- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A Texas judge is asking a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S., arguing in a lawsuit filed on Friday that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”
The case involves Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, who has been involved in years of legal proceedings to try to win the right to not perform marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for opposite-sex couples. She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
You must log in or register to comment.
Jesus fucking Christ. Why can’t Texas be its own country and be the right wing Christo-Fascist hell hole they want to force on the rest of us? Just fucking leave already.
For real, secede already you worthless rednecks! Let’s make a straight trade for Puerto Rico so we don’t have to change the flags
In a just world she would be disbarred
Why doesn’t she get a job at the church if she feels so strongly about it. We don’t need her judging people
oh she judges people at church too, to be sure
Of course its some Texas asshole
Texas is a deathcult desperately trying to fool people into thinking it is only just another shithole drowning in cruelty.
they lure naive/stupid non rich people to thier state with the promise of no income tax.
Government should not be involved in marriages.
These are contracts between citizens. Nothing more. Consenting adults that need a way to manage the outcome if the contract needs to be disolved.
There is nothing more to do.
And all citizens are equal, male or female, it doesn’t matter because you cannot discriminate who gets to enter into a contract.
Who is going to enforce the terms of the contract, if not the government?
That’s my point. The government manages and arbitrates contracts. Not marriages in the religious sense. And a contract has to apply equally to all citizens.
Not marriages in the religious sense.
Governments don’t manage marriages in the religious sense, they manage them in the legal sense. That is, and has always been, the fight wrt same sex marriages.
And as marriage is the primary way by which two people from different families join together into a new legal family - with a host of legal consequences following that joining of households - you absolutely need marriage overseen by the state, for the same reason you have a host of other legal institutions overseen by the state.
They shouldn’t though. The only thing they should care about are contracts. You want to get married? Go ahead no one cares. The government shouldn’t care. You want to have a method to divide up property allocate for child support, you get a contract. There is a difference.
Government should encourage people to enter into a legally binding contract for obvious reasons, but they should not care what religion or what sex the people are. Citizen a forms a contract with b. That is all there should be to it.
The only thing they should care about are contracts.
A marriage is a contract.
The government shouldn’t care.
As soon as its time to pay taxes, the government cares. When you’re declaring ownership/sale of property, the government needs to determine if the re-titling is legal and has to care. Household accumulation and collection of private debts means the government has to care. Knowing legal residency as a result of marriage is a requirement. Knowing the legal parents/guardians of children is under government purview, as is knowing which school district the children are eligible to attend.
There’s so many downstream consequences of marriage, I could hardly list them all.
they should not care what religion or what sex the people are
Theocratic governments are naturally going to care about the religious inclinations of their residents and the violation of taboos. And Americans need to recognize that we are absolutely living in a theocracy, at least under certain Christian Dominionist state and national bureaucratic leaders.
“Well, but we should/shouldn’t…” is ultimately a decision left to the voters, and one that can change with every new election cycle. It isn’t a moral imperative that overrides legal authority.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people. Only much later did it become a legal thing, and that still isn’t everywhere. Overall, governments have tried to fuck around with transnational, inter racial, same sex, same sect, same community, regionalism, forced, age, arranged etc.
A broken government is one that interferes with marriage. Next thing you know they are going to start picking and arranging for genetics and other bullshit.
No. The government should not be involved at that level. A citizen may enter into a contract with the government if they wish. Thats it. I can get married today, and there is no legal bond unless I want one.
Taxes, ownership of property are all other scenarios, and can be assigned in a freely entered contract.
Legal residency does not matter and should not matter.
Perhaps if they have a contract, then they can establish sponsorships. Again, my main point here is citizen a can get a marriage contract as can citizen b. Do not discriminate based on any of the things I mentioned before.
What school district a child attends is relative to where they live of course, married parents or not.
I am saying all of this to point out that governments need to treat any citizen the same if they form a contractual union. That is the point Obama trying to get across.
I can legally marry people. For some of them they involve the government, others don’t care.
A failed government is one that allows some citizens into legally binding contracts but not others based on arbitrary reasons.
Maybe that helps you see what I am trying to say.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people.
Brother, I’ve got some news for you…
She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
That sounds like she is not qualified to be a judge then. If she’s using her religion to guide her legal decisions, will she also deny a heterosexual couple a divorce because she believes it goes against her interpretation of christianity?
shes essentially KIM DAVIS but with a law degree.
… And a lifetime appointment
If you can’t be impartial then you can’t be a judge. I mean jet pilots can’t wear glasses, librarians can’t be illiterate, dog groomers (reasonably speaking) can’t be allergic, priests can’t have a wife. You don’t get to have a job just because you want the job.
deleted by creator
I think that that would open a can of worms well beyond this issue, considering that religion in general can tell adherents to do things that aren’t mandated by secular law.
I also have a pretty difficult time swallowing this in that any Christian mandate isn’t on not performing marriages, but on not engaging in homosexual sex yourself. “I don’t want to facilitate people in doing things that would be prohibited them if they belonged to my own religion” seems like a pretty wildly unreasonably broad reading of any sort of freedom to practice religion on the judge’s part. If she herself was obligated by the job to participate in lesbian sex, okay, then I could see her maybe having an argument for some kind of exemption.
What happens if you have, say, Muslim building inspectors? Are they allowed to not approve a meat-packing plant because it processes pork and if the people who are eating its output were Muslims, as the inspector is, they’d be violating rules of their religion? I mean, that’s on par with what she’s asking for.
Wacko, Texastan
How dare these uppity broads thinking they can just leave anytime I have one too many drinks and have to show her whose boss.
/s
Funny as fuck for her to whinge about unelected judges while she submits this to the supreme Court… And by funny I mean she’s a fucking piece of shit, obviously
It seems completely logical to me that if a judge claims her Christianity is so vital to her being that she cannot perform duties that don’t align with her Christianity then she cannot give fair and impartial judgments to anybody who is not also a Christian. Anybody of any religion that’s not Christianity in her courtroom should call for her recusal. Anyone not Christian for whom she has made judgment should call for mistrals.
Not even mention the fact that can she truly be a partial to other sects of Christianity?
Right but if all the judges in the district are Christian, then people are denied services. So she’s gotta be fired. There’s no other option.
I think if she wants to argue that Christianity is so central to her being that she cannot make impartial decisions, she should be permanently dismissed, as she is clearly not fit for the position. There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality, she is the problem, not her religious preference.
I’m not entirely sure other Christians are capable of impartiality considering the long long history of Christians getting special treatment in our judicial system. You don’t have to scratch the surface very hard to find a plethora of disgusting rulings that mentioned Christianity as a mitigating circumstance which allowed for lessened penalties.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, the establishment of Christianity in the US is horribly corrupt. I suppose I’m arguing to judge these pieces of shit by their character, not their religion. I’m not even Christian, I just believe it’s dangerous to start applying mass generalizations to any group of people. Religion has no place in justice, either in protecting or hurting someone’s case.
Religious belief is a choice. There’s no problem criticizing people for their choices.
At this point, I don’t trust anyone that is religious. It has been proven time and again that they will act in the interest of their god, over the interest of humanity.
There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality
[citation needed]
Anthony Kennedy, one of the most influential supreme court justices in establishing gay rights in the US, was Catholic.
Harry Blackmun, the majority opinion writer for Roe v. Wade, was heavily involved in church and gave several sermons.
Despite what MAGA would have you believe, it is possible to be both Christian, and not a hateful asshole (though it seems to be getting more rare by the day).
Excellent examples, thanks. Your last line nails on the head where my thoughts are at these days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin was excommunicated from his family church when he legalized same sex marriage some 20 years ago.
He also got the supreme court(of Canada) to rule on it first to head of Stephen Harper and PP(aka Milhouse) inevitable challenge of it.
Pierre Trudeau(Justin Trudeau’s dad) was a practicing Roman Catholic when as Justice Minister when he legalized homosexuality almost 60 years ago.
Excellent history lesson, cheers.
I did not know those facts, thank you. Whatever other flaws Paul Martin may have had, that took some personal conviction which I respect. And very astute of him to head off future challenges in that way.
More like many of them are capable of feigning impartiality, well at least you have juries. But I’m sure there’s some fucker there as well to stack the decks when needed
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but isn’t all impartiality a feint? No human is free of bias; at least if they do their best to act the part, it’s better than the blatant, open, unashamed corruption going on in the government today. If a judge holds dumb personal biases but puts those aside to judge, that’s not “feigning impartiality”, that’s doing their job. Because as I mentioned before, religion has no place in justice.
And any actually faithful Christian should call for her recusal as well, since she’s clearly just using religion to justify her lack of impartiality, since the Bible very specifically states that the rules of God do not override the rules of the land and Christians should follow the Bible without either breaking the local laws or by trying to change them.
A lot of Christians will. Evangelicals though. It’s insane to me how Evangelicals will be the first to judge all Muslims for something like ISIS and then turn around and essentially want “Christian Sharia” in their own town. It’s projection really. They want strict interpretation of religious laws but just for the laws that favor the existing structures of hierarchy.
Given that nearly 1/3 of the population is not even xtian, that’d be pretty wild. And that’s before, as you point out, you start considering other sects.
Great news! Her bitch ass doesn’t have to marry a woman! Your fucken non-problem is solved you galaxy class cunt
galaxy class cunt
This wretch can’t even sniff constitution class, let alone galaxy class.
Now Judge Hensley, who has also refused to perform marriages for same-sex couples since Obergefell was decided, is asking federal courts to end marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Apparently she already refuses to but it needs to be applied to everyone forcibly! Truly the land of the free that Americans keep telling everyone it is
Dont you get it, the fact that she can be asked is clearly targeted harassment against her as a Christian!
sigh
I wish I had a way to accurately convey how much I loathe this trash.
By that “logic,” no federal court finding is valid.
Delulu folk.
Why can’t you just let people be happy?
She has been arguing that, as a Christian
That’s why
