Comments

  1. Sean says

    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.

  2. Garrett says

    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. 😉

  3. says

    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.

  4. Rich F. says

    @ 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.

  5. ozu says

    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.

  6. MikeyDallas says

    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.

  7. Quint King says

    @ 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.

  8. uffda says

    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…).

  9. Rin says

    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.

  10. Sargon Bighorn says

    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.

  11. says

    @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.

  12. Sean in Dallas says

    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.

  13. dsp says

    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!

  14. acorlando says

    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.

  15. dsp says

    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!

  16. Mike C. says

    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.

  17. Mike C. says

    (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)

  18. vanndean says

    @Mike C, in Texas couples do not request a marriage license from a judge. Marriage licenses are issued by the County Clerk for a fee of approximately $65.00. The judge only performs a marriage ceremony. They are not required to do so as part of their job. They do so as a courtesy to the couple. By not marrying anyone, the judge is not being discriminatory to anyone, gay or straight and is not violating any state statute. Her legal qualification are well established and she is definitely more than educated and experienced enough to understand the implications of her stand.

  19. bay area john says

    The same people who say she is a public servant and is thus compelled to do her job are the ones who would say Church organizations can’t be compelled to offer services they disagree with, even though they take significant state and federal money.

  20. Jerry6 says

    Certain persons in each State have the RIGHT to Marry persons in their State. NON are Required to do so. For example, the Governor of New York chose to marry the first Gay couple. That does not mean that he HAS to marry anyone else if he chooses not to.

  21. jack says

    She should lose her job as a judge if she refuses to perform all the duties expected of a judge.It makes no sense to discriminate against innocent straight people in order to get back at a society that discriminates against you.

Leave A Reply