Dallas Judge refuses to marry hetero couples

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
(2) a Jewish rabbi;
(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and
(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a retired judge or justice is a former judge or justice who is vested in the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One or the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two or who has an aggregate of at least 12 years of service as judge or justice of any type listed in Subsection (a)(4).
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony without authorization under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268, Sec. 4.10, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 134, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.


Sec. 2.203. CEREMONY. (a) On receiving an unexpired marriage license, an authorized person may conduct the marriage ceremony as provided by this subchapter.

Emphasis mine.

This should clear up he legal and professional matter. No person is required to perform a marriage ceremony in the state of Texas. It is something they May do, but not something they Shall do. There is a non-discrimination clause, but this judge is not violating it by refusing to perform ANY marriages.

[SCRawl]

After debating this for a while with Thanas, it seems to me that his objection is on the basis of professional ethics, rather than legality. Certainly the judge is within her rights to decline to marry couples, and if this had been all she did she could not be blamed. She could have cited time constraints, or simply said "I don't want to officiate marriages", and nothing more would have been said. Instead the judge went out of her way to give her reason for her conduct, and made a clearly political statement by doing so. Judges should not be making political statements; they should be above politics.

I sympathize with her, and I agree with her to a point. But a judge should not be challenging policy in this manner.

[Thanas]

^Yes, exactly. I am not claiming what she did was illegal. I am claiming what she did was not worthy of the office of a judge, who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter. The moment a judge shows a political bias, that goes out the window. Which is why I'd prefer judges to keep out of political discussions unless they pertain to their area of expertise. For example, if she were to adjucate a case or be the judge dealing primarily with family law, then she is well within her rights to express an opinion on the matter as there is a direct correlation between her professional duties and the subject matter.

But this is a judge who is saying "this political issue should be handled differently" and the only reason she gets airtime is because she uses her office to do so.

[Alyrium Denryle]

^Yes, exactly. I am not claiming what she did was illegal. I am claiming what she did was not worthy of the office of a judge, who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter. The moment a judge shows a political bias, that goes out the window. Which is why I'd prefer judges to keep out of political discussions unless they pertain to their area of expertise. For example, if she were to adjucate a case or be the judge dealing primarily with family law, then she is well within her rights to express an opinion on the matter as there is a direct correlation between her professional duties and the subject matter.

But this is a judge who is saying "this political issue should be handled differently" and the only reason she gets airtime is because she uses her office to do so.

While in the general case, I agree with you... That is not true in this state. Because judges are elected for a term, they are in fact not above politics. They cannot be. Their election is "Non-partisan" only in the sense that their party membership is not on the ticket. It is fully and completely partisan in every other sense of the word. It is a shame... but it is true, and once it is on the table, one might as well use it. Of course, I am also very jaded, because I am a liberal who happens to live in Texas

*Sings* Nobody Knows, the trouble I've seen...

[dragon]

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I'm thinking that it's great, because it really points out the inequities built into their system. On the other hand, I am reminded of the type of pharmacist who refuses to carry or dispense Plan B pills, and how I would argue that such a person should not retain their job.

If a pharmacist refuses to dispense Plan B pills, their boss should fire them for refusing to do their job. If they're self-employed, or if their boss agrees with their position, that does not apply.

A judge is not their own boss - they are beholden to the public and the government that pays their salary. If she refuses to do her job, she should be replaced.

She IS doing her job. In her view, the state's laws are unconstitutional and wrong. As a judge, she has a duty to uphold the constitution. She swore an oath on it and everything. There is no law stating that a judge must take a given case or perform a ceremony on request that I know. A judge can recuse themselves from cases where conflicts exist, and a judge--just like a priest--has the power to refuse to issue a marriage license. The only difference between them is that the priest gets to discriminate on the basis of a protected class. She is not discriminating because she is refusing across the board.

It is not as if a judge did not look things up to make sure they were legal, and talk to the state bar's ethics hotline or anything...

Well by that logic since politicians and members of the military also swear an oath they shouls kicked. But don't see you calling for the removal of senators an republicans.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well by that logic since politicians and members of the military also swear an oath they shouls kicked. But don't see you calling for the removal of senators an republicans.

hehehe. hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHA

That is because you have not asked. Yes. I do actually think that congressmen and senators who abrogate their oaths and fail to do their duty should be removed from office. I would actually like the FBI to have an entirely separate division with guaranteed funding set aside specifically to root out corruption and other forms of illegal activity (like torture) in every branch of government, that also has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes an such when the military wont. I would LOVE to see the judiciary getting its own enforcement branch specifically tasked with prosecuting Habeus Corpus violations by the executive branch, and prosecuting legislatures that vote for laws they know from prior court rulings to be unconstitutional, or for breaking their own internal procedures to get things passed without quorum etc. I would LOVE to see that. I just dont think they will ever be implemented.

[dragon]

Well by that logic since politicians and members of the military also swear an oath they shouls kicked. But don't see you calling for the removal of senators an republicans.

hehehe. hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHA

That is because you have not asked. Yes. I do actually think that congressmen and senators who abrogate their oaths and fail to do their duty should be removed from office. I would actually like the FBI to have an entirely separate division with guaranteed funding set aside specifically to root out corruption and other forms of illegal activity (like torture) in every branch of government, that also has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes an such when the military wont. I would LOVE to see the judiciary getting its own enforcement branch specifically tasked with prosecuting Habeus Corpus violations by the executive branch, and prosecuting legislatures that vote for laws they know from prior court rulings to be unconstitutional, or for breaking their own internal procedures to get things passed without quorum etc. I would LOVE to see that. I just dont think they will ever be implemented.

Well I was trying to be a smart ass so much for that. Well there's an ethics committee for judges as well as the senators but we all know how well those work ie they don't.

[Plushie]

Everybody arguing the law and politics of this is missing the point: This is abysmally childish behavior. "But she did it first!".

But then again American politics is essentially a school yard, anyway. Both sides have so utterly lost sight of the common good that their best concept of 'standing up for what is right' is acting like a petulant child. Want to raise taxes? The Republicans throw a fucking temper tantrum. Want to cut spending? The Democrats whine until you shut up about it.

And it's not really just politicians, either.

[Thanas]

^Yes, exactly. I am not claiming what she did was illegal. I am claiming what she did was not worthy of the office of a judge, who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter. The moment a judge shows a political bias, that goes out the window. Which is why I'd prefer judges to keep out of political discussions unless they pertain to their area of expertise. For example, if she were to adjucate a case or be the judge dealing primarily with family law, then she is well within her rights to express an opinion on the matter as there is a direct correlation between her professional duties and the subject matter.

But this is a judge who is saying "this political issue should be handled differently" and the only reason she gets airtime is because she uses her office to do so.

While in the general case, I agree with you... That is not true in this state. Because judges are elected for a term, they are in fact not above politics. They cannot be. Their election is "Non-partisan" only in the sense that their party membership is not on the ticket. It is fully and completely partisan in every other sense of the word. It is a shame... but it is true, and once it is on the table, one might as well use it. Of course, I am also very jaded, because I am a liberal who happens to live in Texas

I still am not convinced stooping to the same level is such a good idea.