- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A Texas judge is asking a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S., arguing in a lawsuit filed on Friday that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”
The case involves Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, who has been involved in years of legal proceedings to try to win the right to not perform marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for opposite-sex couples. She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
You must log in or # to comment.
If you can’t be impartial then you can’t be a judge. I mean jet pilots can’t wear glasses, librarians can’t be illiterate, dog groomers (reasonably speaking) can’t be allergic, priests can’t have a wife. You don’t get to have a job just because you want the job.
Pedophiles can’t be presidents.
Oh wait… It’s the USA we’re talking about. Sorry.
deleted by creator
She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
That sounds like she is not qualified to be a judge then. If she’s using her religion to guide her legal decisions, will she also deny a heterosexual couple a divorce because she believes it goes against her interpretation of christianity?
shes essentially KIM DAVIS but with a law degree.
… And a lifetime appointment
As a Christian, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances, and anyone trying to tell me otherwise is oppressing me, no matter what harm that may cause to other people.
Or, more simply: I deserve special rights and privileges.
These people are just a lot more obvious in their desire for theocracy now, but the whole Seven Mountains Mandate thing has been around for longer than I’ve been alive.
They just want to be Ya’ll Qaeda.
As a Christian, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances
I know you are being facetious but there is something called presuppositionalism that is gaining steam in the evangelical / Christian nationalist community right now. For most Christians, they try and “prove” their faith through apologetics or their own (incorrect) interpretations of science and history. Some will skip that and say that whether or not Christianity is true is irrelevant, because there’s a “judeo-christian” foundation to our society, so our government should reflect that.
Presuppositionalism just says “assume Christianity is true”. Presuppositionalist feel no need to prove Christianity is true or even that governance should be democratic. To them, Christianity’s truth is a given that isn’t up for discussion, so the discussion starts around how to make laws that reflect Christianity i.e. a theocracy.
Take abortion for example. To a presuppositionalist Christian, they don’t have to provide any sort of secular justification as to why it should be outlawed. It is against God’s will, and our God is the true god, so it should be outlawed. If people vote to legalize it, then they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on it.
Presuppositionalism is also behind all those theobro fascists shouting “Christ is King!” That is a very specific, presuppositionalist statement. Christ is King over the earth to them; it is an assertion they are making and they don’t care about backing that up; they only care about implementing their King’s will on “His” earth.
I’m either not or barely being facetious.
I grew up in a family like this.
Basically, I barely survived developing critical thinking skills.
Yeah presupp is logically ludicrous, it just flips the burden of proof around on its head.
And then, it allows anyone to either have their own interpretation of God’s word, which thus cannot be challenged, or, God will just ‘talk’ to them, either by developing a fragmented personality and inner monologue, or ‘signs and wonders’…
They’re fucking bonkers, is what I’m trying to say.
I will ‘not all Christians’ this, yes, obviously not all of them are this nuts, but whoo boy, many many parts of American Christianity are just in another league, as compared to many other places, when it comes to just serving as an excuse for a personal power trip.
As a
Christian>insert any religion here<, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances
In a just world she would be disbarred
Why doesn’t she get a job at the church if she feels so strongly about it. We don’t need her judging people
oh she judges people at church too, to be sure
Well, she can judge people, but just in the sense of giving them side-eye; the kind of judging that has no real effect…and she’d have lots of opportunities to do that with the other church ladies.
If she feels that religious she should be unbenched and disbarred, as religion is extremely partial and such followers cannot see things outside that lense
They’re going to strip abortion rights (done), then LGBTQ2A++ (in progress), then interracial marriage. You know it.
I don’t think anyone is taking this constant assault step-up as seriously as they should.
We thought Roe Vs Wade was safe, now nobody even talks about it anymore. Project 2025 outlined all of this and how to accomplish it and so far they’ve been following the playbook to great success.
And we’re here “LOL AT THE FUNNY LADY.”
Yah it won’t pass or even be considered. Today.
But next time someone with more power and influence raises it with a stronger case or argument, most of us will have tuned out as it gains more and more traction. Like they did with everything else so far.
After same-sex marriage they will go after interracial marriage. I dare some fucker to tell me that’s hyperbolic, I already know the pretense and argument they will use to “ease” in the long dick of dicking americans.
Jesus fucking Christ. Why can’t Texas be its own country and be the right wing Christo-Fascist hell hole they want to force on the rest of us? Just fucking leave already.
For real, secede already you worthless rednecks! Let’s make a straight trade for Puerto Rico so we don’t have to change the flags
Funny as fuck for her to whinge about unelected judges while she submits this to the supreme Court… And by funny I mean she’s a fucking piece of shit, obviously
If your religion overrides your ability to judge fairly, then you cannot uphold your duty as a judge and should step down.
Wacko, Texastan
You want to enforce Christianity? Go be a pastor not a judge, you fucking cunt.
But pastors only have control over believers, whereas judges get to decide how even members of other religions get to live. /s
Government should not be involved in marriages.
These are contracts between citizens. Nothing more. Consenting adults that need a way to manage the outcome if the contract needs to be disolved.
There is nothing more to do.
And all citizens are equal, male or female, it doesn’t matter because you cannot discriminate who gets to enter into a contract.
Who is going to enforce the terms of the contract, if not the government?
That’s my point. The government manages and arbitrates contracts. Not marriages in the religious sense. And a contract has to apply equally to all citizens.
Not marriages in the religious sense.
Governments don’t manage marriages in the religious sense, they manage them in the legal sense. That is, and has always been, the fight wrt same sex marriages.
And as marriage is the primary way by which two people from different families join together into a new legal family - with a host of legal consequences following that joining of households - you absolutely need marriage overseen by the state, for the same reason you have a host of other legal institutions overseen by the state.
They shouldn’t though. The only thing they should care about are contracts. You want to get married? Go ahead no one cares. The government shouldn’t care. You want to have a method to divide up property allocate for child support, you get a contract. There is a difference.
Government should encourage people to enter into a legally binding contract for obvious reasons, but they should not care what religion or what sex the people are. Citizen a forms a contract with b. That is all there should be to it.
The only thing they should care about are contracts.
A marriage is a contract.
The government shouldn’t care.
As soon as its time to pay taxes, the government cares. When you’re declaring ownership/sale of property, the government needs to determine if the re-titling is legal and has to care. Household accumulation and collection of private debts means the government has to care. Knowing legal residency as a result of marriage is a requirement. Knowing the legal parents/guardians of children is under government purview, as is knowing which school district the children are eligible to attend.
There’s so many downstream consequences of marriage, I could hardly list them all.
they should not care what religion or what sex the people are
Theocratic governments are naturally going to care about the religious inclinations of their residents and the violation of taboos. And Americans need to recognize that we are absolutely living in a theocracy, at least under certain Christian Dominionist state and national bureaucratic leaders.
“Well, but we should/shouldn’t…” is ultimately a decision left to the voters, and one that can change with every new election cycle. It isn’t a moral imperative that overrides legal authority.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people. Only much later did it become a legal thing, and that still isn’t everywhere. Overall, governments have tried to fuck around with transnational, inter racial, same sex, same sect, same community, regionalism, forced, age, arranged etc.
A broken government is one that interferes with marriage. Next thing you know they are going to start picking and arranging for genetics and other bullshit.
No. The government should not be involved at that level. A citizen may enter into a contract with the government if they wish. Thats it. I can get married today, and there is no legal bond unless I want one.
Taxes, ownership of property are all other scenarios, and can be assigned in a freely entered contract.
Legal residency does not matter and should not matter.
Perhaps if they have a contract, then they can establish sponsorships. Again, my main point here is citizen a can get a marriage contract as can citizen b. Do not discriminate based on any of the things I mentioned before.
What school district a child attends is relative to where they live of course, married parents or not.
I am saying all of this to point out that governments need to treat any citizen the same if they form a contractual union. That is the point Obama trying to get across.
I can legally marry people. For some of them they involve the government, others don’t care.
A failed government is one that allows some citizens into legally binding contracts but not others based on arbitrary reasons.
Maybe that helps you see what I am trying to say.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people.
Brother, I’ve got some news for you…
I think that’s how it works now, and has even prior to gay marriage being the law of the land, but the religious busybodies think their particular religion should somehow have a say in what is a government institution (and merely because of cultural inertia, I guess? xtians seem to think they own the very concept of marriage, which is…hilariously provincial, but that’s what xtians seem to excel at).
Delulu folk.
I think that that would open a can of worms well beyond this issue, considering that religion in general can tell adherents to do things that aren’t mandated by secular law.
I also have a pretty difficult time swallowing this in that any Christian mandate isn’t on not performing marriages, but on not engaging in homosexual sex yourself. “I don’t want to facilitate people in doing things that would be prohibited them if they belonged to my own religion” seems like a pretty wildly unreasonably broad reading of any sort of freedom to practice religion on the judge’s part. If she herself was obligated by the job to participate in lesbian sex, okay, then I could see her maybe having an argument for some kind of exemption.
What happens if you have, say, Muslim building inspectors? Are they allowed to not approve a meat-packing plant because it processes pork and if the people who are eating its output were Muslims, as the inspector is, they’d be violating rules of their religion? I mean, that’s on par with what she’s asking for.
EDIT:
I’d also add that her argument didn’t work for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and there it was just a private business, not a public official. Ermold v. Davis seems like it’d even more clearly establish a precedent that her argument doesn’t work.
EDIT2: Well, okay, there’s that one Old Testament verse somewhere about how you have to execute practicing homosexuals. That’s the extent to which I can think of the Bible having a mandate regarding someone else engaging in homosexual sex. But even without looking at her complaint, I am very sure that the argument she is trying to make is not “I should be excused from not executing practicing homosexuals”.
searches
Punishments for Sexual Immorality
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
