Oregon judge removed from the bench for 3 year because of misconduct.

Another judge finds out the hard way that he cannot deny equal rights to LGBT couples in his courtroom because of his conservative religious views.  He should have been more intelligence than to try a stunt like this, or maybe he felt like he was above the law.

I doubt if the forced vacation will change his views, but at least he isn't able to maintain them in a postion of power.

Your take on the article flips the emphasis for the suspension from the other misconduct to his unwillingness to marry same sex couples. With regard to same-sex couples, the article says that same sex marriage was prohibited by referendum of the people during the time he declined to marry them and that he later (after the US court decision on the subject) decided not to marry anybody at all, which the article says he is free to do. So if the state constitution prohibited same sex marriage (and there was no contrary US Supreme Court decision in effect), then it’s unclear to me how the judicial conduct rules can require something different. I’d have to read the actual judicial opinion to see how they got around that problem. 

LGBT marriage was legal in Oregon in 2014, which was almost a year before the SCOTUS' Obergfell decision. He stopped performing secular LGBT marriage ceremonies after the SCOTUS decision. 

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Oregon on May 19, 2014 after U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane ruled that the state's 2004 constitutional amendment banning such marriages were unconstitutional in relation to the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution .

Prior to that ruling, same-sex marriage was prohibited by the state constitution due to the passage of a ballot measure on November 2, 2004. Proponents had formed a campaign to place a same-sex marriage initiative on the ballot in November 2014, but those plans were cancelled because of the May 2014 ruling legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in the state.

He was also a bigot,

Another finding was that Day displayed a collage featuring an image of Adolf Hitler as part of a “Hall of Heroes” art exhibit in the Marion County Courthouse. The collage included photos of American soldiers in World War II as well as the Hitler image, and Day’s lawyer contended the artwork was intended not to honor Hitler but rather to honor the soldiers who brought down his regime. However, when the county’s presiding judge asked Day to take it down, he told her, “Some very influential people in this town want it up.” He did eventually remove the artwork, but he was reimbursed for what he spent having it matted.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Oregon on May 19, 2014 after U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane ruled that the state's 2004 constitutional amendment banning such marriages were unconstitutional in relation to the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution.

I read that Judge Day believed forcing him to marry same sex couples was unconstitutional because it was contrary to his faith and deprived him of his first amendment right to freedom of religion. Since he’s not prohibiting homos from getting married (because they can get another judge), but rather declining to be involved, he may have a similar argument to the Christian baker case currently before the Supreme Court. I also read that Judge McShane is openly gay. The fact that he didn’t recuse himself from deciding a case in which he stands to benefit should, itself, be an issue before a judicial commission. 

I read that Judge Day believed forcing him to marry same sex couples was unconstitutional because it was contrary to his faith and deprived him of his first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Which is total BS! Doing his job isn't depriving him of anything. He's still allowed to believe whatever he wants.

Since he’s not prohibiting homos from getting married (because they can get another judge), but rather declining to be involved, he may have a similar argument to the Christian baker case currently before the Supreme Court.

And he could lose just as bad too. The only thing he seems to have going for him is that he subsequently refuse to perform any marriages at all.

I also read that Judge McShane is openly gay. The fact that he didn’t recuse himself from deciding a case in which he stands to benefit should, itself, be an issue before a judicial commission.

You would have to prove Judge McShane acted with bias.

Another faux christian persecution complex.  Do your fucking job Judge, leave your religion at home. 

Doing his job

Except performing marriages is not part of his job. In Oregon law there is no requirement for him to marry anyone. 

I read that Judge Day believed forcing him to marry same sex couples was unconstitutional because it was contrary to his faith and deprived him of his first amendment right to freedom of religion.

His freedom of religion is the right to believe in God and worship as he wishes. His freedoms do not include changing his work duties and discriminating because of his beliefs.

He was a civil servant judge performing a secular and not religious action, so his religious rights were not in any way threatened or trampled. This guy was just a bigot who tried to hide his hate behind religion.  A couple does not declare their relgious beliefs on a marriage license so he has no idea of their beliefs.

Conservatives like to claim that Americans are 75% Christians so what makes you and him think that all LGBT couples are somehow atheists? How does he know that one member of the hetero' couples that he screened was not transgendered?

Well obviously he wasn't doing his job hence he was removed.

Except performing marriages is not part of his job. In Oregon law there is no requirement for him to marry anyone.

One of the jobs of a judge is to act as an officiant in civil marriage ceremonies. Why did he not have a problem marrying hetero couples but opposed LGBT couples if he didn't want to perform any marriages?   All couples seeking a civil ceremony must be treated equally, unlike this bigot who had his staff attempt to screen the waiting couples.

  Did he also refuse to officiate for hetero' couples of non-Christian religion, or wasn't that a problem for this bigot?

I read that Judge Day believed forcing him to marry same sex couples was unconstitutional because it was contrary to his faith and deprived him of his first amendment right to freedom of religion

Sounds like the judge is so dumb that he doesn't understand that marriage is a legal contract not some bizarre religious ritual......especially when solemnized by a government official.    So he's not just a dumb bigot, he's a literal moron and a theocrat.    He should have been removed from office permanently.

One of the jobs of a judge is to act as an officiant in civil marriage ceremonies.

Not in Oregon. While they are authorized to perform a civil marriage, judges are not required to. He performed  regular marriages up until the time gay marriage was declared legal and he was told he had to do both or neither. At that point he chose neither  as was his right .

I also read that Judge McShane is openly gay. The fact that he didn’t recuse himself from deciding a case in which he stands to benefit should, itself, be an issue before a judicial commission.

Sorry but that kind of issue was settled long ago and the bias you exhibit was rejected..    If your illogic were accepted then no black person or white person could judge cases involving issues of race or white supremacy, no man or woman could judge cases involving sex discrimination of any kind, and certainly no married heterosexual judge could rule on same-sex marriage......just as no married judge with a same-race spouse could rule on mixed-race marriage.

If you're still confused you should see how your nonsensical argument was ridiculed by the 9th Circuit when identical moronic claims were made against Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop h8 case.    Your side was literally laughed out of court since the courts have seen that kind of ignorant bigotry before:

After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.

[..]

Further, such a standard “would come dangerously close to holding that minority judges must disqualify themselves from all major civil rights actions.”

ecf.cand.uscourts

.

By the way your side came very close to being fined for the offense to the court.

.

Since he’s not prohibiting homos from getting married 

Isn't that a CoC or ToS violation?

He performed  regular marriages up until the time gay marriage was declared legal and he was told he had to do both or neither. At that point he chose neither  as was his right .

The problem is not whether he chose to officiate marriages but that he revealed a profound bias against a class of persons, and thinks that they should be denied equal protection and other civil rights he enjoys.   Such a bigot should never sit on the bench since he cannot rule fairly and without bias.

Plus the dude is a white supremacist.

I also read that Judge McShane is openly gay. The fact that he didn’t recuse himself from deciding a case in which he stands to benefit should, itself, be an issue before a judicial commission.

Sorry but that kind of issue was settled long ago and the bias you exhibit was rejected.. If your illogic were accepted then no black person or white person could judge cases involving issues of race or white supremacy, no man or woman could judge cases involving sex discrimination of any kind, and certainly no married heterosexual judge could rule on same-sex marriage......just as no married judge with a same-race spouse could rule on mixed-race marriage.

Nonsense. It’s not bias to point out bias. I didn’t state or imply that being part of a group is, itself, the bias. Instead, I said that the judge has an interest in a case (albeit non pecuniary) where he has a reason for seeing to it that a case is decided a particular way. This is also evident in jury selection where potential jurors are struck because their views are colored by jobs they hold (like a police officer on the jury when the issue is police brutality) or where a person has been robbed recently at gunpoint (and the defendant is accused of armed robbery). The 9th Circuit can say whatever it wants but it speaks only for its Circuit and nobody else. I bet you’d have a problem with a Christian judge, who openly opposes same sex marriage, deciding whether same sex marriage is constitutional (if it had not already been decided by the Supreme Court). 

If you're still confused you should see how your nonsensical argument was ridiculed by the 9th Circuit when identical moronic claims were made against Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop h8 case. Your side was literally laughed out of court since the courts have seen that kind of ignorant bigotry before:

The 9th Circuit is not widely considered a bulwark of unassailable thought and is, in fact, often ridiculed as the most reversed Circuit in the country. I don’t care what they think.

Further, such a standard “would come dangerously close to holding that minority judges must disqualify themselves from all major civil rights actions.”

Depends. If the issue is the constitutionality of affirmative action and the judge’s son stands to be a beneficiary of it in a pending decision for a college admission, then I think there’s a problem. Don’t you?

I read that Judge Day believed forcing him to marry same sex couples was unconstitutional because it was contrary to his faith and deprived him of his first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Which is total BS! Doing his job isn't depriving him of anything. He's still allowed to believe whatever he wants.

If another judge can marry them, then he can adhere to his faith and they still get married. Again, the decision in the baker case may have a bearing on this issue.

The problem is not whether he chose to officiate marriages but that he revealed a profound bias against a class of persons, and thinks that they should be denied equal protection and other civil rights he enjoys. 

And he can refuse to marry anybody which is what he did. 

Nonsense. It’s not bias to point out bias. I didn’t state or imply that being part of a group is, itself, the bias.

Actually it revealed your anti-gay bias.   Why didn't you suggest that a married judge or a straight judge could not rule fairly since the dumb bigots who supported Prop h8 idiotically claimed that marriage equality would harm opposite-sex marriage and harm marriage as an institution?

I suggest you read the ruling I linked to since it explained the issue well - not only that bias cannot be assumed merely because a judge has a general trait in common with members of the public and one of the parties to the case, but also because the case was about a fundamental constitutional violation.   The courts don't take kindly to unfounded and bigoted accusations of bias like you and the Prop h8 morons advanced.

If another judge can marry them, then he can adhere to his faith and they still get married. Again, the decision in the baker case may have a bearing on this issue.

How so?    Judges have a canon of ethics to which they must conform which includes impartial treatment of all persons.   Bakers merely have to comply with health codes and public accommodations laws, just like the racist morons who refused to serve BBQ to black folks.

If another judge can marry them, then he can adhere to his faith and they still get married. Again, the decision in the baker case may have a bearing on this issue.

You are missing the fact that the judge isn't a for-profit business that is regulated by the public accommodation protections that apply to the bakery. 

The judge doesn't have a case because his religious views are not relevant in how he does his job.  The judge knew that he was in the wrong when he attempted to use his staff to screen the couples.

I bet you’d have a problem with a Christian judge, who openly opposes same sex marriage, deciding whether same sex marriage is constitutional

Indeed I do have that problem with all the judges who have voted against same-sex marriage or mixed-race marriage due to their superstitions or their hatred of minorities.    Every one of those bigots should have recused themselves due to their bias and their willful inability to rule fairly and without letting their superstitions interfere with their legal analysis.    Literally NONE of their bigoted and theocratic opinions on this issue had any constitutional basis whatsoever.   

You remind me a lot of the moronic, irrational, unconstitutional and unethical bias which Judge Leon Bazile exhibited in 1965 when said this: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

As I said, no such judge should ever be on a court in the US.    Such bigoted morons belong on courts in Saudi Arabia.

And he can refuse to marry anybody which is what he did.

Yes and no.   He would have been fine if he had never officiated marriages or if he had stopped officiating without revealing his racist or homophobic bias.   But the court record proves that he did reveal his bias and is thus unsuited to be a judge.

Again you have no issue with being biased as long as that bias is one you approve of .

Depends. If the issue is the constitutionality of affirmative action and the judge’s son stands to be a beneficiary of it in a pending decision for a college admission, then I think there’s a problem. Don’t you?

No, quite obviously so.   While a judge will recuse when a family member is party to the case, merely having a family member as a member of the class who is potentially impacted by a ruling is not a reason for recusal.   It is however a reason for disclosure in some cases, but note that conservative judges in the south will refuse to recuse even when they hold stock in a company which is party to a case, like the Louisiana judge who ruled on BP's liability for the oil spill in the Gulf.

However your bizarre "logic" would dictate that only white male judges with no children or with only white male children could rule on such cases since white males have traditionally been privileged by the racist and sexist history of college admissions.    And that's quite idiotic.

Again you have no issue with being biased as long as that bias is one you approve of .

Yeah.....having a bias for equal treatment under the law as the constitution requires is a terrible thing.    No one who supports the 14th Amendment should be allowed to be a judge, right?

"Again you have no issue with being biased as long as that bias is one you approve of"

Now that is the biased pot calling the kettle biased.

If marrying certain people is contrary to his faith why didn't he resign and become a preacher or a full time anti-gay activist?

Marrying someone doesn't impact their faith in least. The idea that performing a marriage somehow impedes someone's faith is ludicrous. Sounds like typical religious whining.

I am aware he's not required to marry anyone. That's why I said he was smart enough not to marry anyone at all if he didn't want to perform a SSM ceremony.

Yes and no. He would have been fine if he had never officiated marriages or if he had stopped officiating without revealing his racist or homophobic bias. But the court record proves that he did reveal his bias and is thus unsuited to be a judge.

And he arguably has a right to express his religious views, one of which is that he disagrees within same sex marriage. 

If marrying certain people is contrary to his faith why didn't he resign and become a preacher or a full time anti-gay activist.

He doesn’t have to marry anybody and he’s just as free to say that he deplores same sex marriage as another judge is to say that he supports it.

Marrying someone doesn't impact their faith in least. The idea that performing a marriage somehow impedes someone's faith is ludicrous. Sounds like typical religious whining.

It impacts his faith completely because he would be facilitating an abomination before God. You don’t have to agree with him. The very point of freedom of religion and freedom of speech is to speak and believe as you choose even if others disagree. 

It doesn't impact him in the least. It doesn't impact his beliefs. It doesn't impact his religion. He is still free to believe, worship, or attend the religious institution of his choice. His faith isn't impacted at all. But it's clear his faith impacts his ability to abide by ethical standards or just plain decency. 

Did anyone really read the article?

You're collectively making straw-man arguments about the Judge's bias, and SSM attitudes which have nothing to do with his suspension.

His ability or willingness to perform marriages isn't even in question, but apparently he lied to the commission about it which a serious violation of his oath.

Add to that his apparent disregard for gun laws and pending April 17 trial date and he is probably lucky to only get a 3 year suspension.

statesmanjournal

If another judge can marry them, then he can adhere to his faith and they still get married. Again, the decision in the baker case may have a bearing on this issue.

How so? Judges have a canon of ethics to which they must conform which includes impartial treatment of all persons. Bakers merely have to comply with health codes and public accommodations laws, just like the racist morons who refused to serve BBQ to black folks.

Being black is not a behavior. The law could say that you can marry a chicken or a child. At some point, even you would recognize that someone cannot be compelled to do things that are personally abhorrent. However, he has a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and the Supreme Court has yet to draw a clear line between conflicting rights. And don’t bother to tell me that the line already has been drawn because it hasn’t. 

Depends. If the issue is the constitutionality of affirmative action and the judge’s son stands to be a beneficiary of it in a pending decision for a college admission, then I think there’s a problem. Don’t you?

No, quite obviously so. While a judge will recuse when a family member is party to the case, merely having a family member as a member of the class who is potentially impacted by a ruling is not a reason for recusal. It is however a reason for disclosure in some cases, but note that conservative judges in the south will refuse to recuse even when they hold stock in a company which is party to a case, like the Louisiana judge who ruled on BP's liability for the oil spill in the Gulf.

Recusal is obvious if a family member is party to a case. The purpose of disclosing an “interest” is so that a party can ask the judge to recuse himself if the judge doesn’t do it voluntarily. Holding stock in a company that is party to the case may or may not be a problem. If the decision would directly enhance the value of the stock, then I think the judge should recuse himself. Otherwise, it erodes confidence that the judge is impartial. 

However your bizarre "logic" would dictate that only white male judges with no children or with only white male children could rule on such cases since white males have traditionally been privileged by the racist and sexist history of college admissions. And that's quite idiotic.

What a thoroughly ridiculous comment.

You're collectively making straw-man arguments about the Judge's bias, and SSM attitudes which have nothing to do with his suspension.

My very first comment was how the seeder flipped the emphasis to same sex marriage. However, I chose to comment on the points anyway. 

Nonsense. It’s not bias to point out bias. I didn’t state or imply that being part of a group is, itself, the bias.

Actually it revealed your anti-gay bias. Why didn't you suggest that a married judge or a straight judge could not rule fairly since the dumb bigots who supported Prop h8 idiotically claimed that marriage equality would harm opposite-sex marriage and harm marriage as an institution?

My opposition to SSM was never hidden just as you don’t hide your bias in favor of it. You’d be the first one jumping up and down if an “anti-gay bigot” were deciding a case on whether a gay married couple is fit to adopt children. You’re fine with bias as long as it’s yours. 

I suggest you read the ruling I linked to since it explained the issue well - not only that bias cannot be assumed merely because a judge has a general trait in common with members of the public and one of the parties to the case, but also because the case was about a fundamental constitutional violation. The courts don't take kindly to unfounded and bigoted accusations of bias like you and the Prop h8 morons advanced.

I already told you that I don’t care what the 9th Circuit thinks. Hopefully, conservative justices can be appointed to the Supreme Court and all of your nonsense can be swept away. 

If another judge can marry them, then he can adhere to his faith and they still get married. Again, the decision in the baker case may have a bearing on this issue.

You are missing the fact that the judge isn't a for-profit business that is regulated by the public accommodation protections that apply to the bakery.

And you are missing the point that both may have a right to the free exercise of religion. When two constitutional rights clash, then the court has to explain which one gives way and under what circumstances. 

The judge doesn't have a case because his religious views are not relevant in how he does his job. 

His religious views are obviously relevant when you ask him to violate them as part of his job.  

There's no logical or rational reason to be opposed to SSM, just as there's no legal reason to deny it. I have yet to hear of any valid reason at all. I suppose that's why opponents of SSM have almost always lost on the issue.

I bet you’d have a problem with a Christian judge, who openly opposes same sex marriage, deciding whether same sex marriage is constitutional

Indeed I do have that problem with all the judges who have voted against same-sex marriage or mixed-race marriage due to their superstitions or their hatred of minorities. Every one of those bigots should have recused themselves due to their bias and their willful inability to rule fairly and without letting their superstitions interfere with their legal analysis. Literally NONE of their bigoted and theocratic opinions on this issue had any constitutional basis whatsoever.

Then every judge who supports same sex marriage should have recused himself as well rather than legislate from the bench.

You remind me a lot of the moronic, irrational, unconstitutional and unethical bias which Judge Leon Bazile exhibited in 1965 when said this: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

You’re confused. Race is not a behavior and has nothing do with my opinion.

As I said, no such judge should ever be on a court in the US. Such bigoted morons belong on courts in Saudi Arabia.

Biased judges who support same sex marriage and bend the law to achieve that end should be flushed. When Ginsberg dies, which should be any day now, there can be one more conservative judge to take her place. 🤞 

I suppose that's why opponents of SSM have almost always lost on the issue

Every time SSM was put before a vote of the people it was defeated  it wasn't until they found a biased judges that it Started to become legal. 

And he arguably has a right to express his religious views, one of which is that he disagrees within same sex marriage.

He most certainly doesn't have the right to do that as part of his duties as a civil servant. He either does the job as required by the state and federal constitution or he finds new employment that is more in line with his religious beliefs.

Do these religious extremists think that they are going to overturn the Obergfell SCOTUS decision with their actions?  Did they ever consider that the LGBT couple in question might also be Christian or doesn't that possibility matter when they are from a different sect of the Christian faith?

Kim Davis tried a similar stunt and it ended just as badly for her.

That's because equal rights is never and should never be put to popular vote. And for good reason.

Every time SSM was put before a vote of the people it was defeated

False, not that it matters from a constitutional perspective.   The bigoted morons lost all 4 state ballot measures in November 2012 on the issue - Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota.   And in Minnesota all the pro-equality legislators won election and all the dumb bigots lost that year.

And note that the people don't "vote" on the civil rights of a minority.   That's not how our system was designed to work, and it's why your side lost not just virtually every court ruling but also lost in the end.

You’re confused. Race is not a behavior and has nothing do with my opinion.

That's a very odd claim and it's not clear what you mean by "behavior" or what it has to do with the topic, particularly given that the state has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of one's spouse.    However your views against marriage equality are exactly the same as those espoused by the racists of 50 years ago, the only difference is the target of your hate.    In fact the exact same moronic arguments were recycled again....just as you've been doing about judicial recusals.

And he arguably has a right to express his religious views, one of which is that he disagrees within same sex marriage.

I suspect not, at least not in his official capacity as a judge since it would reveal his bias against a class of people.   He can however refuse to officiate all marriages.......he just can't admit that he's doing so because he hates blacks or gays and thinks they should be denied full civil rights.

it wasn't until they found a biased judges that it Started to become legal.

The citizenry voting on the rights of a minority is blatantly unconstitutional because it is an example of the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee equal rights to all people and not just those of the majority.

In what ways has your life been negatively impacted because LGBT couples have the very same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice that you do? Did you feel the same way about the Loving v.Virginia decision that guaranteed equal rights to interracial couples, or didn't you want to admit your racism 45 years after the fact? What rights were lost after that SCOTUS decision on marriage equality?

The SCOTUS decision for both groups is the very same constitutional argument (that marriage is an inherent right of the people) so do you also want to deny interracial people the right to marry because of your conservative religious beliefs?  

The citizenry voting on the rights of a minority is blatantly unconstitutional because it is an example of the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee equal rights to all people and not just those of the majority.

I find it rather amusing that so many conservatives (like the ones we're addressing) don't even understand what civil rights are much less why they exist.   I'm beginning to think that all conservatives today skipped high school civics......or they're really just neoconfederates who think some persons should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.

My opposition to SSM was never hidden just as you don’t hide your bias in favor of it. You’d be the first one jumping up and down if an “anti-gay bigot” were deciding a case on whether a gay married couple is fit to adopt children. You’re fine with bias as long as it’s yours.

Ummmm.....a judge has to avoid not just actual bias but also the appearance of bias, and if adoption by married gay couples is legal in your state (it is in all 50 states) than a judge cannot use his personal views on the topic to influence his decision on the merits of the adoption.

Case in point - a bigoted and ignorant Mormon judge in Utah was forced to resign last year because he did exactly what you think he should be free to do.    If he had not resigned the state judicial commission was going to remove him.

kutv

nytimes

.

Society would be far better off if dumb bigots simply didn't become judges or hold any public office for that matter.   They should just stay home or work for their superstitious cults or some other hate group.

I'm beginning to think that all conservatives today skipped high school civics......

They tend to be constitutional literalists because they have no knowledge of the concept of constitutional interpretation. If the words aren't there in bold print they don't understand or deny that the right exist, unless Fox News has convinced them otherwise, as in the case of religious rights and the 2nd Amendment. They also do not understand the US Constitution is merely a list of ideas and concepts because if it was a literal list of our rights it would have been 2000 pages long and obsolete before the US Civil War. 

or they're really just neoconfederates who think some persons should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.

Why do you think that the supposed libertarians and TEAparty members support "states rights"?  That phrase is a political euphemism to the Antebellum era where people were property and women were 2nd class citizens, and most certainly before the 14th Amendment. The fact that states rights ended at Appomattox Courthouse is a foreign concept to them. 

I doubt that more than 2/3 of Americans could pass the US citizenship exam and I know that less than 1/2 of Republicans could. That test is easy if you were awake during both the US history and civic requirements in HS. My HS civics teacher used that test as the final exam.  I got a 98%. 

Every time SSM was put before a vote of the people it was defeated  it wasn't until they found a biased judges that it Started to become legal.

we get it - you'd rather place an undue burden upon a specific portion of the population just so you can have special privileges due to your "religious beliefs". so my question is - why do you feel you need special privileges just because of your "religious beliefs" ?

There's no logical or rational reason to be opposed to SSM, just as there's no legal reason to deny it. I have yet to hear of any valid reason at all. I suppose that's why opponents of SSM have almost always lost on the issue.

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog. Nothing I say would persuade you and nothing you say would persuade me. As you know, the SSM ruling by the Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous. The reason the issue lost is that we have too many liberal judges on the court. Replace them with conservative judges and the result will be different. 

Ummmm.....a judge has to avoid not just actual bias but also the appearance of bias, and if adoption by married gay couples is legal in your state (it is in all 50 states) than a judge cannot use his personal views on the topic to influence his decision on the merits of the adoption.

Yet liberal judges express their personal bias routinely on gays and illegal aliens without a peep from you. 

Society would be far better off if dumb bigots simply didn't become judges or hold any public office for that matter. They should just stay home or work for their superstitious cults or some other hate group.

Society would be even better off if liberals didn’t become judges and, instead, were limited babbling their insanity in mental institutions where they can be properly supervised. 

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your do

Of course there is. My dog can't consent because she's not an adult human. Two people of the same sex can marry if they are consenting adults. The key words here are TWO and CONSENTING ADULTS.

Nothing in there about 3 wives or 5 husbands or dogs marrying humans. This is not rocket science. You are entitled to your strange beliefs, but you are not entitled to force your beliefs down others' throats.

And please, how do two men marrying each other hurt you in any way?

You’re confused. Race is not a behavior and has nothing do with my opinion.

That's a very odd claim and it's not clear what you mean by "behavior" or what it has to do with the topic, particularly given that the state has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of one's spouse.

What’s really odd is that you can’t tell the difference between a behavior and race. In any event, you brought up race, not me, and behavior is obviously relevant to homosexuality since it is a sexual “behavior”. All I did was contrast the two since you interjected race into the discussion so you can pretend that racism and opposition to SSM are related. 

Of course there is. My dog can't consent because she's not an adult human. Two people of the same sex can marry if they are consenting adults. The key words here are TWO and CONSENTING ADULTS.

Although consent is the key to you, it’s completely irrelevant to me. If consent is important for you, then consent on your dog’s behalf because you own it. 

And he arguably has a right to express his religious views, one of which is that he disagrees within same sex marriage.

He most certainly doesn't have the right to do that as part of his duties as a civil servant. He either does the job as required by the state and federal constitution or he finds new employment that is more in line with his religious beliefs.

His job doesn’t require him to marry anybody at all and he has a right to express his views opposing same sex marriage just as others have the right to support it. 

Do these religious extremists think that they are going to overturn the Obergfell SCOTUS decision with their actions? Did they ever consider that the LGBT couple in question might also be Christian or doesn't that possibility matter when they are from a different sect of the Christian faith?

The way to change it is to replace the liberal nitwits on the Supreme Court with conservative judges. 

You of course are entitled to your opinion and I do not seek to change your mind, however I still have to address the fol points.

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM

The same logical and/or rational reasons for OSM exist for SSM, it is simply a contract between to people.

than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog

A dog cannot give the informed consent required to enter into a contract, so there is absolutely no similarity.

Replace them with conservative judges and the result will be different. 

Maybe I am naïve but I would hope that any judge would rule based on the constitutionality of the issue instead of toeing the party line.

What’s really odd is that you can’t tell the difference between a behavior and race. In any event, you brought up race, not me, and behavior is obviously relevant to homosexuality since it is a sexual “behavior”.

Are you trying to ignore the fact that being LGBT is no more of a conscious choice than being heterosexual? A persons gender identity or sexual orientation is not a behavior. Choosing to have sex with another person is a behavior, but their sexual orientation or gender identity is an innate part of who they are and doesn't require another person to do anything for them to be such.  We are not all born hetero but some people choose to be gay, bi lesbian or transgendered. I doubt that you understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity but it is likely not worth my time trying to explain that difference to you and others who appear to be defending this judge's discriminatory behavior.  

All I did was contrast the two since you interjected race into the discussion so you can pretend that racism and opposition to SSM are related.

A person's race or skin color is just as innate to who they are as their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

The legal basis for LGBT marriage equality and interracial marriage are exactly the same.  The SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is an innate right of all people, regardless of their race, the race of their partner, their sexual orientation or their gender identity. 

The way to change it is to replace the liberal nitwits on the Supreme Court with conservative judges.

The SCOTUS cannot change previous decisions just because the makeup of the justices has changed. There must be a reason to change it and a case that is ripe for revisiting the issue. The fact that you and others do not approve that LGBT people have equal rights is not a legally valid reason. 

You and others have yet to say how your life has been negatively impacted in any meaningful way because LGBT people have the very same marriage rights that you do.

You totally  missed the point. The LAW does not allow you to marry your dog. The LAW only allows TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to marry.

You still didn't answer my question

You totally missed the point. The LAW does not allow you to marry your dog. The LAW only allows TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to marry.

And you missed mine. It is no more compelling argument to me that TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can marry each other than it is for you to marry a dog. I don’t care about consent. Should a mother be able to marry her adult son just because both of them consented to it? 

You still didn’t answer my question.

Repeat it. 

How does it hurt you for two gay men or two lesbian women to marry?

The SCOTUS cannot change previous decisions just because the makeup of the justices has changed. There must be a reason to change it and a case that is ripe for revisiting the issue. The fact that you and others do not approve that LGBT people have equal rights is not a legally valid reason.

Any prior decision of the Supreme Court can be reversed by a subsequent Court whenever they deem it appropriate. 

You and others have yet to say how your life has been negatively impacted in any meaningful way because LGBT people have the very same marriage rights that you do.

Ok and you need to show how my life is positively impacted by a marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. Since this nonsense started in the court, it can be set straight there (pun intended). All we need to do is put more conservative judges on the bench.

How does it hurt you for two gay men or two lesbian women to marry?

It doesn’t. It also doesn’t hurt me if you marry your dog or your mother but that doesn’t make it OK.

If marrying certain people is contrary to his faith why didn't he resign and become a preacher or a full time anti-gay activist?

His job doesn’t require him to marry anybody at all so he didn’t have to resign. All he had to do was stop performing weddings and let some other judge do it. 

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

Sure there is.   Certainly you would not argue that marriage should be cross-species so clearly you would argue that marriage is between two human beings.   Indeed your position is that marriage is between two competent and willing adult human beings of opposite genders who are not first degree relatives.  Right?

Well it is a fact that there are human beings who wish to be married but happen to be of the same gender.   The logical, rational reason to permit SSM is that gender is simply an historical / religious barrier.  There is a reason for preventing a father from marrying his daughter, prevent underage marriage, prevent marriage if either party is incompetent or unwilling.   What is the logical, rational reason for legally demanding that the married couple (two willing, competent, unrelated human beings) be of opposite gender?

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

What is the logical reason for any marriage that doesn't also apply to LGBT or interracial marriage?

There has never been any requiremnt to be fertile and promise to procreate in heterosexual marriage in the US.  The fact that being married isnt required for a couple to procreate should be obvioius to you and other conservatives.

Marriage is not a religious act and history proves that secular marriage predates the Christian religion by more than 1500 years.  What religions do is the sacrament of holy matrimony that is independant of marriage, which is a secular civil contract between 2 consenting adults. 

The government cannot force any religion to marry anyone, even if they are WASP heterosexual church members because of the seperation of church and state. A religious sacrament is not a constitutional right so a couple cannot take any religion/church to a civil court because the religion in question refuses to marry them for various reasons.

Got it. You can't get past your own self imposed "ick" factor.

His job doesn’t require him to marry anybody at all so he didn’t have to resign. All he had to do was stop performing weddings and let some other judge do it.

He was punished for denying LGBT couples the same act that he willingly offered to heterosexual couples between the time the state of Oregon legalized LGBT marriage and the Obergfell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision that legalized LGBT marriage nationwide. He knew that he was breaking the law when he used his staff to discretely screen the waiting couples.

Ok and you need to show how my life is positively impacted by a marriage between anything other than a man and a woman.

No, I do not. You don't have the right to benefit from the actions of any other person. That argument is laughable and if it were instituted it would negate most of the Bill of Rights because the actions of others are not required to benefit you or anyone else. You do not and cannot have the right not to be offended by the actions or speech of others because if you did then we would not have religious rights or free speech, among many other rights.

How do you benefit from any heterosexual marriage that is not your own relationship?

What is your obviously emotional hangup about LGBT marriage? Is it the ick factor of 2 people of the same gender kissing?  

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

A poor analogy, as a dog cannot legally consent. Anything is permissible unless there is a law saying it is not. Of course, opponents to SSM could not come up with a valid reason to deny SSM, much the same way you obviously cannot! Your attempt at a deflection is also noted.

Nothing I say would persuade you and nothing you say would persuade me.

Try providing a logical and rational reason, then we'll see.

As you know, the SSM ruling by the Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous.

So? That means nothing. It's what the majority of judges rule that matters.

The reason the issue lost is that we have too many liberal judges on the court.

Or maybe they knew there was no valid reason to deny SSM either.

Yet liberal judges express their personal bias routinely on gays and illegal aliens without a peep from you.

By that *ahem* logic, so do conservative judges. But you're ok with that, right? Such hypocrisy.

Society would be even better off if liberals didn’t become judges and, instead, were limited babbling their insanity in mental institutions where they can be properly supervised.

Do you need a tissue for your whining?

What’s really odd is that you can’t tell the difference between a behavior and race. In any event, you brought up race, not me, and behavior is obviously relevant to homosexuality since it is a sexual “behavior”

Clearly you confuse behavior with orientation. And how is behavior relevant to the issue of marriage exactly? 

Although consent is the key to you, it’s completely irrelevant to me.

What's relevant to you is irrelevant. It's about what is relevant to the law!

and he has a right to express his views opposing same sex marriage

Of course he does. Just as with such "expression" comes consequences.

The way to change it is to replace the liberal nitwits on the Supreme Court with conservative judges.

The SCOTUS has never in its entire history, rescinded rights once granted. It speaks volumes about you that would want certain individual rights to be revoked.

Any prior decision of the Supreme Court can be reversed by a subsequent Court whenever they deem it appropriate.

See previous statement!

Ok and you need to show how my life is positively impacted by a marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. Since this nonsense started in the court, it can be set straight there (pun intended).

Your life isn't impacted in any way in the slightest by anyone getting married, gay or straight. It's not about you! 

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

Sure there is. Certainly you would not argue that marriage should be cross-species so clearly you would argue that marriage is between two human beings. Indeed your position is that marriage is between two competent and willing adult human beings of opposite genders who are not first degree relatives. Right?

If you believe that marriage can be between two same sex people then I see no logical reason to prohibit marriage between opposite gender relatives, pets, groups of people, and cheese sandwiches. 

Well it is a fact that there are human beings who wish to be married but happen to be of the same gender. The logical, rational reason to permit SSM is that gender is simply an historical / religious barrier. There is a reason for preventing a father from marrying his daughter, prevent underage marriage, prevent marriage if either party is incompetent or unwilling. What is the logical, rational reason for legally demanding that the married couple (two willing, competent, unrelated human beings) be of opposite gender?

Gender is the basis for reproduction, which perpetuates the species, and marriage has always been viewed as a means of providing a stable unit. That’s been the case in every society on earth whether civilized or savage. And it’s still the case even if the couple is unable or unwilling to reproduce. Two adult relatives can be just as mature, competent, and willing as anybody else so there is no reason to prevent them from marrying if two men can marry each other. I can give you no logical rational reason that compels you to prohibit SSM and you can give me no logical rational reason that compels me to permit it (i.e, logical and rational to me).

Ok and you need to show how my life is positively impacted by a marriage between anything other than a man and a woman.

No, I do not. You don't have the right to benefit from the actions of any other person. That argument is laughable and if it were instituted it would negate most of the Bill of Rights because the actions of others are not required to benefit you or anyone else.

Then I don’t have to show how my life is negatively impacted. There are quite a few laws that don’t negatively affect me (or you either) which is no reason to repeal or enact them. So, in answer to the question “how does it negatively impact me”, my response is “it doesn’t have to.” 

Is it the ick factor of 2 people of the same gender kissing?

Probably but only if they're male, cause you know if porn has taught us anything lesbians are hot gays are not

Just admit it, same sex marriage is "icky" especially if it's two men

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

A poor analogy, as a dog cannot legally consent. Anything is permissible unless there is a law saying it is not. 

I would not permit it and support nominating judges who feel the same way.

As you know, the SSM ruling by the Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous.

So? That means nothing. It's what the majority of judges rule that matters.

That’s why I want more conservative judges who can reverse the decision on SSM. 

The reason the issue lost is that we have too many liberal judges on the court.
Or maybe they knew there was no valid reason to deny SSM either.

What’s really odd is that you can’t tell the difference between a behavior and race. In any event, you brought up race, not me, and behavior is obviously relevant to homosexuality since it is a sexual “behavior”

Clearly you confuse behavior with orientation. And how is behavior relevant to the issue of marriage exactly?

Homosexuality is a behavior if you engage in it and irrelevant if you don’t. I don’t want to condone it through marriage. 

Although consent is the key to you, it’s completely irrelevant to me.
What's relevant to you is irrelevant. It's about what is relevant to the law!

Its relevant to my opinion of what the law should be or how the law is interpreted, depending on the question.

The SCOTUS has never in its entire history, rescinded rights once granted. It speaks volumes about you that would want certain individual rights to be revoked.

But it has reversed or overruled prior decisions that affect rights and it can do so again. If the court can redefine marriage in all 50 states, contrary to any notion of marriage that has previously existed in any state or at any time in our history, then reversing it should be just as simple. 

Ok and you need to show how my life is positively impacted by a marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. Since this nonsense started in the court, it can be set straight there (pun intended).

Your life isn't impacted in any way in the slightest by anyone getting married, gay or straight. It's not about you!

The beauty of democracy is that I can think as I choose and vote accordingly without your permission.

Just admit it, same sex marriage is "icky" especially if it's two men.

Of course it’s “icky” and unnatural. Even animals have figured out what goes where. 

I guess you've never seen one male dog hump another male dog

Let me guess....you probably think anal sex between 2 straights is icky, too

Then I don’t have to show how my life is negatively impacted. There are quite a few laws that don’t negatively affect me (or you either) which is no reason to repeal or enact them. So, in answer to the question “how does it negatively impact me”, my response is “it doesn’t have to.”

If your life is not negatively impacted in a demonstrable way by LGBT marriage equal then what is your logical and defensible reason to oppose LGBT people having equal marriage rights to heterosexual and interracial couples? 

If you have no reason to oppose LGBT equality that can be rationally articulated then your vocal opposition to equal rights for a minority should be written off as ignorance and bigotry. If only the majority have constitutional rights then should Catholics, as the largest Christian sect, be permitted to use the ballot box to deny the various Protestant sects the right to marriage because of the religious differences in their Biblical interpretation? 

Even animals have figured out what goes where.

"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species. "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher."

news-medical

bbc

en.wikipedia

Of course it’s “icky” and unnatural. Even animals have figured out what goes where.

Are you suggesting that only vaginal intercourse is practiced among the heterosexual population? Do you believe that sex beyond an attempt to procreate is morally wrong and not to be encouraged by the state? 

The fact that the ability to have procreational sex is irrelevant to marriage appears to be lost on you. Women and men who are infertile and intersexed people were never denied right to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice before Obergfell v. Hodges.

Of course it’s “icky” and unnatural. Even animals have figured out what goes where.

Your personal issues aside, homosexuality is natural and is observed in the animal kingdom.

Gender is the basis for reproduction, which perpetuates the species, and marriage has always been viewed as a means of providing a stable unit. That’s been the case in every society on earth whether civilized or savage. And it’s still the case even if the couple is unable or unwilling to reproduce.

Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage, as it is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa. And being homosexual does not make an individual incapable of reproduction. But I see you also apply a double standard: your basis against SSM seems to be about reproduction. So why are you ok with couples marrying that either cannot or do not want to reproduce? What's the difference?

 I can give you no logical rational reason that compels you to prohibit SSM

Obviously not! So your entire argument falls flat.

and you can give me no logical rational reason that compels me to permit it (i.e, logical and rational to me).

Other than the fact it's about individual rights?

Then I don’t have to show how my life is negatively impacted.

Because it's not! Therefore, you have even less reason to oppose SSM.

I would not permit it

And you still can't provide any good reason either!

Homosexuality is a behavior if you engage in it and irrelevant if you don’t.

You still confuse sex with orientation. As I said, sex is irrelevant to marriage. How deep do you plan to dig that hole you're standing in? 

I don’t want to condone it through marriage.

Still can't give any good reason I see.

Its relevant to my opinion of what the law should be or how the law is interpreted, depending on the question.

Your opinion, especially regarding the law, is completely irrelevant (and utterly laughable)! It's what the law itself says and how legal experts interpret it that maters. Not you! Get over yourself!

But it has reversed or overruled prior decisions that affect rights and it can do so again.

Clearly you  weren't paying attention (or just didn't get it). I'll say it again: The SCOTUS has never in its entire history, rescinded rights once granted. It speaks volumes about you that would want certain individual rights to be revoked.

If the court can redefine marriage in all 50 states, contrary to any notion of marriage that has previously existed in any state or at any time in our history, then reversing it should be just as simple.

Your knowledge and understanding of the law and civics is pitiful at best!

The beauty of democracy is that I can think as I choose and vote accordingly without your permission.

I never said you couldn't. So what's your point. But in our Constitutional Republic, equal rights is not put to popular vote!

If you believe that marriage can be between two same sex people then I see no logical reason to prohibit marriage between opposite gender relatives, pets, groups of people, and cheese sandwiches.

How is that rational?   You equate marriage between two human beings who happen to be of the same gender to marriage to pets or cheese sandwiches?   This, to you, is a rational response??

Gender is the basis for reproduction, which perpetuates the species, and marriage has always been viewed as a means of providing a stable unit.

Heterosexual marriage will continue.  Do not worry.

I can give you no logical rational reason that compels you to prohibit SSM and you can give me no logical rational reason that compels me to permit it (i.e, logical and rational to me).

Sure I can.  The logical and rational reason to allow two human beings of the same sex to have a legal marriage is that it allows them to formalize their intimate relationship as life partners, share assets, have medical rights, etc.   If there is a logical and rational reason for a heterosexual couple to have the benefits of a legal marriage the exact same logical and rational reason applies to homosexual couples.   Their marriage does nothing to harm anyone in society.   Denying them a legal marriage is pointless.   Other than bigotry, why would anyone object?

Outlaw it!!      harumph

We need bedroom legislation.   Legally allowed positions, time duration, preparation, attire, personal characteristics, consumption of food & drink before and after, etc.    There are far too many degrees of freedom for human intimacy - this needs to be regulated.

This, to you, is a rational response??

There is nothing rational about his responses. Especially given that he cannot formulate a ration reason to oppose SSM.

If you believe that marriage can be between two same sex people then I see no logical reason to prohibit marriage between opposite gender relatives, pets, groups of people, and cheese sandwiches.

That's exactly the same moronic slippery-slope argument which the racists used 50 years ago against mixed-race marriage, and which SCOTUS rejected unanimously then and 5-4 in 2015.     Funny that you think anyone today would treat such bigoted idiocy as having any legal weight whatsoever.

.

Gender is the basis for reproduction, which perpetuates the species, and marriage has always been viewed as a means of providing a stable unit.

And your point is what exactly?   Marriage is about property rights and kinship rights not reproduction, and infertile or willfully childless couples aren't denied the right to marry.   Plus your argument lost at SCOTUS anyway, particularly since the result of your "logic" would be to deny equal rights to any children born to or adopted by same-sex couples.    Justice Kennedy found that kind of bigotry quite vile.

The simple fact is that the state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in the race or gender of one's spouse, and that's why folks like you lost because you were unable to articulate even one legitimate secular state purpose to deny marriage on either basis.   Funny though that you keep recycling the exact same moronic arguments which lost last time and which lost 50 years ago.

equalitygiving

There’s no more logical or rational reason to permit SSM than there is to permit a legal marriage between you and your dog.

That's not the way our legal system works, at least not since the 14th Amendment was passed.   The state needs at least a secular rational basis and a legitimate state purpose to deny equal rights to a class of persons, and the bigots have never provided one.    That's why your side lost.

By the way your comment reveals how very little you understand about the US constitution, and it reveals that you have a desperate need for special rights and privileged status.    It really seems to bug you that gays now have the same civil rights as you.

What’s really odd is that you can’t tell the difference between a behavior and race. In any event, you brought up race, not me, and behavior is obviously relevant to homosexuality since it is a sexual “behavior”. All I did was contrast the two since you interjected race into the discussion so you can pretend that racism and opposition to SSM are related.

Ah.....so by "behavior" you're talking about sex between gays (which is perfectly legal and none of the state's concern).   It seems that you're worried about it despite the fact that most couples have sex regardless of whether they're married, and the state doesn't inquire as to their sexual "behavior" prior to issuing a marriage license.   The state doesn't even care if the couple never has sex.

So from what I can tell you're expressing the same irrational concern that the racist morons did 50 years ago......that if the people they hate are allowed to marry they might have sex.    It's not just bigoted, it's a truly stupid and naive concern.

A person's race or skin color is just as innate to who they are as their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

I would argue that race is actually much less innate because it's merely a social construct not a neurological trait like sexual orientation.    Not only do racial classifications vary from culture to culture but we have the phenomenon of "passing" where people who were legally black under the one-drop rule in the confederate states were able to pass as white or to variously identify as mulatto, quadroon, octaroon, etc, like Homer Plessy did.

But it has reversed or overruled prior decisions that affect rights and it can do so again. If the court can redefine marriage in all 50 states, contrary to any notion of marriage that has previously existed in any state or at any time in our history, then reversing it should be just as simple.

Actually SCOTUS has never retracted a protected right once they recognized it, nor have they or any US court ever reversed any marriage which was lawfully granted and not void due to fraud.   Moreover the burden for the bigots is very high.....not only would you need to repeal the Equal Protection clause but you'd have to reverse the past 140 years of court doctrine and case precedents, including not just direct precedents like Loving v Virginia but also all of the court doctrine involving sex and gender discrimination and other relevant precedents like Lawrence v Texas and even the 1888 ruling in Maynard v Hill which found that marriage is a fundamental right and thus subject to strict scrutiny.    So you're pretty much screwed, but please let your frustration on this issue fester.   My sincere condolences on your permanent loss of special rights and privileged status.     It must be tough to be a homophobe today, eh?

Of course it’s “icky” and unnatural.

Ignoring the rather obvious falsehood for a moment, it sure does sound like you spend a lot of time fantasizing about sex with people of your gender and generally fretting that other folks might be having sex.    That's not normal if you're actually straight, but it would be a rather predictable response if you're a bible-babbler and in denial about having same-sex attractions.

Although consent is the key to you, it’s completely irrelevant to me.

except consent is completely relevant for this legal contract - which is what we are discussing, a secular legal contract, correct ?

Should a mother be able to marry her adult son just because both of them consented to it?

that statement just serves to highlight your lack of knowledge on the primary purpose of Marriage - to create kinship where none previously existed.

Gender is the basis for reproduction, which perpetuates the species, and marriage has always been viewed as a means of providing a stable unit.

incorrect - Marriage was all about creating alliances between kingdoms/countries etc, it was also all about property ownership. please do some research.

That’s been the case in every society on earth whether civilized or savage. And it’s still the case even if the couple is unable or unwilling to reproduce. 

if they are unable or unwilling to produce - then their marriage is obviously not about reproduction since it is impossible to do or they are completely unwilling to do it. they obviously didn't marry with the intent of reproduction, so obviously their marriage's should be illegal and dissolved in your mind, correct ?

Homosexuality is a behavior if you engage in it and irrelevant if you don’t. I don’t want to condone it through marriage. 

that's the same thing as saying - cheating on your spouse is a behavior if you engage in it and irrelevant if you don't, i don't want to condone it through marriage so anyone who's ever cheated on their spouse shouldn't be allowed to get married... or .... divorcing your spouse is a behavior if you engage in it and irrelevant if you don't, i don't want to condone it through marriage so anyone who's ever divorced their spouse shouldn't be allowed to get married again.

But it has reversed or overruled prior decisions that affect rights and it can do so again. If the court can redefine marriage in all 50 states, contrary to any notion of marriage that has previously existed in any state or at any time in our history, then reversing it should be just as simple. 

are you actually suggesting that SCOTUS should set a precedence of taking away rights from a select group of citizens ? maybe you should think that through for a minute and its implications if you set that precedence.

Liberalism means bias towards none.

We're you actually able to type that out and keep a straight face at the same time? 

Liberals only have no bias and tolerate only those that think and believe exactly as they do. No deviation, no decent no variation. 

Liberals only have no bias and tolerate only those that think and believe exactly as they do. No deviation, no decent no variation.

What bias have you ever experienced because of liberals? When did liberals take your rights away?

What bias have you ever experienced because of liberals? When did liberals take your rights away?

Those that he imagined in his mind.

You wouldn't ask such an ignorant question.

You can answer the same question that I posed to Arkpdx. What bias have you ever experienced because of liberals? Have you ever been denied equal rights because of liberals? 

Ever lived in CA?  You wouldn't ask such an ignorant question.

You must have voted for Prop 187 and Prop h8.   No wonder you're upset.

I'll let you know when you have have my permission to ask me anything.

It's obvious you can't answer her question. It's also hilarious that you think she needs your permission to do anything.

I'll let you know when you have have my permission to ask me anything.

You replied to me so of course, I can ask you. I don't need to ask anyone permission before I reply to them.

You have absolutely nothing of significance so you have to try to deflect attention.  In the future, you will look less silly when you don't make claims that you cannot back up.

It's obvious you can't answer her question. It's also hilarious that you think she needs your permission to do anything.

He should have kept silent instead of making claims that he cannot defend. Did he not think that I would call him out on his claim?

That absurdity gets funnier each time you say it.

You seem to have a cowardly habit of dodging questions. 

I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote.

Doesn’t matter. Yes you’re going to need permission to ask me anything so that’s just my way of letting you know.

You should have thought of that before you replied. I do not need your permission or anyone else before I question your claim. The fact that I created this thread seems to be lost on you. Stop dancing around and answer the question. Either you can answer the question or you can't.  

I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote.

Better to remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Apollo' is all bluster.

Stop dancing around and answer the question. Either you can answer the question or you can't.

If they answer "What bias have you ever experienced because of liberals?" it gives them away because their only reply is "You liberals won't let me discriminate! You won't allow me to be a petty vindictive ignoramus without calling me out for it and I don't like it! Arggghhh!".

Show me the money and I’ll answer your question.

Nobody gets paid for answering questions on this forum.

It is obvous that you are all bluster because if you had a rational answer you wouldn't need to backpedal  at the speed of light.

Well right there you’ve exhibited bias.

Did I prevent you from speaking your mind? Did I take away your freedom of speech? Did I claim you can't worship the way you want? Where did I discriminate against you? As for bias, yes, of course, we all have biases, it's whether we act on them by denying others the same rights as anyone else that makes a difference. When and where have liberals denied you the ability to do whatever you want? Go ahead, discriminate, just don't expect those around you to stay quiet about it or condone it. 

Any prior decision of the Supreme Court can be reversed by a subsequent Court whenever they deem it appropriate.

There needs to be a case filed by persons who have a legally valid reason to show that their life has been negatively impacted by the law that has worked its way through the appeals court system and then chosen by the SCOTUS for review. The justices cannot decide to pick and choose what cases they review just because of their opinions or partisan ideas. 

Turn off Fox News and learn facts.

litigation.findlaw

You have yet to prove that someone's life has been negatively affected in any reasonable manner by allowing 2 consenting adults to marry.  You do not understand the concept that we have the right to act unless the state says that we cannot. We do not have to ask permission from the state or your religion before we act. The very basic idea is the cornerstone of what personal freedom is.

Better to remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? Apollo' is all bluster.

You got it!

The beauty of democracy is that I can think as I choose and vote accordingly without your permission.

For me, the real beauty of living in the US is the separation of church and state so I can legally live and vote as I choose without any religion's permission.  Otherwise women would be biblically owned by males as dictated by their patriarchal god, Yahweh.

Freedom of religion does not include the right to force your religious beliefs on others.  That even includes members of your own sect if your religious rules are in conflict with the nation's secular laws.  If a religious sect performs honor killings or just stones a few unruly children to death at the gates of the city because Allah or Yahweh commands it, the perpetrators will be charged with murder under secular law.

If the Christians would just simply work on themselves, adhere to the Golden Rule and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then what would there be to fight about?

That’s your problem not mine.

How is your deflections and lack of credibility my problem exactly? You're the one who's looking foolish here.

Should be quoting me instead.

When you start saying something intelligent, rational, and relevant, then I might consider it. 

There’s no backpedaling here I have principles and ground rules that I stick to pretty religiously

Yeah, deflections and ad hom or personal attacks.

That’s pretty much a prima facie example why this whole argument is completely fucking stupid beyond belief

No, only your arguments are!

"You liberals won't let me discriminate! You won't allow me to be a petty vindictive ignoramus without calling me out for it and I don't like it! Arggghhh!".

Bingo.    And I love how they're unable to hide their utter butt-hurt that the state no longer supports their hatred of minorities, and the angst that bigots no longer have special rights or privileged status.   The bible-babbling Republican legislators in South Carolina are a case in point......this is from a new Jim Crow bill where they want to assign married gay couples to "parody marriages", while all other married couples get to retain the term "marriage."    Their linguistic gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty are worth an LOL, as is their rather obvious butt-hurt:

Whereas, all forms of parody marriage and all self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientations that fail to check out the human design are part of the religion of Secular Humanism; and

Whereas, the State of South Carolina’s decision to respect, endorse, and recognize parody marriages and sexual orientation policies has excessively entangled the government with the religion of Secular Humanism, failed to accomplish its intended purpose, and created an indefensible legal weapon against nonobservers ; and

Whereas, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), there has not been a land rush on gay marriage, but there has been a land rush on the persecution of nonobservers by Secular Humanists and an effort by Secular Humanists to infiltrate and indoctrinate minors in public schools to their religious world view which is questionably moral, plausible, obscene, and is not secular;  

scstatehouse

Whereas, all forms of parody marriage and all self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientations that fail to check out the human design are part of the religion of Secular Humanism; and

The mental gymnastics of this man are worthy of an Olympic gold medal. This is an obvious First Amendment issue because he is attacking one belief system (secular humanism) and denying them equal marriage rights because they are not conservative Christians. I am surprised that he didn't also mention Islam. The fact that many LGBT couples are also Christians is lost on this bigot.

There are very few actual secular Humanists. All secular Humanists are atheists but not all atheists are secular humanists, in the very same way that all Christians are theists but not all theists are Christians.  Not all Humanists are LGBT but all Humanists support LGBT equality.

There needs to be a case filed by persons who have a legally valid reason to show that their life has been negatively impacted by the law that has worked its way through the appeals court system and then chosen by the SCOTUS for review. The justices cannot decide to pick and choose what cases they review just because of their opinions or partisan ideas.

Turn off Fox News and learn facts.

Fox News has nothing to do with it so you can save your pontification for someone else. I didn’t remotely suggest that courts randomly pick cases to suit their partisan ideas. The court can, and has, reversed prior decisions because they think the prior decision was wrong. An example involved school segregation. An early court ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson that it was not unconstitutional to keep schools segregated as long as they are equal. However, in Brown vs Education, a later court reversed position saying that segregated schools are inherently unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional. They interpreted the exact same constitutional provision and came to different conclusions. The SSM decision is, in my opinion (and that of the dissent), on shaky constitutional ground. Again, all that’s needed are more conservative justices on the court and they can either erode the SSM decision bit by bit  or reverse it outright when they have the right case before them.

You have yet to prove that someone's life has been negatively affected in any reasonable manner by allowing 2 consenting adults to marry. You do not understand the concept that we have the right to act unless the state says that we cannot. We do not have to ask permission from the state or your religion before we act. The very basic idea is the cornerstone of what personal freedom is.

I’m really not clear what you’re blathering on about. You can pretend to be married to a bag of potato chips for all I care but the issue is whether the constitution requires a state to recognize and/or perform a SSM. The Supreme Court says they must and, as I said, I agree with the dissent. The dissent didn’t rely on a burden of proof to show that someone’s negatively impacted by the marriage or reference my religion or some right to act unless the  state says you cant or the need (or not) to seek permission or personal freedom or any other such irrelevancy.

So, I can argue that the constitution does not require anybody to recognize your marriage to a bag of potato chips whether or not it negatively impacts me and regardless as to whether the bag consents to the marriage (having communicated its desire on a frequency only those who love chips can hear). In sum, if you think the SSM decision can’t be reversed, then you’re just wrong. 

I've always found it funny how Christian extremists have a bug up their butt about "secular Humanists".   It must be some kind of trigger phrase or code language for them, like how they always use "thug" to refer to black males, or "family values" to refer to the kind of hate and bigotry they support.

Side note, one of the authors of that bill also wrote a bill to require all new phones and computers to include "porn blockers."    These right wing perverts must think about sex more than anyone else on the planet.

goupstate

.

Plus he's a Dixie Swastika-loving neoconfederate who wants to build monuments to black slaves who fought for the confederacy, ie he's a traditional Southern Baptist.    The problem is that there were no such people in SC because the state didn't trust blacks or non-whites to have weapons of any kind.

theroot

If the Christians would just simply work on themselves, adhere to the Golden Rule and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then what would there be to fight about?

And, therein lies the problem. The constitution gives people the right to the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t prescribe the circumstances. If one group insists on forcing the other to engage in what they consider a biblical abomination, then one group’s alleged right to be married clashes with the other group’s right to the free exercise of religion. One right must to some extent give way to the other but court’s will generally try and preserve both rights rather than negate one. When the religious person is a government employee, the ruling could go one way but when the person is a private business owner, the result could be different. It’s not clear where the balance will be struck which is precisely why the baker case is before the Supreme Court. 

Fox News has nothing to do with it so you can save your pontification for someone else. I didn’t remotely suggest that courts randomly pick cases to suit their partisan ideas. The court can, and has, reversed prior decisions because they think the prior decision was wrong. An example involved school segregation. An early court ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson that it was not unconstitutional to keep schools segregated as long as they are equal. However, in Brown vs Education, a later court reversed position saying that segregated schools are inherently unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional. They interpreted the exact same constitutional provision and came to different conclusions. The SSM decision is, in my opinion (and that of the dissent), on shaky constitutional ground. Again, all that’s needed are more conservative justices on the court and they can either erode the SSM decision bit by bit

There has been no legally supported person with grounds to appeal Obergfell because they cannot prove that harm has been done to them because of LGBT marriage equality. One that case is heard by lower appeals courts and then has a conflicted ruling the SCOTUS has the power to decided to hear the case if they feel that the issue is legally ripe for appeal. They also have the right to send it back to lower courts.

Who in the US has been substantially harmed by allowing any two people of either gender to marry the partner of their choice?

Obergfell v. Hodges is the very same legal decision that underlines the Long v. Virginia decision (marriage is a right of the people) that allowed interracial couples to marry, so if Obergfell is overruled then  Loving is also overruled. LOving has been in place for almost 50 years without substantial appeal and there is nothing that even hints that Obergfell is unconstitutional. You also need to understand how the US v. Windsor decision plays into this situation.

The short answer is that LGBT marriage is on very solid legal ground and it isn't going anywhere, despite your disapproval of icky gay people.  Get over it and move on to something that actually concerns you instead of being a busybody and trying to micromanage the lives of other people.

I didn’t remotely suggest that courts randomly pick cases to suit their partisan ideas. The court can, and has, reversed prior decisions because they think the prior decision was wrong. An example involved school segregation. An early court ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson that it was not unconstitutional to keep schools segregated as long as they are equal.

Actually SCOTUS has only explicitly reversed itself in a few cases, one is Brown v Board which reversed Plessy v Ferguson......but a far more relevant one is Lawrence v Texas which explicitly reversed Bowers v Hardwick.    Your side lost that one since the court rejected the homophobia you endorse.

Also note that the only cases explicitly reversed are ones where the court had erroneously denied equal rights to a class of persons.    The court has never done the opposite by reversing a ruling in order to deny equal rights to a class of persons.    It's also hard to imagine how such as case could be brought before the court.    Who would have legal standing to do so....perhaps a dumb bigot frustrated that the state no longer supports his hatred of gays or blacks?    Or maybe a whiny Christian extremist who thinks the 14th Amendment was wrongly enacted and that minorities should be treated as 2nd-class persons and denied full civil rights?

And, therein lies the problem. The constitution gives people the right to the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t prescribe the circumstances. If one group insists on forcing the other to engage in what they consider a biblical abomination, then one group’s alleged right to be married clashes with the other group’s right to the free exercise of religion.

Hmmm......like the dumb bigot in Oregon who used to wear a black robe you seem to have confused a secular legal contract with a completely irrelevant religious ritual.    No wonder you both lost.

By the way, my sincere condolences on your loss of special rights and privileged status.   Your butt-hurt must be quite severe.

It must be some kind of trigger phrase or code language for them, like how they always use "thug" to refer to black males, or "family values" to refer to the kind of hate and bigotry they support.

That fact that he doesn't believe that Humanists enjoy the very same 1st Amendment relgious rights that his brand of conservative Christianity does is very obvious. 

These bigots also like to refer to black males as "urban youths". Family values is a euphemism for pre-Civil Rights Act civil rights and hypocritical Christian conservatism.  

When the religious person is a government employee, the ruling could go one way but when the person is a private business owner, the result could be different. It’s not clear where the balance will be struck which is precisely why the baker case is before the Supreme Court.

I suggest you learn about Newman v Piggie Park as well as Reynolds v US.   The court long ago rejected the use of religion as an excuse to violate the law, and in Piggie Park and related cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel they did so in the context of public accommodation laws.    Funny that you didn't know that given that's been the case for over 50 years and there have never been any contrary precedents, not even once.

I suggest you learn about Newman v Piggie Park as well as Reynolds v US. The court long ago rejected the use of religion as an excuse to violate the law, and in Piggie Park and related cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel they did so in the context of public accommodation laws. Funny that you didn't know that given that's been the case for over 50 years and there have never been any contrary precedents, not even once.

If the Supreme Court thought the issue was as simple as you think it is, then all they had to do is let the lower court ruling stand. Obviously, there is some interest in strikimg a balance or they wouldn’t be hearing the or asking the questions that they posed in the oral argument. When you get a seat on the Supreme Court, then I’ll be more interested in your opinion but until then not so much. 

Actually SCOTUS has only explicitly reversed itself in a few cases, one is Brown v Board which reversed Plessy v Ferguson......but a far more relevant one is Lawrence v Texas which explicitly reversed Bowers v Hardwick. Your side lost that one since the court rejected the homophobia you endorse.

The court can decide to reverse itself anytime it chooses and what may impact that decision are more conservative judges on the court who agree with the dissent and think the majority was wrong. That is so no matter what you say and no matter who lost what when and no matter what was done on something else 50 years ago or the day before yesterday. With any luck, a conservative court can flush the SSM decision straight down the toilet. 

If the Supreme Court thought the issue was as simple as you think it is, then all they had to do is let the lower court ruling stand.

That's a rather simplistic and naive view of the court given that it takes only 4 votes to grant cert but 5 to win.

Moreover there are any number of reasons even a civil rights defender like Kennedy might vote to grant cert in a case like this.    However note that during oral arguments Kagan, Ginsburg and others did bring up the Piggie Park precedent and asked why they were bothering to hear the case given that religion has never been allowed as an excuse to violate public accommodation laws.    If it were then all such laws would be moot including the 1964 Civil Right Act.

.

With any luck, a conservative court can flush the SSM decision straight down the toilet. 

And the constitutional basis for that would be what, exactly?   That gays or mixed-race couples are magically excluded from the protections of the 14th Amendment?   That states are free to violate the Establishment Clause and enforce the sharia laws of Christian extremists?    That marriage is no longer a protected right under due process?    That gender discrimination doesn't require heightened scrutiny?   Please feel free to lay out your case in detail, and please read Romer v Evans first to see why your lunacy won't fly under the US constitution.

And, therein lies the problem. The constitution gives people the right to the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t prescribe the circumstances.

Your free exercise of religious rights is far from being unlimited. Your religious rights are the right to believe in God and worship as you choose. You don't have a right to weaponize your religious beliefs and use them to discriminate against people of other religions or trample the religious rights of people of your own religion who may be of a different sect, a different race or gender. LGBT people have the exact same religious rights that you do and your religious beliefs are not superior to theirs. This judge is a civil servant so there is no religious issue involved because he was performing a secular action.  Those religious rights end where either the civil or religious rights of other people are involved.  The short answer is if there are two people involved in any situation you do not have religious rights to push your religious beliefs over their constitutional rights.

This judge was not required to marry LGBT couples, but if he chooses to marry couples then he was required to marry LGBT couples and heterosexual couples equally, just as if he married couples he would be required to marry both Christians and non-Christians equally. His religious rights are not threatened in any way by being forced to respect the constitutional rights of other people. 

The court can decide to reverse itself anytime it chooses and what may impact that decision are more conservative judges on the court who agree with the dissent and think the majority was wrong. That is so no matter what you say and no matter who lost what when and no matter what was done on something else 50 years ago or the day before yesterday. With any luck, a conservative court can flush the SSM decision straight down the toilet.

There is no valid appeal for LGBT marriage equality in the appeals court system.  The SCOTUS can't just revisit a previous decision and reverse it because a few judges are opposed to it.   Roe v. Wade has been revisited 4 times and yet it has not been reversed because of the outrage of conservative Christians and the Republicans who are desperate to pander to them. 

Plessy v. Fergeson was reversed because of Brown v. Board of Ed' due to the fact that sperate but equal was proven to be far from being equal in practice. Plessy wasn't reversed just because the Warren court didn't like the separate but equal decision. 

The court can decide to reverse itself anytime it chooses

You clearly have no idea how the judicial process works!

and what may impact that decision are more conservative judges on the court who agree with the dissent and think the majority was wrong. That is so no matter what you say and no matter who lost what when and no matter what was done on something else 50 years ago or the day before yesterday. With any luck, a conservative court can flush the SSM decision straight down the toilet.

Keep dreaming. It's not going to happen.

With any luck, a conservative court can flush the SSM decision straight down the toilet.

At least you're freely admitting that it's only conservatives who oppose equal civil rights for all Americans.

I suspect that's been the case ever since the constitutional convention was first convened in 1787.   Conservatives in general and bible-babblers in specific have always thought they deserved special rights and privileged status.    Being a dumb bigot is one of their core values (as the GOP platform so clearly states).

At least you're freely admitting that it's only conservatives who oppose equal civil rights for all Americans.

He's also admitting that he too is opposed to equal rights for all Americans. That speaks volumes about him.

Your free exercise of religious rights is far from being unlimited. Your religious rights are the right to believe in God and worship as you choose. You don't have a right to weaponize your religious beliefs and use them to discriminate against people of other religions or trample the religious rights of people of your own religion who may be of a different sect, a different race or gender.

Amen.

The concept of equality seems to be completely impossible for some people to grasp and/or accept.  

If one group insists on forcing the other to engage in what they consider a biblical abomination,

Why should the US government recognize a cult's bylaws or belief system as a basis for making and enforcing laws?

Look at all of the "biblical abominations" that carry the death penalty.  Do you honestly want the US government to govern by and enforce "biblical" law?  

Below is just a portion of of Yahweh's laws that carry the death penalty.

evilbible

1) Capital Punishment Crimes:

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.   (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live.   (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”   (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.   (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.   (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1)   If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.   (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2)   All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.   (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.   (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.   (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.   (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.   (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.”  When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.”   (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true   (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night) , and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.   (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1)   If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.   (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2)   Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.   (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men.  During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name.  So the man was brought to Moses for judgment.  His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.  They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear.  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Kill False Prophets

1)   Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles,  and the predicted signs or miracles take place.  If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them.  The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul.  Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone.  Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him.  The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt.  Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you.   (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

2)   But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.’  You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?’  If the prophet predicts something in the LORD’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message.  That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.   (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.   (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle

For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites.  You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment.  They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it.  Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again.  Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’   (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’   (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

If one group insists on forcing the other to engage in what they consider a biblical abomination,

Bottom Line - One group is preventing the people, who follow a barbaric religion that proscribes the death penalty for things that offend them and their god, from murdering people who offend them/their god and trying to hide behind their religion as a justification.

Bottom Line - One group is preventing the people, who follow a barbaric religion that proscribes the death penalty for things that offend them and their god, from murdering people who offend them/their god and trying to hide behind their religion as a justification.

Nobody forced this guy to be a judge. He had multiple avenues for not taking part in LGBT civil ceremonies, just like Kim Davis or the bakers. He could have resigned or he could have stopped performing all marriage ceremonies when the state of Oregon legalized LGBT marriage equality in May of 2014. Kim Davis could have resigned after the Obergfell decision. The bakers have the right not to make any wedding cakes or to make the business a members-only establishment, in addition to selling the business if their conservative religious beliefs are in conflict with public accommodation protections. .

Nobody forced this guy to be a judge.

This is a moot point for the zealots who want to use religion as a basis to control others.

Everyone, who knows the history of the Christian religion, knows exactly what these people are capable of doing to others in the name of obeying their god.  

We still see it happening in Muslim countries where sharia law is the law of the land. 

However, our secular US government has been selling the absolute worst of the lot, Saudi Arabia, high tech weapons for years.  I read today where our government just sold Saudi Arabia another BILLION dollars worth of weapons.  I imagine the Christians in the US, who are employed to make those weapons, won't ever give that a second thought that they are responsible for the weapons that most likely will be used by Muslim zealots to kill their Christian brethren.

"He indisputably communicated to his staff his intention to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples," read the court opinion.

makes me wonder why they wouldn't follow the secular law and feel they need special privileges just because they claim to be religious ? (i say "they" in a vague general sense, since this isn't the first time someone in a secular government position tried using their religious "beliefs" as a reason to not perform their job duties)

makes me wonder why they wouldn't follow the secular law and feel they need special privileges just because they claim to be religious

Did you miss the part that said it was not required for a judge to marry anyone? As far as the marriages are concerned he neither asked for nor received any special privledge. 

Did you miss the part that said it was not required for a judge to marry anyone? As far as the marriages are concerned he neither asked for nor received any special privledge.

Why did he instruct his staff to screen the LGBT couples seeking to marry from his calendar, while he married heterosexual couples without issue?

Did you miss the part that said it was not required for a judge to marry anyone?

That's irrelevant since his actions revealed his bias against a class of persons as well as his inability to separate his secular public office from his superstitious and theocratic views.    He's entirely unfit to be a lawyer much less a judge.

Fine.  Then he should have recused himself from any matrimonial duties.  Simple fix and he would still have his job, such as it is.

Then he should have recused himself from any matrimonial duties. 

He did. But that wasn't good enough for the gay gestapo and the horribly liberal state government. 

"Gay Gestapo?"  Did they bring tiki torches too?

But that wasn't good enough for the gay gestapo and the horribly liberal state government.

Do you have a phone number or an email address for the leader of the gay Gestapo?

That horribly liberal state government is there to protect the equal rights of all people, regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation.   Your religious beliefs do not give you permission to trample the rights of others.

He needed to either marry all of the couples that appeared on his calendar or marry none of them, but he could not legally pick and choose which couples he married according to his religious beliefs. 

He needed to either marry all of the couples that appeared on his calendar or marry none of them

You can read can't you?  He stopped performing weddings altogether! I've told you that and it is in the seeded article. Take off your blinders. 

You can read can't you?  He stopped performing weddings altogether!

You're the one who has a reading comprehension problem, not Epistte.

After a May, 2014 ruling by a federal judge that legalized gay marriage in Oregon, Day instructed his staff not to schedule any marriages for gay couples.

The commission said Day’s actions toward gays amounted to discrimination and referred it and seven other counts related to the other incidents to the high court for final action.

The court ruled upheld six of the charges against Day, including allegations related to the gun handling, the soccer investigation and his stance on gay marriage.

Particularly troubling, the court wrote, was Day’s willingness to repeatedly make false statements during official inquiries, and his conduct during the gun handling case. That conduct, the court wrote, called into question Day’s trustworthiness, undermining both his integrity and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole.

wisconsingazette

.

Note that SCOTUS ruled for marriage equality in June 2015, so Vance Day was exhibiting his anti-gay bias and using his staff to act unethically for over a year.    Note that the judicial commission recommended unanimously that Vance be removed from the bench permanently for this and the other issues, and that Oregon's canon of judicial ethics prohibits bias due to sexual orientation.

oregonlive

And here's the judicial commission's report:

media.oregonlive

He stopped performing weddings altogether! I've told you that and it is in the seeded article. Take off your blinders.

Don't be obtuse.

He only stopped officiating all marriage ceremonies after the SCOTUS decision of Obergfell v. Hodges in June of 2015. He refused to officiate LGBT couples civil marriage's between the time the state of Oregon legalized LGBT marriage equality (May of 2014) and the date of the SCOTUS decision. 

Did you miss the part that said it was not required for a judge to marry anyone? As far as the marriages are concerned he neither asked for nor received any special privledge.

did you miss this part ?

After a May, 2014 ruling by a federal judge that legalized gay marriage in Oregon, Day instructed his staff not to schedule any marriages for gay couples.

or this ?

He told his staff that if his office received a same-sex marriage request, he advised his staff to tell the couple he was unavailable. 

If the couple were of opposite sexes, Day told his staff to schedule the wedding.

gee, looks like he was discriminating against same sex couples, huh ? so again:

makes me wonder why they wouldn't follow the secular law and feel they need special privileges just because they claim to be religious ? (i say "they" in a vague general sense, since this isn't the first time someone in a secular government position tried using their religious "beliefs" as a reason to not perform their job duties)

maybe you can answer it since you seem to side with him (and are defending him along with his blatant discrimination that's been pointed out to you) ?

So now you are going to deny someone for a judgeship because of some religious test?  Sorry that would be unconstitutional

No, not for a religious test but for his bias.     His mistake was allowing his nutty and bigoted superstitious views to affect his conduct in office so as to act in a biased and theocratic manner.    No doubt his nutty cult is why he's a racist too.

Let's see. Because he is religious and dies not believe gay marriage is proper you think that bias makes him unfit but the gay judge that is biased to approve gay marriage is ok. It is not bias that you don't like, it is just your biases that you favor. 

Because he is religious and dies not believe gay marriage is proper you think that bias makes him unfit but the gay judge that is biased to approve gay marriage is ok.

Wrong.  The issue is twofold, first that the dumb bigot revealed his anti-gay bias, second that's he's far too dumb to understand that his job role is secular and that he cannot allow his nutty superstitions to affect his job without violating the Establishment clause.

That he is superstitious or that he belongs to an anti-gay cult are not the issues, it's his bigoted and theocratic conduct that matters.

Note that a probate judge in Louisiana made the exact same mistake in 2009 when he refused to marry a mixed-race couple because his Southern Baptist cult traditionally opposed such marriages and refused to bless them.     I seriously doubt that the couple gave a crap about that racist judge's nutty cult before he imposed his bigoted superstitions on them.    The bigot was forced to resign a month or two later.

blog.oup

nydailynews

Let's see. Because he is religious and dies not believe gay marriage is proper you think that bias makes him unfit but the gay judge that is biased to approve gay marriage is ok. It is not bias that you don't like, it is just your biases that you favor.

Was the gay judge refusing to marry heterosexual or Christian couples or marrying them before LGBT marriage was legal in Oregon?

His religious beliefs are irrelevant to how he does his job.  He cannot treat any person in his court differently because the person is not his brand of conservative Christianity.  This judge is a problem because he doesn't know how to separate his religious beliefs from his duties as a civil servant judge.  His courtroom behavior is determined by the US and Oregon state constitution and not any version of the Bible. 

People need to learn how to do their job as required by law or find a different line of work. Maybe he should get a job with a church if the secular law is a problem for him.

People need to learn how to do their job as required by law or find a different line of work

We go over this again. While he is authorized to perform a marriage ceremony by law he is not required to perform them.  He did not perform gay weddings when they were not legal in the state. When they were ruled legal and he was told that he had to perform the ceremony for all gay or straight he decided to stop performing marriages altogether. He is not and was not obligated by his job to perform weddings. There are several judges that do not perform marriage ceremonies in Oregon. 

Did you read the article?

The court opinion stated the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability had proven  Day was guilty of six out of eight misconduct charges .

Day has 14 days to file a petition for reconsideration with the state Supreme Court. After 14 days, the court's judgment takes effect.

"We are saddened that a suspension was imposed," said Day's attorney Janet Schroer. "We are evaluating an appeal to the United States Supreme Court."

Day also faces a criminal trial on gun charges, scheduled to begin April 17. He was indicted on two felony gun violations and two counts of first-degree official misconduct in November 2016 for allegedly providing a gun to a man who, at the time, was a convicted felon.

Thursday's ruling dates back to 2015 when the judicial fitness commission found "clear and convincing evidence " on eight counts of misconduct against Day, including allegations that he granted felon Brian Shehan access and control of guns on at least two occasions in 2013 and 2014 His conviction has since been reduced to a misdemeanor.

The commission also found that Day instructed his staff to "inappropriately" screen same-sex wedding applicants and lied to the commission on multiple occasions . 

His ability or willingness to perform marriages isn't even in question, but apparently he lied to the commission about it which a serious violation of his oath.

Add to that his apparent disregard for gun laws and he is probably lucky to only get a 3 year suspension.

He did not perform gay weddings when they were not legal in the state. When they were ruled legal and he was told that he had to perform the ceremony for all gay or straight he decided to stop performing marriages altogether. He is not and was not obligated by his job to perform weddings. There are several judges that do not perform marriage ceremonies in Oregon.

Your repeated claim doesn't pass the laugh test.

If that was the case then he would not have told his staff to screen the LGBT couples out. He only stopped performing all marriage ceremonies, LGBT  and otherwise, after the SCOTUS decision, but that decision happened a year after the state of Oregon legalized LGBT marriage in the state. 

The religious test you are worried about was the judges.

So now you are going to deny someone for a judgeship because of some religious test?  Sorry that would be unconstitutional

If the job is "Sandwich Taste Tester" but you're deathly allergic to peanut butter, maybe you should get a different job, eventually someone will ask you to taste their PB & J. If you're job is marrying people but it will apparently offend your senses to obey the law and marry gay and straight couples, then maybe you should get a different job. It's pretty simple.

.

---

If you're job is marrying people 

Judges Day's job is not marrying people. He has the authority to do so but is not required to. 

Judges Day's job is not marrying people. He has the authority to do so but is not required to.

do you agree with the judge only marrying opposite sex couples and not same sex couples as shown here:

After a May, 2014 ruling by a federal judge that legalized gay marriage in Oregon, Day instructed his staff not to schedule any marriages for gay couples.

do you agree with that ? why are you defending this judge ?

do you feel you (and this judge) need special privileges due to your "religious beliefs" ?

Judges Day's job is not marrying people. He has the authority to do so but is not required to.

But if he chooses to do so (as he did) then he cannot discriminate on any basis which is prohibited by state law or by the state's judicial code.......and yet he willfully broke the law and broke the judicial code, then he lied about it.   

He also jeopardized his staff by ordering them to break the law on his behalf.    So he truly must be a conservative bible-babbling Republican, eh?

Speaks volumes!

OMG! I love this movie! I need to find it on Netflix or Hulu

In other vaguely related news from Oregon, an alt-right dimwit learned that he no longer has a job at Wells Fargo after the company learned he was one of the butt-hurt white supremacists who marched in the tiki-torch parade in Charlottesville.   

LOL.....maybe he can get "judge" Vance to represent him.

oregonlive

I wonder if Trump is eyeing Vance for SCOTUS?  Perfect Trumpian.

Given that the judicial commission unanimously voted to recommend that Vance Day be permanently expelled from the bench, the state supreme court went easy on him.   And while the marriage issue was probably the least of his ethical violations, note this from the commission's report:

Rule 3.3 Impartiality and Fairness
(A) A judge shall uphold and apply the law and perform all duties of judicial
office, including administrative duties, fairly, impartially, and without bias or
prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, against parties,
witnesses, lawyers, or others based on attributes including but not limited to, sex,
gender identity, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, marital
status , disability, age, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation and shall not permit
court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do
so.
(C) A judge shall not take any action or make any comment that a
reasonable person would expect to impair the fairness of a matter pending or
impending in any Oregon court.

media.oregonlive

.

It also looks like the dumb bigot has been using his willful violations of the law and of judicial ethics to leverage a national campaign to appeal to Trump voters and bible-babbling bigots: