- 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.
Wacko, Texastan
It seems completely logical to me that if a judge claims her Christianity is so vital to her being that she cannot perform duties that don’t align with her Christianity then she cannot give fair and impartial judgments to anybody who is not also a Christian. Anybody of any religion that’s not Christianity in her courtroom should call for her recusal. Anyone not Christian for whom she has made judgment should call for mistrals.
Not even to mention the fact that can she truly be impartial to other sects of Christianity?
Right but if all the judges in the district are Christian, then people are denied services. So she’s gotta be fired. There’s no other option.
I think if she wants to argue that Christianity is so central to her being that she cannot make impartial decisions, she should be permanently dismissed, as she is clearly not fit for the position. There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality, she is the problem, not her religious preference.
I’m not entirely sure other Christians are capable of impartiality considering the long long history of Christians getting special treatment in our judicial system. You don’t have to scratch the surface very hard to find a plethora of disgusting rulings that mentioned Christianity as a mitigating circumstance which allowed for lessened penalties.
most of them think the same way, especially the evangelical types.
At this point, I don’t trust anyone that is religious. It has been proven time and again that they will act in the interest of their god, over the interest of humanity.
Yeah. I know Christians who can, but many can’t. Like, how many Christians really understand that the justification to deny Alaskan native sovereignty was that they weren’t Christians? I hold anti Christian sentiments, I’ve seen how they’ve oppressed everyone around them and cried foul at the sort of inconvenience they’d demand other religions experience.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, the establishment of Christianity in the US is horribly corrupt. I suppose I’m arguing to judge these pieces of shit by their character, not their religion. I’m not even Christian, I just believe it’s dangerous to start applying mass generalizations to any group of people. Religion has no place in justice, either in protecting or hurting someone’s case.
Religious belief is a choice. There’s no problem criticizing people for their choices.
There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality
[citation needed]
Prime Minister Paul Martin was excommunicated from his family church when he legalized same sex marriage some 20 years ago.
He also got the supreme court(of Canada) to rule on it first to head of Stephen Harper and PP(aka Milhouse) inevitable challenge of it.
Pierre Trudeau(Justin Trudeau’s dad) was a practicing Roman Catholic when as Justice Minister when he legalized homosexuality almost 60 years ago.
Excellent history lesson, cheers.
I did not know those facts, thank you. Whatever other flaws Paul Martin may have had, that took some personal conviction which I respect. And very astute of him to head off future challenges in that way.
Anthony Kennedy, one of the most influential supreme court justices in establishing gay rights in the US, was Catholic.
Harry Blackmun, the majority opinion writer for Roe v. Wade, was heavily involved in church and gave several sermons.
Despite what MAGA would have you believe, it is possible to be both Christian, and not a hateful asshole (though it seems to be getting more rare by the day).
Excellent examples, thanks. Your last line nails on the head where my thoughts are at these days.
More like many of them are capable of feigning impartiality, well at least you have juries. But I’m sure there’s some fucker there as well to stack the decks when needed
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but isn’t all impartiality a feint? No human is free of bias; at least if they do their best to act the part, it’s better than the blatant, open, unashamed corruption going on in the government today. If a judge holds dumb personal biases but puts those aside to judge, that’s not “feigning impartiality”, that’s doing their job. Because as I mentioned before, religion has no place in justice.
Given that nearly 1/3 of the population is not even xtian, that’d be pretty wild. And that’s before, as you point out, you start considering other sects.
And any actually faithful Christian should call for her recusal as well, since she’s clearly just using religion to justify her lack of impartiality, since the Bible very specifically states that the rules of God do not override the rules of the land and Christians should follow the Bible without either breaking the local laws or by trying to change them.
A lot of Christians will. Evangelicals though. It’s insane to me how Evangelicals will be the first to judge all Muslims for something like ISIS and then turn around and essentially want “Christian Sharia” in their own town. It’s projection really. They want strict interpretation of religious laws but just for the laws that favor the existing structures of hierarchy.
Of course its some Texas asshole
Texas is a deathcult desperately trying to fool people into thinking it is only just another shithole drowning in cruelty.
they lure naive/stupid non rich people to thier state with the promise of no income tax.
Why can’t you just let people be happy?
She has been arguing that, as a Christian
That’s why
Great news! Her bitch ass doesn’t have to marry a woman! Your fucken non-problem is solved you galaxy class cunt
Now Judge Hensley, who has also refused to perform marriages for same-sex couples since Obergefell was decided, is asking federal courts to end marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Apparently she already refuses to but it needs to be applied to everyone forcibly! Truly the land of the free that Americans keep telling everyone it is
Dont you get it, the fact that she can be asked is clearly targeted harassment against her as a Christian!
sigh
I wish I had a way to accurately convey how much I loathe this trash.
galaxy class cunt
This wretch can’t even sniff constitution class, let alone galaxy class.
I would like to ask the federal courts to end texas judges nationwide.
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
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
By that “logic,” no federal court finding is valid.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If your religion overrides your ability to judge fairly, then you cannot uphold your duty as a judge and should step down.
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.
How dare these uppity broads thinking they can just leave anytime I have one too many drinks and have to show her whose boss.
/s
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
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
