Hello:

Gay marriage is now LEGAL in my state. Provisions were made for the clergy to refuse to do them if they felt uncomfortable, but can JUDGES refuse?

excon

If judges refused that would probably open up the county/city to a whole lot of bad press and lawsuits. My guess would be no.

Have not read the complete law on it, but normally no, they represent the government, not a religion and have to uphold the law.
Next a judge does not do a blessing of any kind and it is non religious in nature, so there should be no religious issues to it.

Hello Padre:


it is non religious in nature, so there should be no religious issues to it.Yet, some of our judges think it is. I don't know HOW it's going to work out.

Is this the same issue as a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control or plan B? True, he's a PRIVATE businessman. But, he IS licensed by the state, and I'm sure the license requires certain standards to be met. At least, that's MY argument.

Excon

Not quite . A judge is the employee of the state. If he doesn't like it he can resign from his position . He is NOT running his own shop.

not quite . A judge is the employee of the state. If he doesn't like it he can resign from his position . He is NOT running his own shop.

Your symbol would be nicer if it was a Cincinnati Reds logo!

:)

If it's any consolation ;I was a fan of the Big Red Machine ;and got to see them whup the Mets at Shea.

if it's any consolation ;I was a fan of the Big Red Machine ;and got to see them whup the Mets at Shea.

Yeah that was an awesome team especially during the 76 World Series. Oops, sorry. I just love my team.

Yeah that was an awesome team especially during the 76 World Series. Oops, sorry. I just love my team.

No problem.. The Yanks were only learning how to win in 76 after a decade long slump.

Ok, not even understanding how we went from Gay marriage and judges to the 76 world series ?

It has about as much relevance as how we link marriage to a gay relationship

A gay relationship is no different than any human relationship, and marriage has its economic advantages that should be free to all.

It has about as much relevance as how we link marriage to a gay relationship

Excuse me?

No!

no!

I am not sure why you would make a statement like that without defending your position. But that is your choice.

I have no wish to start a discussion on the merits of marriage or gay relationships

I have no wish to start a discussion on the merits of marriage or gay relationships

Well then maybe you shouldn't have posted it then.

I have no wish to start a discussion on the merits of marriage or gay relationships

But that's the topic. And as long as money, property, and rights are concerned, then everyone should have access to the benefits of marriage, and risk of the consequences of divorce.

I mean everybody is hollering about THEIR rights to guns, abortions, and making money, but turn around and tell others they have no rights.

That's hypocrisy and BS.

I mean everybody is hollering about THEIR rights to guns, abortions, and making money, but turn around and tell others they have no rights.

Thats hypocrisy and BS.

But Tal I didn't tell anyone they had no rights I said I didn't see the relevance. I was responding to Chuck's comment about sport but as always some one has an axe to grind. I think my position on these issues is known, I neither need to explain it or justify it

That's why we use quotes to avoid confusion.

Hey Tal you do your thing and I'll do mine, if my individuality doesn't suit you, that is stiff cheese. When a respondent reads a comment I expect they take the time to look at the context but then perhaps I'm expecting too much

Don't get testy with me because you cannot articulate your position. You know the rules, debate or be silent. Sometimes we have to repeat to clarify, but I see no position you have taken in this debate other than a comment on relevance. So lets have your position, and be done with a squabble over nothing.

Don't get testy with me because you cannot articulate your position. You know the rules, debate or be silent. Sometimes we have to repeat to clarify, but I see no position you have taken in this debate other than a comment on relevance. So lets have your position, and be done with a squabble over nothing.

Tal there are no rules, My position is I don't see the two matters are related. This is not up for debate. The pendulum is starting to swing back with people becoming less sympathic to minority views

Maybe there Clete, but not in America. Minorities are on the rise here so take note, it may well happen there too.

I think we have learned you can take things too far and in other places like Russia the same realisation exists. Values are important and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because someone has an idea doesn't mean we have to say yes. This is your PC taken to the ridiculous because it is opposing the majority view. You see we don't have a history of oppressing minorities we feel have to redress

Beg to differ since the coalition of many minorities IS the majority view. That's not political correctness that's consensus.

I think you have a different definition of minorities. When a minority becomes a majority it ceases to be a minority. Consensus is when people of differring political views usually with large constituencies argee on a common approach. I expect that within your minorities there are very different views on this subject

We have many minorities in America Clete, and they grow as we speak, while the white majority shrinks, but Obama's coalition that got him elected was Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Females, Young people, Gay people.They were united against Mr.Romney because his ideas weren't feasible or attractive to them. It helped nothing that repubs actually insulted every group I have named, but they voted in large numbers against republicans as a nation and many local and state races for congress.

Among republicans consensus is a dirty word, especially since they chose as their minority the rich guys who screwed us all over, and the ultra conservatives whose agenda was social domination that promoted their way of life which females and gays said NO WAY. They ignored the Latinos, and Asians completely, so they were doomed to their own downfall, and will fall further until they become more inclusive and embrace consensus as we all want.

So the term minorities has a whole different meaning in a nation that's a melting pot for the entire world. Racially, culturally, class,and gender. No one is better than another and second class treatment is unacceptable. So you see it took many minorities to join together to be a majority.

Hey Tal you aren't alone in being a melting pot, but the difference is we don't create minorities, what we say is if you are a citizen that is as far as it goes, so we have some communities but we are really speaking about localities because we can have many ethnicties in a locality but certain people group together and we don't refer to people with the sort of ethnic tags you do, which, of course, makes sure they know they are a minority. The only officially recognised "minorities" or priority groups here are aboriginal, women and asylum seekers but one thing we do do is print official notices in about twenty languages

Righties here don't like going an extra mile for anyone who can't speak English.

Yes, well maybe they need to learn the meaning of the word;inclusive. Many years ago whether we liked it or not we decided we would accept multiculturalism, you were allowed to be who you are and all we asked is your loyalty. You could say we took a long term view, hey I've even heard of Greeks migrating the second time around. No questions asked except, maybe, what are you bringing with you?

I think we might now view that experiment as a failure, mainly becaue of recent arrivals, however there are some legacies, like being more inclusive