Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Marry Straights in Protest of Marriage Inequality

[Ned Hamford]

http://www.newser.com/story/140374/gay-texas-judge-refuses-to-marry-straights.html

As the Texas judicial ethics rules call performing marriages a discretionary activity that must not interfere with mandatory judicial duties, she says she is in the clear; also as after giving a short speech she redirects couples towards other judges wholly willing to perform the ceremony. 

I'm pretty certain that Texas judicial ethics are sure to have a few rules regarding the use of one's elected position with enumerated duties as a platform for political advocacy.  But of course any sort of enforcement would bring further publicity and muddying the electoral process is something most bodies tend to avoid. 

I would like to hear about how her fellow judges feel about picking up the slack and when was the moment she had this decision that marrying people is an unconscionable act.  Perhaps after a year she figured out a way to clear up her schedule a bit and make herself famous in the process.   

[Blakenzy]

If the rules say it's discretionary, then it's discretionary. Simple enough.

[MillCreek]

I see from the article that judges in her position are elected.  I wonder what this will do to her election prospects.

[roo_ster]

I see from the article that judges in her position are elected.  I wonder what this will do to her election prospects.

Depends on where her district is located in Dallas and if it is at-large.  If she were in Austin, being a "three-fer," she'd be re-elected and have her *expletive deleted*ss chapped from all the smooching & brown-nosing.

[longeyes]

Since when does "discretionary" mean open discrimination against an entire class of persons?

[MillCreek]

Since when does "discretionary" mean open discrimination against an entire class of persons?

Exactly.  If the judge refused to marry gay couples (if gay marriage was allowed by state law), would we not find that equally worthy of criticism?

[Ned Hamford]

If the rules say it's discretionary, then it's discretionary. Simple enough.

Well, discretionary doesn't necessarily mean optional.  I don't see any opinions published regarding it in Texas judicial ethics committee from a quick once over, but  another view would take it to mean that you can't blow off someone in police custody awaiting an arraignment to go to a wedding party; the marriage license being a pro-forma 5 minute in chambers affair and the ceremonies being a private, often compensated, indulgence.  All the ethics rulings concerning weddings seem far more focused on Judges actively soliciting, or having exploitative fees.  [So perhaps the passing of weddings to other folks seems a bit of a favor].

It is an enumerated judicial function and she apparently did it for a year before deciding not to.  I frankly loathe changes in opinion or policy after elections have been had.  

[Jamisjockey]

Ah, marriage.  Nothing says "romance" like having a legal contract presided over by a sitting judge. 
I say, get the courts and the government out of marriage, sans the recording of legal contracts.  Until that happens, people like her will continue to divde us over such a petty thing.

[MicroBalrog]

Since when does "discretionary" mean open discrimination against an entire class of persons?

Is there anybody who is still being married?

[MillCreek]

Is there anybody who is still being married?

My stepson is getting married in August.

[Perd Hapley]

I am still being married. Til death, and all that.

[MicroBalrog]

My stepson is getting married in August.

*slap*

My point stands: since the judge isn't issuing marriage licenses (or what are they called in Texas) for anyone, he can't be said to be discriminating against any given class.


(Since Texas only lets straights marry and he's not helping those).

[longeyes]

Marriage isn't really the issue, loyalty, respect, and commitment are the issue.  Marriage was always about property, not love or good child-rearing.

[KD5NRH]

My point stands: since the judge isn't issuing marriage licenses (or what are they called in Texas)

The county clerk issues the license, the officiant (which can be a whole lot of things other than a judge) just does whatever ceremony is wanted (as little as asking both if they are entering the marriage of their own free will) and signs the form.

[Strings]

Honestly, I can see her point.

Would be like being a gun dealer in Chicago, and catering to all the police (and elected officials). Can't have one of your own, but you can provide them to other "special" people.

As for her doing them previously, then changing her stance: that could simply be that someone pointed out the irony to her

[roo_ster]

Honestly, I can see her point.

Would be like being a gun dealer in Chicago, and catering to all the police (and elected officials). Can't have one of your own, but you can provide them to other "special" people.

As for her doing them previously, then changing her stance: that could simply be that someone pointed out the irony to her

In Dallas, irony is something black policritters neither understand nor acknowledge.  The career of John Wiley Price being but one example.