Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It shouldn't be interesting at all. So long as the judge opts out of all marriages, I don't see what the problem is, especially considering there are other judges in that area who are still willing to perform marriages.
Did you miss this part?
Quote:
That decision led to an ethics investigation by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness, Korten said.
I totally agree with you, and I think most reasonable people would. Sadly, not everyone is reasonable.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The ethics investigation should begin and end at ascertaining if his decision reflects on his ability to perform the duties he IS required to perform in a rational and IMPARTIAL manner.
Should he ever be occasioned to preside over any other type of case involving a same sex relationship and his impartiality is seen to be suspect or open to challenge by anyone; plaintiff, respondant, or state.......oooopsy.
It shouldn't be interesting at all. So long as the judge opts out of all marriages, I don't see what the problem is, especially considering there are other judges in that area who are still willing to perform marriages.
Exactly.
Sounds like it was a slow news day for this to even be considered an issue.
The ethics investigation should begin and end at ascertaining if his decision reflects on his ability to perform the duties he IS required to perform in a rational and IMPARTIAL manner.
Should he ever be occasioned to preside over any other type of case involving a same sex relationship and his impartiality is seen to be suspect or open to challenge by anyone; plaintiff, respondant, or state.......oooopsy.
Nope! A lawyer with some guile and agenda can manipulate this judge's declaration in any number and manner of ways later.
Let him preside, knowing his position regarding the legality of gay marriages as opposed to his willingness to officiate at one, over some case with minimal involvement by a homosexual element then later challenge his decision (if unfavourable) based upon his "supposed" previously declared bias.
Today's justice system is so complex regarding these little nuances, his standing upon his moral imperatives today will cause him and others some complications tomorrow.
If other judges are available to perform marriages, I don't think there's a problem. I'm gay but I think the media blows these situations way out of proportion.
The media is the mouthpiece of the left and it is they who cry the loudest about that which matters least.
Wow, must have been a slow news day. File this one under "so what?". I don't agree with his prejudices, but near as I can tell this is a decision he has every right to make.
Wow, must have been a slow news day. File this one under "so what?". I don't agree with his prejudices, but near as I can tell this is a decision he has every right to make.
Yep.
This judge did not take a government post of which part of the job description is performing marriages.
This story is about as newsworthy as BOSTON FIREFIGHTER DOESN'T ISSUE HUNTING LICENSES, or ARIZONA DMV REFUSING TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.