4 Alabama judges refuse to perform same-sex weddings citing religious beliefs

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/2_alabama_judges_refuse_to_per.html

Probate judges in Chilton, Elmore and Geneva counties say they will not perform same-sex weddings once they become legal Monday, because of their religious beliefs.

Chilton County Probate Judge Bobby Martin told the Clanton Advertiser he will issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples but will not perform weddings.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and because of that, I will not perform a ceremony for a couple that doesn't fit in that criteria," the newspaper quoted him as sayin

While I agree that people are entitled to their opinions, I disagree that a public servant has a right to deny a legal service that they are paid to perform.

Throw the bigots out.

It depends on which you consider more important, your duty to God or your duty to Gays..

The law says they shall not discriminate and current courts have declared this practice illegal.

If they cannot perform the duties of the profession, perhaps they should find a profession more amenable to their beliefs.

There are too many instances of religion influencing our laws already... blue laws, for instance.

The law once said slavery was ok...the law the law...man made rules..your eternal soul versus a few years kissing gay ass..Gays can just pack their proud rumps off to a judge that will make marriage a farce...Let's just make fun and laugh at all straight families...OH hot damn, we already do that thanks to the gay agenda...hey let's pass a law that makes pedophiliacs normal..they were just born that way after all...then the judges would have to marry pedos to 8 year olds.....

Eric wrote:

The law says they shall not discriminate and current courts have declared this practice illegal.

If they cannot perform the duties of the profession, perhaps they should find a profession more amenable to their beliefs.  

There are too many instances of religion influencing our laws already... blue laws, for instance.

If they can't or won't uphold their obligations then they need to step aside and bring in others that will uphold the laws....having said that but if this was applied to immigration and those not upholding the laws has there been an outrage?.. The AG/cowh can but these judges can't?....Talk about hypocrisy and now the can of worms is opened wider....Sounds like the same selective enforcement based upon personal beliefs rather than laws and the duties of officials to uphold the laws....

I think the judges rightly believe there is a higher law that supersedes this hog wallow fallen and perverted man has made into laws..

Teo, you ever heard of the separation of the church and state? Isn't this a major reason many settlers came to our shores to begin with... to get away from state-sponsored religions?

Eric wrote:

Teo, you ever heard of the separation of the church and state?  Isn't this a major reason many settlers came to our shores to begin with... to get away from state-sponsored religions?

Similar to the Alabama judge that stood up to the removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse property..He fought....lost....and finally had to accept that the law had to be followed...

Wonder how these judges would react to someone being in contempt of their verdicts because they don't believe in the decision?....If they won't follow the law it would be difficult to believe they could uphold the law in other cases...again selective prosecution based on personal beliefs....

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

Teo, you ever heard of the separation of the church and state?  Isn't this a major reason many settlers came to our shores to begin with... to get away from state-sponsored religions?

   Similar to the Alabama judge that stood up to the removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse property..He fought....lost....and finally had to accept that the law had to be followed...

   Wonder how these judges would react to someone being in contempt of their verdicts because they don't believe in the decision?....If they won't follow the law it would be difficult to believe they could uphold the law in other cases...again selective prosecution based on personal beliefs....

That Alabama Judge, Roy Moore, was Alabama's Chief Justice at the time and he was finally removed from office. Alabama reelected him... he is the current Chief Justice that is is telling clerks to deny gay marriages, even though Federal judges say Alabama cannot deny marriage licenses.

I know it sounds like I am pro gay marriage. I don't have a dog in the hunt. I just think that churches have no right to dictate our laws. We don't need blue laws and we don't need gay marriage bans and we don't need sharia law.

First off there is NO such thing as separation of church and state constitutionally .. The only law that even comes close is worded as to protect religion from congress not the other way around. Let's just stay on this slippery slope toward tyranny. FORCED vaccination, forced tracking of everywhere you go, every cent you spend, every word you say....abduction of your children and state indoctrination of them...damn I hate the HERD mentality , buncha bleating sheep ! Drug induced thought control....what happened to individuals..to Americans ?

Recuse

To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge's act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.

When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.

Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.

In some cases the parties to a proceeding may waive the judge's disqualification and allow the judge to preside over the case. The judge's disqualification is waived when both parties agree to the waiver or when one or more of the parties continues to participate in the proceedings.

The term recusation was at one time considered an exception to jurisdiction, the effect of which was to disqualify the particular judge by reason of the judge's interest or prejudice in the proceeding.

Eric wrote:

The law says they shall not discriminate and current courts have declared this practice illegal.

If they cannot perform the duties of the profession, perhaps they should find a profession more amenable to their beliefs.  

There are too many instances of religion influencing our laws already... blue laws, for instance.

And yet the government discriminates against other mature willing companions who should have the same right to form marriage groupings as they choose due to the 14th Amendment.

Most states have it written in their Constitutions that they can make no laws granting special privileges to any specific group that would be denied to others.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

Teo, I don't care one bit about the laws of that Old Testament God because I don't believe in stoning women for adultery, I eat whatever I want to eat and If I want to go to church I do but if I don't then I don't.
If you want to argue the issuing of marriage licenses, when a license for a second marriage is DENIED because the party wanting one  can't prove his first spouse cheated on him or her, then the government will be obeying the laws of the Bible, at least those as taught in the new testament.
You aren't supposed to remarry unless you are cheated on. That's red letters printed in the New Testament in Jesus own words.
And that's why I find so many so called Christians are hypocritical and disingenuous when they want gays to be denied the right to marry.
The government is the government and the Bible is the Bible and the government doesn't have to live according to Christian scriptures.

And the State of Alabama needs to get rid of Judge Moore if he refuses to obey the federal government, or secede from the Union again.
Personally and no particular offense to anybody on here, I think the US could do just as well without Alabama anyway.



And by the way, I don't care how many gay people marry. It's has no influence one way or the other on my marriage or on the marriage of any other heterosexual out there. If it's a threat to non gay marriage, there sure is something wrong with that person's marriage in the first place.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

First off there is NO such thing as separation of church and state constitutionally .. The only law that even comes close is worded as to protect religion from congress not the other way around. Let's just stay on this slippery slope toward tyranny. FORCED vaccination, forced tracking of everywhere you go, every cent you spend, every word you say....abduction of your children and state indoctrination of them...damn I hate the HERD mentality , buncha bleating sheep ! Drug induced thought control....what happened to individuals..to Americans ?

No such thing, eh?

What about our First Amendment to the Constitution?  This doesn't protect religion from Congress, it prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion, ergo "separation of church & state".

Quote :

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, and he expounded on what the First Amendment means,

Quote :

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Eric wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

First off there is NO such thing as separation of church and state constitutionally .. The only law that even comes close is worded as to protect religion from congress not the other way around. Let's just stay on this slippery slope toward tyranny. FORCED vaccination, forced tracking of everywhere you go, every cent you spend, every word you say....abduction of your children and state indoctrination of them...damn I hate the HERD mentality , buncha bleating sheep ! Drug induced thought control....what happened to individuals..to Americans ?

No such thing, eh?

What about our First Amendment to the Constitution?  This doesn't protect religion from Congress, it prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion, ergo "separation of church & state".

Quote :

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, and he expounded on what the First Amendment means,

Quote :

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Yeah I know all about the letter...changes nothing.

Where in the New testament does it say Hay you don't need to follow all that sh!* I said in the Old Testament? What book and Vs is that?

Ten Commandments

I know its old school Old Testament but being gay did not make the top 10?
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery",

anybody at your church divorced?
Do you have a problem setting on the same pew with a divorced person?

Do you pick and choose what part of the Bible you follow because I am a all or nutting kind of guy.

Is it adultery if you have four wives?

Is it adultery if you have two co-husbands and three wives?

Where does it say I can't marry a first cousin if we love each other?

Oh! Those are all rules the government came up with aren't they?

It appears the government likes to interfere with the personal lives of a lot of mature willing companions and tell them who they can and can not marry.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk

Blessed are the mean in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for lower taxes, for their own pockets shall be filled. Blessed are those who follow my prophet Ayn Rand and disparage the merciful, for they shall never have to show mercy.”


To answer your ?
#1 Not if you are Mormon
#2 Doesn't bother me
#3 Maybe on the 17th ave train trussle
#4 Yes just like a Baptist preacher

When are you going to put up a pic of Black Oak Arkansas?

polecat wrote:

Blessed are the mean in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for lower taxes, for their own pockets shall be filled. Blessed are those who follow my prophet Ayn Rand and disparage the merciful, for they shall never have to show mercy.”


To answer your ?
#1 Not if you are Mormon
#2 Doesn't bother me
#3 Maybe on the 17th ave train trussle
#4 Yes just like a Baptist preacher

When are you going to put up a pic of Black Oak Arkansas?

So a non-answer then because the rights you're concerned about addressing are those of your agenda instead of being truly fair and equal.

Just like the judicial system of Iowa that didn't do their job by kicking the issue back at the Iowa Congress when they should have when questions like this arose thereby violating the Iowa Bill Of Rights that addressed equality as a part of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/iowa-bill-of-rights/blog-263911/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

Sec. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation;

the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or

class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the

same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.


The justices knew that the arguments used to pass SSM in Iowa fulfilled all the requirements for other mature willing companions because the question of multiple partners was addressed during the hearings. It was the justices job to kick the issue back to the Iowa legislators for clarification.

Until this is resolved I have little to no respect for the judicial system.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Eric wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

First off there is NO such thing as separation of church and state constitutionally .. The only law that even comes close is worded as to protect religion from congress not the other way around. Let's just stay on this slippery slope toward tyranny. FORCED vaccination, forced tracking of everywhere you go, every cent you spend, every word you say....abduction of your children and state indoctrination of them...damn I hate the HERD mentality , buncha bleating sheep ! Drug induced thought control....what happened to individuals..to Americans ?

No such thing, eh?

What about our First Amendment to the Constitution?  This doesn't protect religion from Congress, it prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion, ergo "separation of church & state".

Quote :

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, and he expounded on what the First Amendment means,

Quote :

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Moore is an embarrassment....He can disagree with and go against law(s) and yet he's an 'judge' trusted with making rulings and expecting those involved to uphold the law and ruling?....He has a right to his opinion but it now is a conflict with his judicial obligation...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

polecat wrote:

Blessed are the mean in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for lower taxes, for their own pockets shall be filled. Blessed are those who follow my prophet Ayn Rand and disparage the merciful, for they shall never have to show mercy.”


To answer your ?
#1 Not if you are Mormon
#2 Doesn't bother me
#3 Maybe on the 17th ave train trussle
#4 Yes just like a Baptist preacher

When are you going to put up a pic of Black Oak Arkansas?

So a non-answer then because the rights you're concerned about addressing are those of your agenda instead of being truly fair and equal.

Just like the judicial system of Iowa that didn't do their job by kicking the issue back at the Iowa Congress when they should have when questions like this arose thereby violating the Iowa Bill Of Rights that addressed equality as a part of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/iowa-bill-of-rights/blog-263911/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

Sec. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation;

the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or

class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the

same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.


The justices knew that the arguments used to pass SSM in Iowa fulfilled all the requirements for other mature willing companions because the question of multiple partners was addressed during the hearings. It was the justices job to kick the issue back to the Iowa legislators for clarification.

Until this is resolved I have little to no respect for the judicial system.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

So a non-answer then on the Bible vs that says only pick and choose the Old Testament stuff that supports your agenda

polecat wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

polecat wrote:

Blessed are the mean in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for lower taxes, for their own pockets shall be filled. Blessed are those who follow my prophet Ayn Rand and disparage the merciful, for they shall never have to show mercy.”


To answer your ?
#1 Not if you are Mormon
#2 Doesn't bother me
#3 Maybe on the 17th ave train trussle
#4 Yes just like a Baptist preacher

When are you going to put up a pic of Black Oak Arkansas?

So a non-answer then because the rights you're concerned about addressing are those of your agenda instead of being truly fair and equal.

Just like the judicial system of Iowa that didn't do their job by kicking the issue back at the Iowa Congress when they should have when questions like this arose thereby violating the Iowa Bill Of Rights that addressed equality as a part of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/iowa-bill-of-rights/blog-263911/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

Sec. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation;

the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or

class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the

same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.


The justices knew that the arguments used to pass SSM in Iowa fulfilled all the requirements for other mature willing companions because the question of multiple partners was addressed during the hearings. It was the justices job to kick the issue back to the Iowa legislators for clarification.

Until this is resolved I have little to no respect for the judicial system.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

So a non-answer then on the Bible vs that says only pick and choose the Old Testament stuff that supports  your agenda

The way I see it you're the one picking, choosing, and discriminating.

I'm for allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose.

None of my business what form a marriage takes if all involved are mature willing companions.

Why are you so interested controlling and interfering with what other mature willing companions do?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

I think the judges rightly believe there is a higher law that supersedes this hog wallow fallen and perverted  man has made into laws..

Then they need to become preachers and not judges. They swore oaths when they became judges. Breaking those oaths is going against that higher law, isn't it?