Posted on 10/01/2014 7:20:58 AM PDT by lbryce
Correction: This post initially stated that Judge Tonya Parker was “no longer” marrying straight couples. Judge Parker has never performed such marriage ceremonies. This version has been corrected.
Catholic priests have refused to marry same-sex couples for years.
Judge Tonya Parker (Dallas County) Now, a Texas judge has an answer to that, saying she will not marry straight couples until gay marriage is legal in the state.
Judge Tonya Parker of Dallas County told the Dallas Voice that she respectfully tells couples why she can’t conduct their marriage ceremony:
“I'm sorry. I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.” The Lone Star state judge also points out that she is not required by law to perform marriages, as it was considered a “discretionary function” that is not to interfere with “mandatory judicial duties.”
Parker is the first openly lesbian African American elected official in the state of Texas, where same-sex marriage is illegal.
Earlier this week in San Antonio, a Presbyterian minister was censured for performing same-sex marriages in California while it was legal to do so, PressDemocrat.com reports. The Rev. Jane Spahr says she performed the marriages as a matter of conscience. After hearing the church’s decision, she tweeted:
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well come onnnn, being straight is SOOOOO last year!
I don’t understand all this “marriage equality” talk.
Even if we allow homosexual marriage, we still won’t have “marriage equality”.
Meaning, that we still won’t allow polygamy, group marriage, or any other arrangements people want to call a marriage.
All homosexual marriage does is give us monogamy without regard to the sex of the participants. It will not be true “marriage equality”.
If marriage is indeed a civil right, then this is denial of civil rights under color of authority.
Arrest her.
Reinstate sodomy laws, and arrest her.
Judicial activist is not part of your job description. GTFO.
Dyke haircut, big surprise.
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”Breach of oath = removal from bench.
The salaries of Catholic priests are not derived from taxpayer funds.
Once again, a far-left moonbat fails to understand the 1st Amendment.
I can't help but wonder how going before that Judge will be for her.
Poor soul needs all the help she can get and I pray that she seeks it.
Ditzy bimbos as “judges”. Good idea!
Specially-privileged victim group member got the job because of the L in LGBT.
It needs to resign and be fined.
She didn’t breach her oath. Judges are empowered to perform marriages, but are under no obligation to do so.
The judge has also announced that she will refuse to play in the NFL until they punish all their wife beaters, that she will refuse to join the NRA until they embraced universal background checks and gun registration, that she will refuse to vote for any Republican until they adopt the Democrat party platform (listen up GOP-e, this is the “big tent” voter you hope to get), and is no longer going to sentence any black defendant to jail or prison until the police “stop hasslin’ the brothers”.
So let me see if I understand this—A private business, which pays taxes to the government, can be forced to shut down if it doesn’t kowtow to deviants; yet a judge, who works for and is paid by taxes extracted from the people, can refuse to honor her oath and discriminate against citizens without consequence?
I actually think that she’s on ok legal ground here. She’s not obligated to perform ceremonies, so she doesn’t. At all. So she’s not really discriminating.
I even tried applying the logic of the Christian baker to this, and still came up short. The issue there being that the Christian baker still made wedding cakes, just for heterosexual weddings only, and wouldn’t have been charged if he didn’t at all.
The state being involved in the marriage business is a very new development anyway, by human history standards.
For nearly all of man’s history, it was simple culture or local custom, or Churches which performed marriages. Society simply recognized them.
That’s the natural progression of the left.
ask for tolerance
demand equality
impose supremacy
". . .I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me. . ."
“That’s a man, baby!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.