actually she can, she doesn't have to marry anyone she doesn't want to marry, for any reason really. Exercising her power to perform marriages is her personal choice. She doesn't have to marry anyone if she doesn't want to.

When's the last time you even heard of a judge's name outside of a few signs and the ballot itself? Unless a judge has done something really stupid, I've never heard of them before election day.

Fact of The Matter...personal choice?

Gee whiz, I wish I had a job where I could tell my boss what I did and didn't feel like doing every day I clock in to work.

@ Kaizaro

a while ago, a pharmacist at some state did not sale morning after pill to bunch of people because he said that went against his personal belief. Guess what, the court agreed.

Gee whiz, I wish I had a job where I could tell my boss what I did and didn't feel like doing every day I clock in to work.

Do you really believe it's a judge's primary job function to marry people?

You know, not like, I don't know...proceed over court cases or anything like that.

My oldest sister was married by a mayor, but I'm pretty sure that the mayor doesn't do that full time, all the time.

Well the election was supposed to be the first week in May for county offices. But that has been held up along with the republican primary by the 3 stooges AKA federal judges in SA. I guess they have finally realized their permanent floating primary has now gotten to the point where it is after the general elections for some offices. And split the statewide offices from the national circus. A thing most of us realized 2 months a go but were unable to do anything about because we cannot make any changes to election procedures without permission from DC. For example if a Cat. 5 hurricane was coming into Houston on election day they would need permission from DC to hold the election after the storm.

she's not discriminating. she is treating gays and straight people the same by not marrying either of them.

kaizaro, win an election or start your own business.

Discrimination doesn't feel good when the shoe's on the other foot does it?

Typical hypocrite. Demands that a company can discriminate against gays if they want to, but how dare someone discriminate against straights.....

A judge is a public servant. She's bound by equal protection according to the law. Not according to only the laws she agrees with. a private citizen is free to make private choices for THEMSELVES.

Impeach her for refusing to do her job.

She has the power to perform marriages, exercising that power is not part of her job, it's up to her discretion. A judge's primary role isn't to sit around marrying people, it's to preside over court proceedings.

If what you were saying were true everyone could line up and demand a judge marry them so all day that judge wouldn't be dealing with court cases but marrying people nonstop.

A judge is a public servant. She's bound by equal protection according to the law. Not according to only the laws she agrees with.

That's probably why she is legally safe. If Texas law is violating equal protection to begin with (which has to be determined by the SCOTUS), this judge's actions are protected, and possibly even mandated if a gay couple has already been denied in her court. Since she cannot rule on the constitutionality of the law to start with, all she can do to comply with the constitution is to stop providing marriage licenses. Law is a complicated business. I don't blame you for being confused.

Thanks University of Chicago Student. I love how all these morons all of a sudden have a law degree and understand how our legal system works just because they have an opinion about something.

"Texas law is violating equal protection" has NOT been determined by the SCOTUS. The players are still just asserting that.

PeanutGalleryTheater,

Way to twist the other person's words to fit your own meaning. Univ of Chicago said IF. No where did Univ of Chicago say that Texas law is violating equal protection. Learn some reading comprehension.

She is a freaking Judge, i am sure she knew how to cover her ass.

actually, peanut, judges who DO marry people are EXACTLY a private business like the haircut guy. a judge (and commissioners in many states) have the legal authority to officiate a marriage. but, for the most part, they have no DUTY to perform them. if they do, the money they charge is theirs to keep. think of it as side work. (um, priests do this too, but i imagine many put the money back into the church...) may not be the same rules everywhere, but it is where this judge is, and that is how it works in washington state.

Good for her let's make it nationwide that any gay person does not have to perform a straight ceremony and and straight person does not have to perform a gay ceremony

The law is confusing? You are telling this to a Texan stuck in the permanent floating primary mess. See my above post and see just how confusing being a voter can get in this state. We have the primary after the original date for the general election so does this mean everybody whose terms of office end the first week in May has to continue even though they are no longer technically elected officials. Or do we just go without Sheriffs. constables, county judges and JPs until we can elect their replacements.

Chicago constitutionality changes from month to month in the SA district court. They have ruled both ways in 2 months time on whether a student may pray at their graduation. Logic does not rule in federal courts in Texas. Neither does the first amendment.

Yes equality I want to marry my dog... that takes couage...are you kidding.. What a joke.. equality is being equal why do I do I need to know you are gay... Lets have straight pride parade... are we still in kindergarten or what. in your face is not cool...

greekly (Odd name for a straight person...you like 'greek' huh?)

Anyway

If your dog gives informed consent to marry you, then fine with me.

I am so glad to hear that you are against 'in your face' I never see straight people acting straight in public....nah never holding hands, kissing in the airport, dancing together....nope no in your face there.

Obviously you are 'still in kindergarten' as you have not taken simple logic.

Frankly True...

...straight people acting straight in public...
Straight = normal. I've never known a homosexual that wasn't diddled by a weird uncle or some other issue during childhood. Though that is unfortunate for them, it can be fixed. Fix your minds, homos. We are the normal ones and I guarantee you if my kids see a couple of guys or girls going at it in public, there will be a scene. There is enough of this sick minded bulls**t for them to stumble across on the internet.

big tex, normal varies based on the person. is it normal for you to play sports once in a while? it wouldn't be for someone in a wheelchair most likely.

We are the normal ones...

Who says? That's a very southern way of thinking ... normal is defined by the majority and anyone who dares to be different just isn't normal. I grew up in small southern town. BigText would fit right in.

big tex, as much as gay guys like to work out to look good that "scene" may be one of you getting your butt kicked for being a bigot.

Barry...
The percentages are on my side.

HATR...
Lol, are you saying the gays will attack me? That's not very tolerant. I'm not saying that I can't get my ass kicked, but it won't be easy ;)

.

Nothing is anywhere near "normal "whatever that means for elected officials in Texas this year. I expect everything to happen including holding a primary after the original date for the general election. Thanks to the 3 stooges AKA federal judges in SA.

o

Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and maybe Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina.

I refuse to perform marriages as well until I can finally marry my sister.

One person marries another non-related person <> You marrying your sister

Because unlike two non related gay men or lesbian women, you and your sister's children will be inbred.

Jeremy-960164 why is it ok for pharmacists (I can't spell) to refuse to administer certain drugs just b/c they don't approve, but you don't think it is ok for a judge to not perform a ceremony?

I would be interested on your sisters opinion of this.

Someguy we have seen your sister....if you don't marry her....nobody will.

Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen

If I were a gay person living in Texas, I wouldn't even publicly acknowledge it in public. Who knows what those crazy people would do.

Where do you live...because to apply your logic, I would not like to live any where around a narrow minded person who subscribes to broad stereo types. We have plenty of good tolerant people in Texas...just as we have some zealots...just like I imagine in the state you are from. Because we are Texans does not mean we are crazy people nor does it mean we are all homophobic.

What we don't like in Texas are Judges legislating from the Bench. We elect our representatives to the Statehouse to do that. We believe that Judges should apply the law blindly with prejudice one side or the other. If this Judge has an issue, she should do what the rest of us do...work through the Statehouse to change the laws. Laws are changing all the time and are a reflection of an enlightened society. Change does not happen all at once...but in measured degrees...which is why we have the most stable democracy in the world.

Incidently, even though a moderate-conservative heterosexual, I am okay with anyone being able to marry who they want...that is their choice with all associated blessings and tribulations as it is for any couple. And I have enough to worry about the conversation I will have with my maker on judgement day to be worried about everyone else. Enough with the nanny-staters.

That's entirely possible. Probably a moot point at a big courthouse since their are alternatives.

Take away the benefits that my tax dollars would be paying to them and I'm all for it. That's my only concern about it. Somebody's sleeping arrangements is none of my business.

You mean the tax breaks hetro's get when they marry?

I'm all for a legal civil union with all the rights and benefits of a "marriage". Just don't call it a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, to counter your argument, to those that support it, why not let it be a legal civil union with all the rights and benefits, but not be called a marriage? Just step aside and let it happen....

@Todd-651965: "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Citation, please?

Regardless, a reason to support REAL marriage equality is Separate but Equal has an ugly history. Making a separation institution for LGBT people is offensive, at best. I promise, gay people do not have kudis and won't harm the "institution" of marriage by being allowed to marry. Straight people are doing that all by their own.

peanut: how about we take away all marriage financial benefits then? its frankly silly to be ok with paying for benefits for 95% of the population but draw the line at the last 5%.

VermontGuy, I agree. Hetero's shouldnt be getting those benefits either. Society has no need to subsidize DINKs. Once kids come into the picture, sure. Property taxes for the school, tax breaks to help pay for the little bundles of joy, I'm all for it. And if a gay couple get kids into the picture, THEN sure, same thing for them. "Same rights and benefits" always assumes gays getting more. I'm saying hetero's are getting too much. Not that this has a snowballs chance in heck of ever happening. They'll take away the mortgage deduction before this happens.. ;)

As for the civil union issue, other PRIVATE entities have also used 'marriage' as the criteria for benefits they provide and its not fair to defacto force them to apply those to homo couples. Civil unions gives them a separate legal term and they can decide if they want to apply benefits to it.

The only solution is to make all licenses read "Civil Union" and change all 1400+ laws relating to marriage to read "cicil union" instead of "marriage." All benefits and rights currently granted only to hetero married couples would be transferred to all civil unions, including private entity benefits for "spouses." Then you will have equal protection under the US Constitution...and this needs to become a national law, not a state-by-state law. DOMA needs to be repealed or overturned as unconstitutional immediately.

But why should we single people have to share the burden of supporting YOUR kids? If you want them, then you should be the one fully supporting them. The only fair tax system is a Gross Income Tax (all sources of income) with the first $25K of the individual's earnings tax-free, 15% tax on all earnings over $25K up to $250K, 30% tax on all earnings over $250K up to $750K, and 45% tax on all earnings over $750K. Absolutely NO deductions, credits, subsidies, or any other means of lowering the gross income taxable amount.

"But why should we single people have to share the burden of supporting YOUR kids?" NO SH*T!!

To those that oppose it, if gay marriage was legalized today, would you feel any differently tomorrow?

I think some people will be angry because someone, somewhere is happy just the way they are instead of conforming to their religious beliefs.

anti-trust, you miss my point. Govt shouldnt care about the relationship (marriage or civil union). It doesnt affect anybody else therefore govt has no reason to regulate it. Having kids DOES affect others and the general welfare in the future and that's worth supporting. Even us single people have an interest in the next generation not being a bunch of unproductive criminal idiots.

Str8s for gay marriage legalization

Several of my close friends are gay. It's stupid that I can get married but they can't.

Kudos to this woman for standing up for what she believes in.

Why is civil union for gays and marriage for straights wrong?

Because it is not EQUAL PROTECTION

A constitutionally guaranteed right

NO SECOND CLASS CITIZENSHIP!

Heck yes let them marry then they can pay the marriage tax on their federal return too. For all whom we have saved from this after marrying you now get to pay more for filing married than for filing single. Welcome to the world of marriage in the US we will appreciate your extra tax payments.

Now you're thinking, lonereb. I don't speak for gay Americans, but I would imagine that those that choose to marry would consider the additional tax burden in the same way that straight people consider it. My wife and I talked about our tax situation before we got married. The overall tax burden is a little higher after getting married, but it was a commitment we wanted to make to each other. Getting married isn't always the smartest tax move, but their are other intangibles that make up for the additional tax burden.

If everyone is treated equally under the law, why do handicapped and pregnant women get the best parking spots.

frespech, is there anyone that you don't hate?

Really at this point in Texas we protect gays from accidentaly finding themselves married. Common Law state. We allow them to dissolve their union without the joys of divoce court and community property fights and the joys of ALIMONY. Why should they not have the fun of paying through the nose and hiring an attorney to say goodbye I don't like you anymore.

I agree. Let's let gay married people be as miserable as straight married people!

Yep, that's exactly right. An activist judge. If you want to legislate, get elected to the legislature. If you want to judge according to the laws (like them or not), become a judge. It's really quite simple, but activist judges can't comprehend that.

Ah, but she IS upholding her oath of office which requires her to obey the US Constitution and its equal protection clause. That is what she is doing. She is NOT trying to legislate anything from the bench. She is simply exercising her right not to perform ANY marriage ceremonies until TX grants such equal protection to ALL citizens. Remember, she is NOT required to perform marriage ceremonies. A marriage ceremony is NOT a "case" on her legal docket. It is simply a SERVICE that she has the power to perform or not perform. It is not a requirement of her public service pay.

good point anti-trust.

Another case of a judge attempting to legislate from the bench.

You really don't even know what that means, admit it.

She's not failing to perform her duties. Performing wedding ceremonies is not her job, it's discretionary, and she is choosing not to do it.

TO: Azrancher: you are so close. "Sads" crave excessively for attention. The spirits that inhabit them--mainly from a foreparent of a different gender that died "out of covenant"-- know that the only way they proliferate is by attracting the most attention and then hatching through body fluids discarded in disobedience to the laws of life and death documented in the Torah, Holy Koran and Bible--among others.

The courts are allowed to witness two sacraments because they have to issue court-issued certificates: Baptism and Holy Matrimony. Churches and religious institutions should never ever recognize any civil union whatsoever and that can be challenged constitutionally. It is enshrined that there is of necessity separation between church and state. So: unless courts can decide who gets Baptized and what constitutes Baptism, they cannot decide what constitutues Holy Matrimony or who can get married. They are not church-ordained agents. All the religious organizations have to do is to read the letter circulating in media circles outlining the legal procedures to get all such repealed. The article is "Mattiage vs Covenant-- Gay Rights vs Church Sacraments" by Basil C. Hill. The great thing about the author is that he, along with Bob Larson and Derek Prince travel the world casting out demons. I wish the judge would google their names and watch actual videos of people while those demons are being expelled. She needs to put a tape recorder under her bed; switch it on and go to sleep. I hope she reads this because she would know who to contact to stop that deep-voiced male from speaking within her abdomen and to be rid of those horrific dreams where she is constantly being stifled. Romans 1: 26, Ephesians 6:12 and Psalm 91 could help such.

We might if you let us hold the election.

His time in hell??? Did you even read the story? This judge is a woman. Whether or not a person goes to hell is a choice of their own. The laws in this country should allow people the freedom of that choice. Otherwise, what's the point? Just make all sins illegal so that everybody goes to heaven. Is that what free will is?

Sheesh.... Religious people don't even get the point of their own religion. They just want to impose their beliefs on everybody else because only they and those like them know what's right.

@gwarth2: Nice spelling, fundie.

gwarth2: Thanks for your post. You are the prime example of why the Constitution was drafted. Not only can you barely spell, but you obviously didn't even read the subject you are irrately commenting on. Good job!

this judge will be preforming his time in Hell with all other athiest gays

Reading comprehension fail.

That's all well and good, Gwarth, but in the United States the constitution takes precedent.

reminds me of a religious gal I once knew -- she was insulted when I told her Jesus was born Jewish.

OK if the atheist gays go to hell

Where do us Christian Gays go?

And there are a lot of us, you confuse participating in organized 'religion' in America with being a believer in God & Jesus.

Never confuse the two. most churches in America have very little to do with the real word of God...they drive everyone away. And that is sad.

I thank God that I am Gay. God made me, and I have known I was not the same as the majority since I has 5 or 6 (As long as I can remember)--No I did not understand that difference but hey, I was singing show tunes in Kindergarten, did not wear primary colors and was never dirty...it was all there way back then.

They become election judges in Texas subject to federal oversight of every little detail of every little election.

To Frankly- You may call yourself if you wish but there are no gay Christians, unless by gay you mean the adjective.

Christian one who believes Jesus Christ was God and died for our sins. The state of being gay is not a sin the sexual act is. There is no prohibition that I know of for someone who sexual preference is different from mine from believing in Christ. Now considering in my rebelious days my second and third marriages were considered to be invalid by my church every sexual act including the one that produced my daughter was a sin. But I wasn't preventing from practicing my faith. Once I grew up past rebelious teen behavior (it took 40 years) and admitted my errors to God I was forgiven. My Father isn't a vengeful father but a loving Father and in my case a very patient one who never gave up on me. Frankly I can't tell by your post whether you are my sister or my brother but I love you as a member of my christian family just the same. A Texas Catholic

@ mike3265... : Call it one of my little perversities, but I must point out that you spelled irately incorrectly, and you ended your sentence with a preposition. I do admit that ending a sentence with a preposition is becoming more accepted in these days of "internet-speak", but if you want to call someone out for his or her spelling, you should at least carefully check your own.

Exactly correct.

Judges don't get to pick and choose what a "good law" is. That's role is reserved for the legislature. Some courts can determine constitutionality of a law, but that's not what she's being asked to do. I believe this is pretty much the definition of an "activist judge", ie, one that should be unemployed.

wait what? Judges do get to decide what a good law is- that is what a judge does. Legislative branch makes the law and judges decide if they are consistent with other higher order mandates like the constitution. She doesn't think this law offers equal protection and is therefore doing her job by not enforcing discrimination by marrying only a portion of the population.

Yes Robert a lesson learned by the three judge panel in SA when DC sent back their version of the maps they drew without reference to the one the elected legislators drew.

You will soon find out your services are not needed and far from missed.

Last time I checked a judge's primary responsibility isn't marrying people.

FactOfTheMatter: Exactly! Thank you.

She is not required to perform marriages.

Plus, she is elected. If her constituents have a problem with it, they can "fire" her the next election.

That would only be possible if the peole of Dallas could hold a recall election. As of this point in time nobody in the State of Texas has a current voter registration card. Open primary they have to be issued new for every primary. As of now the March 3rd primary is now the May 29th primary we are crossing our fingers that that will not have to be moved again.

Considering a "pet rodent" is incapable of consent, that would be problematic.

Rodents don't need to consent. All humans involved in the marriage need to consent. Since the rodent is not human, no need for it to consent. Not to mention, if you own the rodent, then you can give consent on its behalf.

Also, the part that says that the parties involved have to consent is just bigoted and wrong. It is there just to stop someone from marrying their rodent. Much like the part about needed to be a man and a woman is there to prevent gay people from marrying. So if we can change the definition of marriage to not have to be a man and a woman, then why can't we change it to not require that both parties be human and give consent?

@Jim in Auburn:

Have you ever taken a course in logic? I ask because nothing you wrote makes any sense. To assert that changing marriage to include same-sex couples means there is no reason not to include animals makes as much sense as asserting that allowing people of different ethnicities to marrage would lead to man-animal marriage.

Again, CONSENT is required to marry. A marriage is a contract. Animals cannot contract, nor consent. Get back to me when your dog can purchase property or enter into a contract. Otherwise, you are just demonstrating your deeply-held ignorance.

Jim in Auburn: Where did you get your law degree? University of Every Idiot On Earth?

One person marrying a non related person <> One person marrying an animal

But of course this would be equivocation to anyone who thinks that a gay or a lesbian person isn't actually human.

Why do they have to be non-related? They could consent, and are adult humans.

If I can sign paperwork for my daughter because she is too young to give consent, then I am consenting for her. Why can I not also do that for a rodent?

Why do they have to be non-related?

Inbreeding is more of a danger than children growing up with same sex parents.

EWUSNRET said:

Have you seen some of those dy*es? I'd take the rodent.

Obviously (Having seen your wife) you did, thank GOD you are not in the Military anymore...I don't want a BIGOT defending my freedom since they don't believe in freedom and justice for ALL

Frankly True, go get a job as a Packer and leave the disc ussion to real men! madam

I don't know about rodents but my male wolf mix proposed. Sang his mating call to me unfortunatly on my budget I couldn't get an apartment that would take him. So I had to find a differnt home for him.

@ Jim In Auburn: You own your pet rodent; you do NOT, however, own your daughter. You can give permission for her to marry if she is under the age of majority, but you cannot legally force her to marry. She is a person. You cannot own a person in this country. (And to avoid the inevitable ... You can NO LONGER own a person, thank goodness.)

The irony is that the only way she could break the law in this matter is to perform gay marriages.

It did not take long for someone to inject their personal mythology into a discussion of civil rights.

We all need to follow the God's laws and it's not easy to do.

God's law says that women who commit adultery should be stoned.

Better get on top of that really quick, you have a lot of work to do.

/sarcasm

"Gods" don't make the laws here in the United States, Alice. We were founded as a secular democracy.

God does not like Shrimp eating either according to the bible.

Nor will those without perfect sight enter heaven...uh oh!

And that wearing of mixed fibers (Your poly-cotton Kmart housecoat) bars you from the pearly gates too.

NO WHERE in the bible does it say gays should not marry.

But it does say in John 3:16

¹⁶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Note the term WHOSOEVER....not "Whosoever straight"

Frankly True,

I agree with you on John 3:16. I didn't say we will not be saved. I only said God sent his only begotten son Jesus to save us.

Thank you!

We may love God in Texas but He isn't elected to the legislature at this point in time.

Alice you almost got it right. According to my christian denomination the state of being gay is not a sin,nor is living together in the same apartment. The only way in which one can sin is in the sexual act since I don't really know if you actually do it unless you tell me I cannot say you sinned. That is between you and God. So a legal contract which gives roommates the same benefits no matter what gender combination is present doesn't bother me. Only a church wedding is a sanctified union. My church doesn't even recognize civil marriages as the same.

Really, Professor Ewus? On what grounds?

That she isn't a member of SCOTUS and she has to come up for re-election sometime if you ever let us have one.

Doesn't not Don't

Obviously you are 'edukatered'

Isn't it funny how the ignorance of the bigots is always so easy to spot?

Right according to who?

Isn't she being bigoted against hetrosexuals? Yes?

Not really because she is not marrying gay people either, so she is just not marrying anyone. Completely her right. But I have a feeling that she might not win her next election.

Aren't homosexuals being biggoted by heterosexuals? Yes?

Isn't she being bigoted against hetrosexuals? Yes?

Actually she's just saying she won't marry anyone, so she's being fair.

She is just being a hetrophobe.

The whole constitutional amendment is discriminatory and gives gays protections heteros don't have. If I were to move in with a guy in 7 years in the state of Texas I would be married whether I wanted to be or not. Gays can live together for 7 years decide they no longer want to be a couple and one just moves out. I on the other hand would have to hire a lawyer ($), file for divorce($), take off time from work($) and go to court and after court wait for the divorce to finalize before starting a new relationship to be legal. WTF give them the benefit of all that fun.

Your 100% right.

You obviously know more about the law than she does.

There is no law saying she has to perform marriages. You might want to study a bit before you cheer DJ on...

So somebody pull up the job desciption of a judge in Texas and see if she is or is not failing to do her job. Actually the JP's are more flexible and will marry you anywhere in their juridsdiction mine gave the fee back as a wedding present.

Trust me, my comment wasn't cheering him on. I was being sarcastic :)

Nope, no such thing as bigoted posters.

She's choosing not to exercise her powers to marry equally, if that's activism that's like calling someone activist because they can do something arbitrarily but choose not to.

Example: Some Catholic priests have exorcism training. If one of the priests chooses not to perform exorcisms, they're an activist priest?

Oh you mean like the ones who violate clauses 2 $ 3 of the first amendment in order to uphold clause 1 of the first amendment. those kind of activist judges.

There should be a law that all gay and lesbian folks who can't respect the law, as it is written, should join the ACLU, move to either Austin, Key West, or to California, where they can write their own Constitution and live happily ever after. But don't force those skewed values on me, my family or into my grandkid's school system. And then take the ACLU and move it to Pakistan or Afghanistan. Those poor people need a new Constitution. America doesn't !!!

EWCM (AC), Retired

There should be a law that all gay and lesbian folks who can't respect the law

There used to be a law saying that it was illegal for interracial relationships and marriages. There also used to be a law saying that it was illegal for women to vote. There also used to be a law saying that indentured servitude was okay.

But hey, I guess if they had just 'respected' the law then things would have worked out fine for them right? All they have to do is wait...and wait...and like good conformists eventually the law will respect them back too...right?

/snark

How silly are you.

Mastercheif...I am so glad you are retired, we don't need a bigot defending our freedoms,,,since you don't believe in freedom and justice for all.

And I don't think you have been 'forced' to marry anyone, much less a gay person

The Constitution guarantees EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, so no we don't need a new one, we just need bigots to read the current one and understand that EQUAL is EQUAL

I personally think every gay/lesbian couple who wants to marry should. That way they can help pay down the deficit with the extra taxes they will have to pay filing married. ? Texas has common law marriage statute. If gay marriage is allowed will they be subject to the same rules. As in if you live together for 7 years and don't make sure your make it known to everybody you are not married you are. Then if your relationship breaks up you have to get a divorce not just move out. Welcome to the world of divorce court and alimony.

Master Chief- who is forcing any value upon except to have you consider equal protection under the law? Your attitude would have kept the Armed Forces segregated. Your attitude would have kept qualified women from holding military jobs for which they were highly qualified. Your attitude would have kept this male nurse from an officer's commission just because of the Y chromosome. This is America- you are not required to like blacks or women or gays or anyone you don't want to, but your dislikes do not change the blessed American value of equality for all. I would appreciate your acceptance, but if it is not forthcoming then I will take some civil tolerance and token appreciation for my equality.

Thanks for your service to our country and defending the Constitution against all enemies, shipmate...just remember that your fellow gay and lesbian Americans are not the enemy.

What is screwed up is your obvious confusion between secular and theologic law and the legal applications thereof.

So it's OK if a homosexual judge refuses to perform weddings for a man and a woman, the way it's been done for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

So it's OK if a judge refuses to treat enslaved people like objects, the way it's been done for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

/hopefully highlighted the fallacy in your reasoning

A judge applies SECULAR law. It is not tied to any theology. A pastor is involved in SPIRITUAL or THEOLOGICAL "law". Are you saying that a pastor should be allowed to preside over a trial of a criminal such as a thief or a murderer or a drunk driver? Wouldn't that be dipping into the provenance of SHARIA LAW? We, thankfully, do not live in a theocracy. It's in our Constitution that 1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (freedom of/from/for religion) and 2) Article VI of the Constitution states:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I bolded the part about religious tests which clearly states that NO public servant - whether Federal or Commonwealth/State - shall be required to take a religious test to hold office. This is in the BODY of the Constitution and is not even in an AMENDMENT. This means that the framers of the document held it SO IMPORTANT that they included it FROM THE BEGINNING.

Actually, in Texas a judge gets paid a stipend for each marriage he or she performs. So it is perfectly within her right to say she will not marry someone. She just does not get that stipend. And even though she doesn't perform marriages, she refers them to someone that does, she does not just turn them away.