Comments

  1. says

    “I don’t have a problem with who wants to get married. But we don’t have to compromise our beliefs.”

    The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

  2. JackFknTwist says

    well, you do actually !
    if you are receiving public money to perform a function then no one cares what your beliefs are; just get on and do what you’re paid to do.

  3. Tom Chicago says

    This is known as the Spitefulness Strategy, the cloaking of anti-gay animus in cherry-picked Christianist garb.

  4. Gay Guy says

    I say apply the same standard as you would to other reasons for objections to certain marriages. For instance interracial marriages, inter-religional marriages, a large age difference between the parties, prior divorce(s), etc.

  5. Sean says

    “I don’t have a problem with who wants to get married. But we don’t have to compromise our beliefs.”

    Actually, you do. Your paycheck/salary comes out of the pockets of LGBT citizens therefore you are their employee and your beliefs are irrelevant. You are PUBLIC servant. Not a private one and you are not a priest. That means ALL of the public. Do your job or get a new one or don’t tax LGBT citizens. Period. Their are NO legal arguments against this incontestable fact of American law.

  6. JackFknTwist says

    @ PETE N SFo
    @ SEAN

    See my post above.
    In addition don’t judges take an oath of office to uphold the law without fear or favour, and with malice or ill will towards none..

    Or is that an old fashioned European concept ?
    If they won’t do their jobs, fire them or impeach them.
    Either way get them out……..they don’t have the entitlements of hereditary princes.

  7. says

    County clerks are required to issue licenses (as they should be), but judges aren’t required to perform weddings–it’s an optional part of their job duties, one they don’t get compensated for. So if they choose not to do any marriages, that’s within their rights. All or nothing.

    One has to wonder, however, about the impartiality of a judge who, if he had a choice, would perform marriages for straight couples but not for gay ones.

  8. Jude says

    So don’t use a judge, people. I used a friend who could marry people. We took the license to a clerk. She signed it. Our local judge is a bigot, and even if he was willing to marry us, I’d rather not be married than have that jerk be a part of it.

    Anyone can get cheap credentials to marry…if your area is having any problems with this, get the credentials and help each other!

  9. enchantra says

    I have to wonder what other public servants get to pick and choose what their duties are.

    Frankly I am sick of the arrogance of judges at all levels, particularly the Supreme Court. Does the Supreme Court function in an efficient way which serves the public? I would say no. Look at how long they take to issue an opinion… jeeze you would think it was rocket science. It isn’t. Moreover, look at the deliberately cryptic and inconsiderate way they do issue opinions. They know as well as anyone else what the nation wants answered, and half the time they only answer some piddling part of a legal issue and leave the meat (and the plaintiffs) hanging out to dry for yet another round or two at the local level.

  10. jmartindale says

    I am with Ernie obn this. They don’t want to officiate at gay weddings? I wouldn’t want them at my wedding any more than I would have the wedding at a fundamentalist church. Still, it does show a certain animus against gay people even in the judiciary. This does bring into question their fitness for office. If they were voted into office, I would hope they could be voted out of office.

  11. TonyJazz says

    Are these judges marrying people in churches? If not, then what possible beliefs are involved in civil marriage?

    …maybe bigotry?

  12. Lexis says

    These priggish government employees who think that they are actually some kind “gatekeepers from God” by refusing to push papers or witness two citizens forming a legally-binding civil contract are a laugh riot.

  13. Jim says

    Judges are supposed to be disinterested, unbiased officers of the law and are to perform their duties impartially, exactly as required by law without any reference to their personal beliefs. That’s why they’re judges and not politicians. For a judge to state publicly that he puts his personal beliefs above performance of law is to say publicly that he is not qualified to be a judge. The New Mexico judicial standards board should take a good long look at these two judges and make them explain why their personal beliefs trump their obligations to do impartial justice and render impartial service to the community they are sworn to serve.

  14. Steven Jaeger says

    I agree that the judges cannot pick and choose which parts of the law they want to follow. However, many do do marriages, as noted above, as an extra. However, I feel if they don’t do for one, they shouldn’t do for any, because that does show judicial favoritism and not impartiality. Any judge unwilling to follow the law on every aspect does give, at the very least, a distinct impression of bias and is thus untrustworthy and at the worst an out and out bigot and should be impeached.
    When we married in San Diego, there was an option for having a friend get “a day license” to marry; we didn’t need that but it really is a cool way to go if you have someone special in your life that you want to add to your marriage ceremony.

  15. mike/ says

    they said, “we don’t have to compromise our beliefs.” but it is okay for them to break the oaths of office they swore to? probably on their mythological book the Bible? how strange. can they then be impeached or whatever they do in NM?