You know being a judge is not a position to make political statements
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won’t perform marriage ceremonies until homosexuals can be wed.
During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it
Seriously? Is this what a judge is supposed to do? No. We don’t want judges making rulings base on personal politics. We expect them to interpret the law objectively. Just as we don’t expect or want law enforcement to subjectively enforce the law, based on personal biases.
Of course, this isn’t very surprising… given the example set by the Obama Administration of selectively not enforcing laws it doesn’t agree with.
Blogs For Victory 
Is anyone really all that surprised about this? Leftys live in a world of “fairness” and “equality” based purely on thier feelings. Objectivity is not thier strong suit.
County judges are usually elected so the people of Dallas County must agree with this joker. Unless there is something legally that can be done to remove this lefty, everyone else will just have to suck it up and live with it.
get guido to have a talk with the homo–sexxxual. and make him an offer he cant refuse. LOL
Perhaps stumpy is the moron we need to quote the job description requiring the removal of a ten commandments monument.
I’m guessing that is pretty much impeachable, failing to perform their duty and all. Shouldn’t take too long for her to either change her mind or lose her job…..then again, I’m all for the government getting out of the marriage business and leaving it to churches. They can regulate contractual obligations between folks, but it’s time marriage is left to the churches.
doug Marriage will continue to be a legal contract as long as people get married in places other than churches which they do quite often. So this makes marriage not a religious ceremony but a legal civil ceremony no matter where it is performed.
I think you missed his point, Dan. When marriage is reduced to any relationship between or among anyone there will be a division between secular contracts based on Whoever, Whatever and traditional covenants between one man and one woman. And then the Whoever Whatever crowd will cry that they want that special definition of whatever it is they have.
Well Doug, your statement is just pretty much stupid. No judge or justice is ever required to perform marriages. It is not mandatory that judges perform marriages. They do it at their own discretion. So, rest easy, this judge will not lose her job – much to your displeasure. I seriously doubt that you would have a problem if a heterosexual judge refused to marry gay couples in a state that had laws making such a marriage legal.
I admire the judge’s stance on this thorny issue.
Yes this is such a thorny issue it requires the abandonment of professional ethics to deal with it. When everything is infinitely malleable according to whim and inclination the moral relativists will pat each other on the back for adjusting the law to accommodate wishful thinking.
I disgree. I feel it takes professional courage to stand up for civil rights. America is only 40 years removed from a time when conservatives also denied mixed race couples the right to marry and used the Bible to support their bigoted unConsitutional positions. I think same sex marriages will be as common 40 years from now as mixed race marriages are now.
But this is not civil rights, it never has been, and it never will be no matter how hard you try to twist it. Legal unions of same sex couples, groups, whatever will be common but they will not be marriage. And the political identity of conservatism has never had anything to do with racism, no matter how often you tell this lie.
The judge’s job includes marrying people. If she refuses to marry heterosexual couples she is doing nothing to promote the idea that a union of a same-sex couple is really a marriage. She is just having a temper tantrum.
Okay, one at a time.
This is about civil rights. “On any occasion when the rights of individuals are denied by making them a less respected class within the law the proper action to take is to utilize the courts to repair the double standard. This has held in education, in voting, in housing and it will hold in marriage in due time.”-Cavalor Epthith.
I know you fall into the trap well set by Liberals by admitting that bigots in the Civil Rights era were Conservatives, Democrats yes, by party, but Conservatives in ideology but your fear of being politically incorrect does not make it a lie. Look at what many conservatives support now and what they stood for then and you’ll see more than a few similarities. Anti contraception, pro States’ Rights, anti affirmative action anti gay rights and on and on . . .
I think the judge is having the same response to this that Gandhi had to the manufacture of salt. I think this is a matter of principles and conscience over materialism– good for her.
“Democrats yes, by party, but Conservatives in ideology”
What? What ideology? Explain. Explain conservative “ideology” and how it relates to the actions of the Democrat Party.
“Anti contraception, pro States’ Rights, anti affirmative action anti gay rights and on and on . . .”
More nonsense. Who is “anti contraception” as public policy? Are you saying people do not have a right to hold private opinions? Are you in favor of Thought Police who go after people for what they believe?
What is your problem with States Rights? Do you not believe in States Rights? Why not? In another post you complained that being against interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Now you seem to be upset by people who are “pro States Rights”. Maybe you should tell us your own perception of the constitutional definition of the rights of the states.
What is it about the racism of affirmative action that you like? Why do you feel that people of certain races cannot compete in terms of intelligence, talent, ambition or ability, and need the condescension of “help” to equalize their insufficiencies? Is your love off affirmative action based on its inherent racism or on the glow of superiority you get when you reach down to someone you believe is inferior to pull him up to where you believe he could not get on his own?
Who is “anti gay rights” and how? What “rights” ought to be linked to sexual orientation and activity? How and why? What efforts are made to limit these “rights”?
“a matter of principles and conscience over materialism”
Oh—I didn’t realize that this was really about that dreaded
“materialism”. Isn’t that code for “capitalism”?
So let’s see if I have sorted this out properly. The judge is paid to do a job she refuses to do and this is “principled”. She does not quit her job in protest but continues to be paid though she has decided to pick and choose which parts of her job she will do, and this is “principled”. And her continuing to take money for work she refuses to do is a triumph over “materialism”.
The ability to enter into a legally binding contract with the same responsibilities and protections of another contract, which is called “marriage”, is only equal if it has the same NAME attached to it, and the lack of this WORD conveys the same lack of human rights as slavery, not being allowed to vote, and other ‘civil rights’.
The “ideology” of Democrats fighting civil rights for black people was really that of believing in the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as the “ideology” of these Democrats was really that of Conservatives, which is the ideology of governing the nation according to the Constitution and not by any other system.
States Rights are bad and the racism of lowered expectations for blacks is good. A personal belief is exactly the same as a government policy and people should be condemned for their personal beliefs if they are different from what someone has decided is acceptable.
There—I think I’ve summed up Diane’s positions.
This is NOT about civil rights, it’s about a government paid employee doing the job they are hired to do. It’s about the air traffic controllers. They CANNOT STRIKE. This is a form of failing to perform ones duty. The perpetrator should be out of a job. Those people responsible for putting her out of her job should also lose their jobs if they fail to perform their duty.
Let’s get this right, if the publicly paid judge continued to perform the work she is required to, but wrote editorials in the local paper complaining about her percieved ‘injustice’, then you could admire her stance. However, if that publicly paid judge fails to perform her duty, then admiration must be reserved and anger should replace the admiration. FIRE HER ASS NOW! No public employee should ever be allowed to strike, or be paid for not performing their duty.
doug – are you related to neo? you are starting to sound as ignorant as he is. They cannot “fire her ass” because judges are not mandated to perform marriage ceremonies. It is that simple. They have legal responsibilities regarding a court’s docket, but performing marriages is not one of them. Get over it.
Gay people calling their unions “marriage” is as convincing as other people pretending they live in Hell, or are from other planets, or that dressing in black means they are vampires. They can have unions which convey the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but they are not marriage and all the lying, whining,complaining, and pretending in the world won’t change that. Claiming that “civil rights” is about the distortion of the meaning of one word only points out the ludicrousness of the position and it trivializes the seriousness of REAL civil rights.
People who fought for REAL civil rights ought to be disgusted by the temper tantrums of those screeching “I want you to redefine a WORD so I will FEEL better!” and trying to compare this silliness to the reality of fighting for recognition as equal human beings. Shame on you for trying to trivialize this important struggle by comparing it to the childish demands of a few that millions of others go along with their desperate need to pretend that they are not different.
Dignity would have them celebrating this difference and coming up with a word to define and describe it. There is no dignity in inventing elaborate lies to try to justify their insistence that the world accommodate their demands.
This is about a WORD
sodomy and buggery are not “marriage” no matter how much you filthy perverts scream about it.
I would never vote for a vegan for president. S/he would make it a crime to eat meat.
I would never vote for a PETA supporter for president, he would put my cat in charge
Diane? Diane? Where did you go, Diane? There is a whole list of questions here for you, Diane. Don’t tell me you just play hit and run. You spent TWO LIFETIMES developing your journalistic skills, surely you can handle a few questions and defend your position.
Diane? Are you there?
surely you can handle a few questions and defend your position.
hands on ankles?