Posted on 08/14/2015 9:21:11 AM PDT by wagglebee
TOLEDO, Ohio, August 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Judge C. Allen McConnell is a Christian. As such, he said he could not officiate a homosexual "wedding," because it would go against the teachings of his religion.
Now, the Ohio Supreme Court advisory board says McConnell's position violates judicial ethics and that all Ohio Christian judges must relinquish their religious freedom and perform same-sex "marriages."
When he refused to marry two lesbians last month, the 71-year-old Toledo judge apologized to the women, and they were "married" a few minutes later by another judge. But McConnell also officially asked for the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct to give guidance for cases when a judge's religion prohibits him or her from participating in what is now legal. McConnell then said he would follow the board's direction.
The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct answered on Friday with a seven-page document that, in summary, commands all judges in Ohio to officiate at same-sex "marriages," whether it is against their religion or not.
Even though it directly violates their religion, judges "may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages," the Ohio Supreme Court's Board wrote, because such a refusal "acts contrary to the judicial oath of office."
The Ohio Supreme Court Board reasoned that "personal, moral and religious beliefs" are subordinated to the law and to the public perception of impartiality.
The board wrote that even if a Christian judge were to stop performing any marriages, so as to be fair, still, the "change from past conduct may be interpreted as bias and prejudice" and would negatively influence "the public's perception of the judiciary."
The board did not specify how ceasing to perform any and all marriage ceremonies could be showing bias. They simply said that such action creates an "appearance of impropriety" and "ignores" and "undermines" the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to constitutionalize homosexual "marriage." The board also opined that McConnell's position created doubt about his impartiality in other proceedings involving same-sex couples.
The board wrote that a judge must "accept the restrictions ... that require a judge to set aside his or her own personal, moral, and religious beliefs."
"A judge is free to hold his or her own personal beliefs, so long as those ... beliefs are not translated into action" that violates their code of conduct, the board wrote.
The board did not elaborate as to how one's sincere beliefs and worldview cannot factor into his or her actions, decisions, and performance of duty.
Most significantly, the Ohio Supreme Court board stated that a judge's duty "is a reflection of the self-evident principle that the personal, moral, and religious beliefs of a judicial officer should never factor into the performance of any judicial duty."
"When a judge performs a civil marriage ceremony," the board concluded, "the judge is performing a judicial duty and thus is required to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct." The board also noted that judges, when sworn into office, promise to "support the Constitution" and "impartially ... perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as a judge."
Judge McConnell responded to the board's ruling on Monday, in an interview with local TV station WNWO, saying, "I will abide by that opinion. In other words, I will perform same-sex marriages if requested."
As expected, the high court board's opinion was hailed by gay activists. LGBTQ group Equality Toledo's Nick Komives, who had publicly called for McConnell's firing, said he was "thankful" that McConnell will "perform marriages for all couples that come before him."
The board's decision was criticized by those supporting natural marriage. Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom, noted that "[j]udges in Ohio have always had discretion when deciding whether to perform marriage ceremonies."
Dalton told The Daily Signal that "[t]he board's opinion departs from that long-established practice by requiring judges to preside over marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs."
Dalton considers the Ohio Supreme Court board's opinion to be denying First Amendment religious freedom rights to judges, calling it unconstitutional intolerance. He challenged the opinion, pointing out that "the Constitution does not permit such intolerance against judges with sincere convictions about marriage."
At the end of the seven-page ruling, the board noted that "[a]dvisory opinions of the Board of Professional Conduct are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions."
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
So the judiciary is to be purged of Christians? If so, then why should any Christians give a damn what kind of orders get issued by an anti-Christian judiciary?
How are the Ohio Supreme Court justices installed into office. By the governor, by nomination and voting from the legislature, by voters? Inquiring minds want to know.
Just for sh!ts and giggles, who is the current governor of Ohio?
Every judge has a restroom in their chambers.
They’ll just have to keep down the bile until they can make it to the commode and puke.
1) We know that fed interference with marriage is unconstitutional.
2) Does this decision go against the Ohio State Constitution?
3) If this decision goes against the state constitution, then another state branch must overturn this decision.
4) If no branch overturns or if is not against the state constitution, then time for the people of Ohio to step up pass an initiative overturning forced gay marriages and recognition of such.
Well, thank you for your opinion. We'll add that to our list of things to consider on rainy days.
This is so wrong.
Since judges have no constitutional authority to create laws, the rest of us have no obligation to follow laws thus created.
SO MUCH FOR THE US OF A. IT’S ALL OVER. IT WAS A GOOD COUNTRY WHILE IT LASTED.
The fast track to pushing out conservatives. Deplorable.
And there we have it. The State is determined to suppress and eliminate all matters of conscience including those derived from religion.
Kasich says the Supreme Court has spoken and that “we have to move on”.
Won’t get any support from me. Don’t ever want him as President. Ohio is already fracturing under the Gay Marriage crap.
In any job, employees have the right to be accommodated so that they do not have to have their religious beliefs infringed. Such as allowing a Muslim woman to wear a head scarf, or a Hindu wear his turban, or Amish wear his beard.
Also America has respected the rights of a conscientious objector to not have to wade into combat and kill someone.
How is it all of a sudden so important and desperate to FORCE people to betray their conscious?
Certainly a proper case can be framed for high court review, inasmuch as no one else such as Congress or the President has any sense.
Of course the Court itself is corrupt as hell.
The judge put the onus of evil onto the Ohio supreme court. They, not he, will answer to the Highest Judge for the abomination.
I don't understand the apology. You apologize if you've done something wrong. If he believes his refusal to marry them was, in his opinion, the only decision he could have made without violating his religious beliefs then no apolgy should be necessary.
The board wrote that even if a Christian judge were to stop performing any marriages, so as to be fair, still, the “change from past conduct may be interpreted as bias and prejudice” and would negatively influence “the public’s perception of the judiciary.”
Ah - that venerable legal concept of “no backsies”...
Pathetic.
Retorical questions: If the constitution rejects discrimination based on religion, since when is faith a discriminator in doing one’s job? This must go to the Federal courts since the state decision is in violation of the US constitution.
IOW you can’t be a lawyer unless you sanction deviants.
What about law firms that only represent women?
what about law firms that only represent men?
what about lawyer ads that say “hire me” because I am a woman?
what about lawyer ads that say “lawyer is a homosexual” and therefor can do a BETTER job representing lbghtixyz?
Time for a purge of judges.
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.