Dallas | Gay Marriage | Law - Gay, LGBT | News | Texas | Tonya Parker

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Marriages for Straight Couples Until She Can Get Married as Well: VIDEO

Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker, the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in Texas history according to the Dallas Voice, refuses to perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples until she too can get married.

ParkerThe Voice reports: "The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member."

Said Parker:

“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. 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.”

Watch Parker discuss LGBT issues in her courtroom, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. She should do her job that she's being paid for and so should Rosemary Belforti, the homophobic clerk from NY State who wont marry gays.

    Posted by: Enemylister | Feb 24, 2012 12:00:44 PM

  2. i love lesbians.

    can you imagine the progress we would make if we all took a stand?

    Posted by: h | Feb 24, 2012 12:03:52 PM

  3. This is wrong. Enemylister, exactly

    Posted by: Mike C. | Feb 24, 2012 12:08:22 PM

  4. I agree with the impetus. But I disagree with the expression. As a public servant, she needs to uphold her duties. We must hold every public official to the same high standards of job performance. By doing this she proves exactly what our opponents claimed marred Judge Walker's ability to fairly oversee the challenge to Prop 8. She is putting her personal views above her sworn duty. Her view may be correct, but she shouldn't jeopardize her position.

    Posted by: Sean | Feb 24, 2012 12:10:51 PM

  5. I get it, but she's a public employee. She cannot choose. Just as other commentors noted, it's like the woman who wouldn't preform gay weddings. I agree and don't. Maybe she could provide a small lecture before each and every marriage though. Hold the couple hostage until she makes her point. ;)

    Posted by: Garrett | Feb 24, 2012 12:13:05 PM

  6. I'll side with the majority here, as well. She is a public servant, being paid by money collected by gay and straight taxpayers. If she wants to boycott opposite-sex marriage, this is not the venue.

    Posted by: Adam | Feb 24, 2012 12:14:53 PM

  7. @ ENEMYLISTER: The difference, here, is that:

    a) Unlike Belforti, she's refusing to perform ANY marriages, not just ones she disagrees with because her imaginary friend tells her they're bad.

    b) Solemnizing marriages is an elective part of a judge's job description; no judge is required to perform any marriage ceremonies, so long as he or she does not discriminate in his/her refusal. Filing marriage forms is a REQUIREMENT for Belforti's position as county clerk, an she was singling out gay and lesbian couples in refusing to do her duty. She continued to file for straight couples.

    Posted by: Rich F. | Feb 24, 2012 12:15:16 PM

  8. @ Rich F. If that's the case then this is not a story.

    Posted by: Enemylister | Feb 24, 2012 12:22:24 PM

  9. Actually it's not her duty to marry people, just her right. Just as any member of the clergy can pick and choose, so can the judge. This is very different from a clerk whose actual job is to issue marriage licenses.

    Posted by: ozu | Feb 24, 2012 12:23:03 PM

  10. The first few commenters here are wrong. She has no obligation to marry anybody. She could do it to make extra money, but no judge has to perform weddings. This is an issue because the right wing talk shows and blogs are making it one.
    Our local Dallas Morning News columnist wrote a great column about this today.

    Posted by: MikeyDallas | Feb 24, 2012 12:32:53 PM

  11. @ Rich F.

    As MikeyDallas and Ozu and Adam said, it's not her duty to marry ANYONE, it's a right she has as a judge, not a duty. So if she gives up that right in protest, it's fair game.

    Posted by: Quint King | Feb 24, 2012 12:47:14 PM

  12. Good.
    Look at all the uncle Toms here that say we should continue to work for the strait man, even though we are not being treated fairly...

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Feb 24, 2012 12:54:40 PM

  13. This is almost too delicious. I am rocking back and forth with a grin. Good for her. "They've" got it coming and it IS a comupance. I do hope however that she will relent just a little and marry Barney Frank to his fine man (I know, I know, he's in another State, still...).

    Posted by: uffda | Feb 24, 2012 12:57:49 PM

  14. Ah yesss! FINALLY, An activist judge!

    Rich F. is spot on, She isn't being discriminatory, but she is attempting to change her job while mired in it.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Feb 24, 2012 1:02:13 PM

  15. I respect anyone willing to make a public stand and accept the consequences that go with it. I say bravo to her!

    I hope she also continues to uphold the position until polygamist families can also get married. I've evolved on polygamy. I may not like it. I may think the women are stupid, but... all the "sister wives" should get the same benefits if they have to sleep with these ridiculous turds.

    Posted by: Rin | Feb 24, 2012 1:15:47 PM

  16. IF There is NO STATE LAW in Texas protecting "sexual orientation" she has no obligation to do so. I suspect the state of Texas does not protect a citizen based on their sexual life style be it str8 or Gay. Nothing wrong being done.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Feb 24, 2012 1:24:36 PM

  17. @Rin: Polygamy, were it to become widespread, would destroy Social Security. If a dozen sister wives each get survivor benefits then the payout would far exceed the pay-in of their one husband. Even if you divided it among the living sister wives, the actuarial reality is that one of them would live to be 100 or older (and she might be decades younger than her once-alive husband), so they/she could get 80+ years of survivor benefits for his few years of work.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Feb 24, 2012 1:32:34 PM

  18. Idiots who thinks a judge has a sworn duty to perform marriages: look into it before you go showing your ignorance to the world.

    Unless you are Freeper trolls, in which case, please do keep commenting.

    Posted by: Sean in Dallas | Feb 24, 2012 1:33:18 PM

  19. Applause Applause Applause

    Posted by: Name: | Feb 24, 2012 1:42:49 PM

  20. Is it part of her job to do marriages? If so, she should be fired. Can you even fire a judge?

    Posted by: RandySF | Feb 24, 2012 2:02:34 PM

  21. IMHO I think what she is doing is good. She is not saying I wont marry that heterosexual baptist couple but will narry that heterosexual catholic couple. She is not going to marry any couples whatsoever. I think it is a good move on her part. And public employee or not as you say, y'all need to know, not all judges perform marriages!

    Posted by: dsp | Feb 24, 2012 2:06:38 PM

  22. She has the right to perform (or not to perform) marriages as she chooses. Is suspect. however, in Texas there may be political remifications to her decision.

    All that said, she is one beautiful human being.

    Posted by: acorlando | Feb 24, 2012 2:07:50 PM

  23. In her own words: "Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code.

    I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies."

    That is how it works! She doesn't
    have to marry anyone!

    Posted by: dsp | Feb 24, 2012 2:11:50 PM

  24. I don't care if she isn't even professionally obligated to perform marriages, I think her decision is bitter and mean-spirited. I like to think that our spokespeople and activists in positions of influence can be better than wanting to dole out their anger on loving straight couples. Presumably, many of the people who would have requested a marriage license from Parker are straight allies. This sounds like the guy who refused to go weddings until gays had the right to marry; he was either mean-spirited, or cheap.

    Posted by: Mike C. | Feb 24, 2012 2:36:01 PM

  25. (although, I will just add, that is one hot lesbian judge!! Also thought judges usually had to have been in law careers so long that it was tough to even become one as young seeming a Ms. Parker)

    Posted by: Mike C. | Feb 24, 2012 2:38:01 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Sacha Baron Cohen's Dictator Releases Statement Condemning Oscar Producers for Banning Him: VIDEO« «