Skip to main content

If these Judge’s stick to their belief’s (and I hope they do) I see lawsuits being filed against them, & that would be so wrong. The reason I say that is because if homosexual’s want to be treated equally, then the Judge’s should have the right to do as their faith/beliefs dictate w/o being forced to go against them. 

 

The judges will cease officiating any marriages because if they marry one couple in an official capacity they have to offer the service to all.

Colbert County Probate Judge Daniel Rosser told the County Commission on Tuesday night he will no longer perform marriages as of Monday.

“My faith prohibits me from performing same-sex marriages,” the judge said. “The law prohibits me from picking and choosing who I will and won’t marry. So I decided not to perform any ceremonies. This is my way of honoring God and honoring the law.”

 

“Finally, we’ve got to the point that all Alabama citizens are going to be treated equally,” said Christine Hernandez, a lawyer for the Mobile couple that challenged the Alabama laws.

 

http://www.timesdaily.com/news...c7-77f878f018ad.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would imagine IF they perform marriages they are bound by law to marry anyone legally eligible to get married. Marriage is a contract, these judges are bringing religion into something where it has no place. They should step down, since they want to judge/rule/interpret law based on their religious beliefs instead of the law.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The judges are grandstanding. It's no big deal. They don't need judges to perform the ceremony. But it is bad, sad, to see judges refuse to follow the law. They sure as heck expect everyone else to follow them. I wonder how many laws I can break and claim they go against my beliefs?

 

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvi...2015/02/post_45.html

When Vision takes over you will be jailed.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I would imagine IF they perform marriages they are bound by law to marry anyone legally eligible to get married. Marriage is a contract, these judges are bringing religion into something where it has no place. They should step down, since they want to judge/rule/interpret law based on their religious beliefs instead of the law.

But is marrying people something they are bound by law to do? If it's not part of the legal description of their job then by saying they won't do any marriages period shouldn't be a problem. If they are legally bound to perform marriages then no, they can't pick and choose.

Once more, IMO, if they perform marriages at all they are bound by law to marry anyone legally eligible for marriage. Meaning they can't discriminate. Again, they should step down anyway, having shown they have no problem ruling against and refusing the rights of someone, even if that person is in the right, because of their religious beliefs. Who could ever trust them again?

My problem with this is that the Judge is either an elected or appointed governmental position and should respond and respect the laws established, by government, for those positions.  IF it is decided that unions between same sex couples are legal and should be acknowledged then Judges, as a function of Government, should be responsible to perform those duties but this opens a very slippery path.  What about multiple marriages?  A person having two wives or two husbands?  Where do you stop discriminating? 

 

I do though great object to any minister being required to marry same sex people for that would be in violation of their religious beliefs and would itself be unconstitutional.  If a government recognizes the unions for benefit purposes or whatever then Judges, being a function of government would be expected to perform the ceremonies.  If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

I do though great object to any minister being required to marry same sex people for that would be in violation of their religious beliefs and would itself be unconstitutional.

   If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

================

Bull hockey.

Last edited by Bestworking

The judges need to keep their beliefs out of their office and practice upholding the LAW as they were sworn to do. Clown Roy Moore is the worst of all. How much more of the taxpayers money will he spend to attempt to further his beliefs and ignore the LAW. I personally do not believe in gay marriage. BUT, I fully support the law. If two heteros wish to be married, it is legal. Now it seems the law is changing to allow two gay people to marry. Fine. Not a problem for me. But, I do not hold an elected or appointed office. If I did, I would be bound to support the law for ALL the people, all the time. The churches all want to keep the government out of the church but think it is OK for the church to impose their beliefs on the government. Seems kind of like a one way street. Also, they are judging people. That is one of the cardinal sins in churches. If your beliefs are so strong in this matter, let me ask, "do you think it is right to continue to receive your salary, paid by the taxpayers, if you are not going to uphold the law you were sworn to uphold?" Roy Moore and all probate judges in Alabama DO NOT make the law. They administer it.

Probate judges have the AUTHORITY to perform marriages, but the law in Alabama does not appear to REQUIRE them to do so. Thus a same-sex couple would not seem to have legal recourse against a probate judge or other authorized officer of the state who declines to "solemnize" their unnatural union.

Code of Alabama at 30-1-7

Persons authorized to solemnize marriages.

(a) Generally. Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which the minister is a member; by an active or retired judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court, or any district court within this state; by a judge of any federal court; or by an active or retired judge of probate.

(b) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. Marriage may also be solemnized by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules ordained or custom established by such society. The clerk or keeper of the minutes of each society shall keep a register and enter therein a particular account of all marriages solemnized by the society, which register, or a sworn copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the fact.

(c) Quakers, Mennonites, or other religious societies. The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations, may solemnize marriage according to their forms by consent of the parties, published and declared before the congregation assembled for public worship.

(Code 1852, §§1946-1948; Code 1867, §§2335-2337; Code 1876, §§2674-2676; Code 1886, §§2311-2313; Code 1896, §§2841-2843; Code 1907, §§4881-4883; Code 1923, §§8995-8997; Code 1940, T. 34, §§6-8; Acts 1988, No. 88-551, p. 867; Act 2003-303, p. 721, §1; Act 2004-485, p. 903, §1.)

 

http://alisondb.legislature.st...bama/1975/coatoc.htm

Last edited by Contendah

Any "judge" who claims his religious beliefs prevent her/him from performing any duty of his office, has a moral obligation to step down from that office... A judge who claims s/he is a Christan, and is a judge has this obligation at two levels... First, s/he is sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the state... Second s/he has a Christian obligation to fairly treat her/his fellow man/woman... For a so-called Christian to claim s/he cannot abide by the law or be unbiased in his/her judgements due to her/his Christian beliefs is ludicrous... Especially so when said individual continues to serve as a judge on the dole of the tax paying citizens...

 

Remember this one?

----------------------------------

Tennessee Court Fires Judge Who Wouldn’t Let Parents Name Their Baby ‘Messiah’

 POSTED ON FEBRUARY 7, 2014 AT 9:00 AM

In August, a Tennessee couple appeared before a child support magistrate judge to resolve a dispute over the baby’s surname. But Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew took it upon herself to order that the seven-month-old baby’s first name be changed from “Messiah” to “Martin,” because that name should be reserved for Jesus. New court documents reveal that Ballew was fired Friday, after being cited by the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct for inappropriate religious bias.

“The word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Ballew said at the time of the order, reasoning that the child would face difficulties in a heavily Christian town.

On appeal, a court held the name change unconstitutional, as a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Ballew will still face a disciplinary hearing even after her removal

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I do though great object to any minister being required to marry same sex people for that would be in violation of their religious beliefs and would itself be unconstitutional.

   If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

================

Bull hockey.

I go with gbrk on this judges work for everybody, Priest however do not and they routinely do not marry people for myriads of reasons.

I don't care what gb thinks or feels it should be, he is wrong on his statement. Granted, he is a bit hard to understand, but what does this mean?? A minister should be able to halt or void a union? On what planet?

 

If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

Contendah, probate judges have been performing marriages for as long as I remember. Now, since the federal court says that gay marriages are legal in Alabama, those same judges now say they will marry no one! Lawsuit? You betcha'. Big time. Guess who pays for the probate judge's defense? The taxpayer, of course. And they WILL lose. Check with any legal authority. I would prefer my taxes be spent otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I don't care what gb thinks or feels it should be, he is wrong on his statement. Granted, he is a bit hard to understand, but what does this mean?? A minister should be able to halt or void a union? On what planet?

 

If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

I love it when you get on your high horse. I simply stated my belief yours can be different its America after all but do not confuse it with making it right.  This is a discussion not a mandate from on high.  Ministers refuse services for marriage for various reasons and Churches refuse to lend or rent buildings for others been that way for ever.    I had to ask permission to use the Church where I was married and my Pastor interviewed us before he agreed to perform the service. 

How in the world is that "getting on a high horse"? If that's the case, I guess you and others never get off of yours. Can you see the comment from your lofty perch? Pretty simple. He rambles about the constitution allowing them to void or halt a union. I said bull hockey, it does no such thing. Maybe you can repeat it-in understandable wording.

If though a Church/minister declines to on their personal beliefs then those should be protected and those unions halted or voided. 

Last edited by Bestworking

I had to ask permission to use the Church where I was married and my Pastor interviewed us before he agreed to perform the service. 

-----------------

And what does that mean? Seriously? That is what you allowed someone to do to you. I would never allow anyone to tell me I had to be interviewed by them before I could get married. Interviewed for what reason? Like he's so special? I'd just go elsewhere. As for these judges, they can either follow the law or step down. If they think they can pick and choose what parts of the law to follow they have no business being there and should be tossed.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I had to ask permission to use the Church where I was married and my Pastor interviewed us before he agreed to perform the service. 

-----------------

And what does that mean? Seriously? That is what you allowed someone to do to you. I would never allow anyone to tell me I had to be interviewed by them before I could get married. Interviewed for what reason? Like he's so special? I'd just go elsewhere. Same with these judges, they can either follow the law or step down. If they think they can pick and choose what parts of the law to follow they have no business being there.

Best not trying to argue I am simply stating that many times this is the way it is if you want be married by a Preacher in a Church.  If you would have told them no interview he would politely decline to perform the service.  You cannot make someone work for you.   I am on the side of gays to marry and Judges unlike preachers work for everybody.   What is next requiring a Preacher to marry a devil worshiper dressed in a goat skin in a Church? 

 What is next requiring a Preacher to marry a devil worshiper dressed in a goat skin in a Church? 

 

I don't think a devil worshiper would want a preacher to do anything for them, but I am sure some c****a** preachers fret that it might happen. This is when it gets silly. Next they'll be posting "how about when they want to marry their dog, will preachers have to perform those ceremonies"? Silly mess they come up with because they want to tell two grown consenting /able to consent adults they can't enter into a contract. Stupid, silly, asinine arguments. Don't let them marry, it will make the angels cry!!!!!! BTW, I don't equate same sex marriage with devil worship. The preacher wouldn't have the chance to decline to perform my ceremony. When he told me I'd have to be "interviewed" by him that would have been the end of it. They aren't qualified to give advice.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 What is next requiring a Preacher to marry a devil worshiper dressed in a goat skin in a Church? 

 

I don't think a devil worshiper would want a preacher to do anything for them, but I am sure some c****a** preachers fret that it might happen. This is when it gets silly. Next they'll be posting "how about when they want to marry their dog, will preachers have to perform those ceremonies"? Silly mess they come up with because they want to tell two grown consenting /able to consent adults they can't enter into a contract. Stupid, silly, asinine arguments. Don't let them marry, it will make the angels cry!!!!!! BTW, I don't equate same sex marriage with devil worship. The preacher wouldn't have the chance to decline to perform my ceremony. When he told me I'd have to be "interviewed" by him that would have been the end of it. They aren't qualified to give advice.

They can enter into a contract just can't make someone who does not work for everyone like judge work for them.  Like you said they just need to go down the road to find a preacher who will.  Heck I could not get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest unless I convert, no difference.

This is not about preachers. It is about public officials. They carry out their own agenda regardless of what the law is. (while we all pay their salary) Check out Clown Moore's statement he made a few years back. It shows what his thinking is. He wants to be judge, jury and exectioneer.

 

In February 2002, as Alabama Chief Justice, Moore issued a controversial opinion that expressed his belief that the State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior"

Originally Posted by BFred07:
Since the probate judges won't marry them, I should go and get ordained before Monday. I could probably stand outside the courthouse and make a but load of money.

My brother in law became a mail order minister just so he could marry some friends. He was in turned asked by more friends and he has completed several now.

These Judges have had no problem marrying hetero couples who have been previously married.   If they claim to be of the Christian faith then they should know that no sin is bigger than another. By marrying hetero couples that have divorced (either one of the parties or both), they would be creating a marriage based on a sin...adultery. 

 

The only forgivable reason for divorcing your spouse is fornication. How many previously married couples have gotten married by these Judges who divorced for reasons other than fornication? I would wager at least half of them divorced for other reasons.

Originally Posted by paw-paw:

Contendah, probate judges have been performing marriages for as long as I remember. Now, since the federal court says that gay marriages are legal in Alabama, those same judges now say they will marry no one! Lawsuit? You betcha'. Big time. Guess who pays for the probate judge's defense? The taxpayer, of course. And they WILL lose. Check with any legal authority. I would prefer my taxes be spent otherwise.

___

Lawsuit?  Maybe, given the aggressiveness of gays in asserting their alleged rights.  Successful lawsuit?  Maybe NOT, since there seems to be nothing mandatory in the law (see my post above) authorizing probate judges to perform marriages.  There is a BIG difference between authorizing something and mandating something. Alabama Supreme Court judges, including retired Supreme Court judges, are authorized to perform marriages in Alabama, but that does not mean they are required to do so.  If two gay lovebirds want to test the law to determine whether it is mandatory, then they should request Judge Roy Moore to perform  a wedding ceremony for them.  If he refuses, they can then claim a cause of action and file a mandamus action in state court to compel Judge Moore to honor their request. 

 

Should make a nice case, don't you think?  Guaranteed to get lots of press coverage, which should suit both Moore and the plaintiffs!

 

<<<<Mandamus

[Latin, We command.] A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporationMunicipalCorporationor individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.>>>> [emphaisis added]

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...tionary.com/mandamus 

 

Bring on the fun and games!

Last edited by Contendah
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

These Judges have had no problem marrying hetero couples who have been previously married.   If they claim to be of the Christian faith then they should know that no sin is bigger than another. By marrying hetero couples that have divorced (either one of the parties or both), they would be creating a marriage based on a sin...adultery. 

 

The only forgivable reason for divorcing your spouse is fornication. How many previously married couples have gotten married by these Judges who divorced for reasons other than fornication? I would wager at least half of them divorced for other reasons.

 

+++

 

CDV.  One thing Christians and atheist both agree on.  Or should.

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

These Judges have had no problem marrying hetero couples who have been previously married.   If they claim to be of the Christian faith then they should know that no sin is bigger than another. By marrying hetero couples that have divorced (either one of the parties or both), they would be creating a marriage based on a sin...adultery. 

 

The only forgivable reason for divorcing your spouse is fornication. How many previously married couples have gotten married by these Judges who divorced for reasons other than fornication? I would wager at least half of them divorced for other reasons.

 

+++

 

CDV.  One thing Christians and atheist both agree on.  Or should.

What is CDV?

Contendah, I understand that nothing in the Alabama statues require these judges to perform marriage. It only authorises them to do so. However, when you make a public statement like the judges from Lauderdale and Colbert did that since this was now legal, they would stop performing marriage for all people, it is pretty obvious this was the only reason to stop. Thus, here come the lawsuits.  And Roy Moore is a fine example of a radical leader. He was so hated by his men in Vietnam that he slept on sandbags to keep someone from "fragging" him. We don't need radicals in his position. He is simply gathering  attention for a run at the governor's office. Check his record. He is just a white version of Al Sharpton. Lifetime political candidate. 

As I stated in a previous post, Roy Moore has stated that the State should their powers to "punish homosexual behavior" Does this sound like a judicial leader to you? What is not legal about homosexual behavior? While I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, it IS their right. 

Do we want to become like the radical ISIS and tell everyone that if you don't convert to their religion you will be put to death? Same line of thinking.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×