Gay Texas judge won't marry straight couples (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/24/gay-texas-judge-wont-marry-straight-couples)
QuoteTonya Parker, an African-American lesbian judge in Texas, refuses to marry straight couples until everyone in the state has the right to marry.
Turning away would-be newlyweds is "my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state," Parker told a meeting of the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas earlier this week.
She said it's "oxymoronic" for her to perform a ceremony that can't be performed for her.
Instead, she refers couples to other judges in the courthouse with an explanation 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," she told the meeting.
In a statement to the media issued Thursday and quoted on the Dallas-Fort Worth NBC affiliate, Parker said she would never impede anyone from getting married, but said she is not duty-bound to officiate over ceremonies and so chooses not to.
Parker was elected to the bench in 2010. She is the first gay person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the the first openly gay black elected official in the state's history, according to Dallas Voice, a news site for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community.
This made me smile! :)
Good for her!
Wonder if she's had any burning crosses on her porch yet...
Excellent!
That was a refreshing twist on the gay marriage issue!
My former minister refused to sign any marriage certificate in California until the repeal of Proposition 8. And he's straight.
Really good to see this. Good for her. :) It raises awareness, that's for sure. And it IS bizarre that she should be asked to marry someone when she herself can't get married.
As much as I agree with the oxymoronic comment, I wonder if this really does much good. Isn't the whole idea that no one should be denied the right, gay or straight? I don't know,this bothers me. Maybe this is why:
Someone very close to me who is gay (he was in my wedding party, in fact) once posted a NY Times article from a gay man who decided he would refuse to go to any weddings for his straight family and friends until marriage equality had been passed. My friend said he thought this was a great idea and was considering it. My response was that I would have been extremely hurt had he decided to refuse to attend my wedding, because it would imply I was doing something wrong by marrying someone I loved, and it was important to me to celebrate this with the people close to me. I completely understand why he's angry about being denied the right to marry, but I strongly felt my wedding was not the right place for him to make a political statement. Now, if he asked me to go to a rally, donate some money to an LGBT or marriage equality organization, or some other gesture to show my support for his, I would gladly do that. But I feel like if he had made a statement in that way, it would have caused more anger and hurt than anything else, and ultimately hurt the cause he cares about.
I have mixed feelings on this. I can definitely see the judge's point and admire her for standing up for her convictions, but on the other hand, she took an oath to uphold the law. Judges are bound by ethics to apply the law as it's written, not make the law. However, I am also a firm believer in the principle of "civil disobedience." If a law is unjust, it is the duty of every citizen to disobey that law, and who but a judge or member of the clergy would be in a position to oppose a law banning gay marriage in the manner that Tonya Parker can.
Quote from: Reprobate on February 28, 2012, 04:21:21 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I can definitely see the judge's point and admire her for standing up for her convictions, but on the other hand, she took an oath to uphold the law. Judges are bound by ethics to apply the law as it's written, not make the law. However, I am also a firm believer in the principle of "civil disobedience." If a law is unjust, it is the duty of every citizen to disobey that law, and who but a judge or member of the clergy would be in a position to oppose a law banning gay marriage in the manner that Tonya Parker can.
Hmm. I'm not sure that the judge didn't uphold the law. She didn't refuse people the right to marry their partners. She referred them to another judge in the same courthouse who would, could, and did marry them. I thought I read there that marriages weren't technically required of her, as part of her regular duties. I could be mistaken.
Quote from: Amicale on February 28, 2012, 05:37:00 AM
Quote from: Reprobate on February 28, 2012, 04:21:21 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I can definitely see the judge's point and admire her for standing up for her convictions, but on the other hand, she took an oath to uphold the law. Judges are bound by ethics to apply the law as it's written, not make the law. However, I am also a firm believer in the principle of "civil disobedience." If a law is unjust, it is the duty of every citizen to disobey that law, and who but a judge or member of the clergy would be in a position to oppose a law banning gay marriage in the manner that Tonya Parker can.
Hmm. I'm not sure that the judge didn't uphold the law. She didn't refuse people the right to marry their partners. She referred them to another judge in the same courthouse who would, could, and did marry them. I thought I read there that marriages weren't technically required of her, as part of her regular duties. I could be mistaken.
However, I recall there being an case on the opposite end of the spectrum earlier about an law clerk (I think she was?) that refused to marry a lesbian couple because of her 'religious beliefs', and I believe she got sued over it or something like that.
My response to that issue is that as somebody who's profession is in law, she has no basis to be doing something like that, and if she's really
that prejudiced she has no business being in a job like that. So I'm afraid I can't turn around and be all supportive for this one here on the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless there is some large difference between the two situations that I am missing. Although obviously I wouldn't use the word 'prejudiced' in this case. It's just that I feel wrong supporting this when it contradicts my very reasoning for being against the other clerk's actions.
Quote from: Radiant on February 28, 2012, 05:56:34 AM
Quote from: Amicale on February 28, 2012, 05:37:00 AM
Quote from: Reprobate on February 28, 2012, 04:21:21 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I can definitely see the judge's point and admire her for standing up for her convictions, but on the other hand, she took an oath to uphold the law. Judges are bound by ethics to apply the law as it's written, not make the law. However, I am also a firm believer in the principle of "civil disobedience." If a law is unjust, it is the duty of every citizen to disobey that law, and who but a judge or member of the clergy would be in a position to oppose a law banning gay marriage in the manner that Tonya Parker can.
Hmm. I'm not sure that the judge didn't uphold the law. She didn't refuse people the right to marry their partners. She referred them to another judge in the same courthouse who would, could, and did marry them. I thought I read there that marriages weren't technically required of her, as part of her regular duties. I could be mistaken.
However, I recall there being an case on the opposite end of the spectrum earlier about an law clerk (I think she was?) that refused to marry a lesbian couple because of her 'religious beliefs', and I believe she got sued over it or something like that.
My response to that issue is that as somebody who's profession is in law, she has no basis to be doing something like that, and if she's really that prejudiced she has no business being in a job like that. So I'm afraid I can't turn around and be all supportive for this one here on the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless there is some large difference between the two situations that I am missing. Although obviously I wouldn't use the word 'prejudiced' in this case. It's just that I feel wrong supporting this when it contradicts my very reasoning for being against the other clerk's actions.
I think there is a large difference. The law itself is based on religious beliefs, as well as being unconstitutional. One tries to implement religious belief on law, the other acts to reinforce the constitutional divide between religion and law. One action is prejudicial, the other is anti-prejudice.
Quote from: Firebird on February 28, 2012, 04:00:04 AM
As much as I agree with the oxymoronic comment, I wonder if this really does much good. Isn't the whole idea that no one should be denied the right, gay or straight? I don't know,this bothers me. Maybe this is why:
Someone very close to me who is gay (he was in my wedding party, in fact) once posted a NY Times article from a gay man who decided he would refuse to go to any weddings for his straight family and friends until marriage equality had been passed. My friend said he thought this was a great idea and was considering it. My response was that I would have been extremely hurt had he decided to refuse to attend my wedding, because it would imply I was doing something wrong by marrying someone I loved, and it was important to me to celebrate this with the people close to me. I completely understand why he's angry about being denied the right to marry, but I strongly felt my wedding was not the right place for him to make a political statement. Now, if he asked me to go to a rally, donate some money to an LGBT or marriage equality organization, or some other gesture to show my support for his, I would gladly do that. But I feel like if he had made a statement in that way, it would have caused more anger and hurt than anything else, and ultimately hurt the cause he cares about.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the gay community making the straight community share in the pain. For too long straight people have not taken gay rights personally. Even those who are for gay marriage are often lukewarm in rally doing anything more than voting Democrat. Obviously there is a fine line between making gay rights personal for straight Americans and punishing straight allies for the sins of the bullies, and that is a tricky line to walk, but I think in theory it's a good idea. When the religious right attempts to use thee pulpit to bully a minority group for personal gain, we should all take it personally.
Quote from: Will37 on February 28, 2012, 07:41:19 AM
Quote from: Firebird on February 28, 2012, 04:00:04 AM
As much as I agree with the oxymoronic comment, I wonder if this really does much good. Isn't the whole idea that no one should be denied the right, gay or straight? I don't know,this bothers me. Maybe this is why:
Someone very close to me who is gay (he was in my wedding party, in fact) once posted a NY Times article from a gay man who decided he would refuse to go to any weddings for his straight family and friends until marriage equality had been passed. My friend said he thought this was a great idea and was considering it. My response was that I would have been extremely hurt had he decided to refuse to attend my wedding, because it would imply I was doing something wrong by marrying someone I loved, and it was important to me to celebrate this with the people close to me. I completely understand why he's angry about being denied the right to marry, but I strongly felt my wedding was not the right place for him to make a political statement. Now, if he asked me to go to a rally, donate some money to an LGBT or marriage equality organization, or some other gesture to show my support for his, I would gladly do that. But I feel like if he had made a statement in that way, it would have caused more anger and hurt than anything else, and ultimately hurt the cause he cares about.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the gay community making the straight community share in the pain. For too long straight people have not taken gay rights personally. Even those who are for gay marriage are often lukewarm in rally doing anything more than voting Democrat. Obviously there is a fine line between making gay rights personal for straight Americans and punishing straight allies for the sins of the bullies, and that is a tricky line to walk, but I think in theory it's a good idea. When the religious right attempts to use thee pulpit to bully a minority group for personal gain, we should all take it personally.
This is true. My husband and I have actually talked about getting a divorce until gay people are allowed to marry in our state, as a way to show solidarity with the gay community. And I'm a little embarrassed to say that even though I kind of do think it's the right thing to do, I haven't ever seriously considered it, because I want to be married. And if you think about it, that's kind of shitty. Like "Yes, I do want equality and I do want gay people to have the right to marry, but even if they don't, I'm happy to avail myself of a priviledge that they don't have." As straight people, we may support gay people in their fight for equality, but we definitely don't have as much skin in the game. Maybe if we did, we'd fight harder.
I'm indifferent to this, but I do like the way she is making the statement. I would be slightly worried the result of such a protest would be counter to what I wanted to accomplish though. I would be a little worried that instead of extending marriage rights to gay's, the church and/or state might simply criminalize gay religious leaders.
Quote from: Ali on February 28, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
This is true. My husband and I have actually talked about getting a divorce until gay people are allowed to marry in our state, as a way to show solidarity with the gay community. And I'm a little embarrassed to say that even though I kind of do think it's the right thing to do, I haven't ever seriously considered it, because I want to be married. And if you think about it, that's kind of shitty. Like "Yes, I do want equality and I do want gay people to have the right to marry, but even if they don't, I'm happy to avail myself of a priviledge that they don't have." As straight people, we may support gay people in their fight for equality, but we definitely don't have as much skin in the game. Maybe if we did, we'd fight harder.
Ali, please never actually seriously consider a divorce just to show solidarity with a group who can't currently marry. The best way to get marriage equality rights for everyone isn't for those who are married to give up their marriages, but for those who are single or married to show their support for others who want to be married, too. It's not kind of shitty to want to be married, and to want to stay married, when you already are married. It's like other social issues we're trying to change and eradicate -- what's the best way to fight poverty, by giving up your home in solidarity with those who don't have homes... or working to get stuff done so people who need homes can get them? What's the best way to fight hunger, stop eating... or do everything we can to feed the hungry and get them the help they need too?
Eh. I hardly speak for the gay community. I only speak for myself, and I know I am speaking as someone in a country where same sex marriage is fully legal (and surprise surprise, the bottom hasn't dropped out of society OR marriage, go figure).... but for what my 2 cents are worth, if I wanted to marry my partner and couldn't marry them, I wouldn't want straight people to give up their marriages until I was able to marry. I'd want them to stay happily married, and to help pave a path by encouraging the government to let me marry too. I'd invite straight friends to rallies, pride parades, social media awareness sites, anything it took. But the last thing I'd want is for them to give up some of the happiness in their life, just because I couldn't have it.
Quote from: Amicale on February 28, 2012, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 28, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
This is true. My husband and I have actually talked about getting a divorce until gay people are allowed to marry in our state, as a way to show solidarity with the gay community. And I'm a little embarrassed to say that even though I kind of do think it's the right thing to do, I haven't ever seriously considered it, because I want to be married. And if you think about it, that's kind of shitty. Like "Yes, I do want equality and I do want gay people to have the right to marry, but even if they don't, I'm happy to avail myself of a priviledge that they don't have." As straight people, we may support gay people in their fight for equality, but we definitely don't have as much skin in the game. Maybe if we did, we'd fight harder.
Ali, please never actually seriously consider a divorce just to show solidarity with a group who can't currently marry. The best way to get marriage equality rights for everyone isn't for those who are married to give up their marriages, but for those who are single or married to show their support for others who want to be married, too. It's not kind of shitty to want to be married, and to want to stay married, when you already are married. It's like other social issues we're trying to change and eradicate -- what's the best way to fight poverty, by giving up your home in solidarity with those who don't have homes... or working to get stuff done so people who need homes can get them? What's the best way to fight hunger, stop eating... or do everything we can to feed the hungry and get them the help they need too?
Eh. I hardly speak for the gay community. I only speak for myself, and I know I am speaking as someone in a country where same sex marriage is fully legal (and surprise surprise, the bottom hasn't dropped out of society OR marriage, go figure).... but for what my 2 cents are worth, if I wanted to marry my partner and couldn't marry them, I wouldn't want straight people to give up their marriages until I was able to marry. I'd want them to stay happily married, and to help pave a path by encouraging the government to let me marry too. I'd invite straight friends to rallies, pride parades, social media awareness sites, anything it took. But the last thing I'd want is for them to give up some of the happiness in their life, just because I couldn't have it.
(((Amicale)))) You're so sweet!
The bolded makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
You're welcome! (((((Ali))))) :)
No one should be allowed to be marry! (jk )
I see this judge's point, but i sadly don;t know what good it will do. Straight couples have never faced any challenge like homosexuals with marriage... Denying them won't change anything. We need equal rights for all... *sigh*
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 29, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
No one should be allowed to be marry! (jk )
I see this judge's point, but i sadly don;t know what good it will do. Straight couples have never faced any challenge like homosexuals with marriage... Denying them won't change anything. We need equal rights for all... *sigh*
Actually, just from a North American perspective alone I'd say that the fight for slavery to end, the fight for women to get the vote, and the fight for civil rights for African Americans in the USA are a few really huge instances where people had to face some huge challenges, and I'm assuming that those issues affected a LOT of straight couples who had to fight hard during them. Divisive issues, too. So at least in the not-so-distance past, people certainly faced civil/social challenges that were overcome through massive displays of public awareness, concern, civil disobedience, protests, marches, etc etc. It's just that now that those particular events are behind people and they've settled into a life that's more comfortable for them.... some of them haven't realized yet that the fight's not over, and that there's more to stand up for.