An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex couples can also wed.
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker explained her decision Tuesday at a monthly meeting for the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.
“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said, according to the Dallas Voice, a newspaper for the gay community.
Parker told the audience that while she refuses to conduct the ceremonies, she explains her reasoning to the couples and passes them along to another judge.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage equality in the state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” she said.
... "it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it,” she added.
Same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas.
Here is some local TV coverage of the comments she made:
You can watch a more complete video of Judge Parker's comments here.
72 Comments
That's her choice, she's free to make it I guess. I don't agree with it, but as long as people can still get what they need done, I don't see a problem with it.
It takes all kinds doesn't it?
Maybe they can find a place for her where she won't be faced with the issue of marriage if it bothers her. I hate subjecting people to her speeches though. Politely declining is different than using your office to preach.
Exactly how does the good judge know the couple is "heterosexual?" Do they have to divulge their sexual orientation? For all she knows, they're both gay. It's not like there's a prohibition on a gay man marrying a gay woman. So much for good judgement, and blind justice. Identity politics knows no integrity. She's not against heterosexual couples--she's against opposite-sexed couples. But this affects the rights of a gay individual to get married by her.
I'm guessing she alienates more people than she converts. And I wouldn't trust any of her decisions b/c she wears her politics on her sleeve.
Good point.
She gives new meaning to activist judges...
But thinks for the heads up, that way Texans can avoid her like the plague..
If she cant do her job. Then, She needs to be fired.
"If she cant do her job. Then, She needs to be fired."
Where have I heard that before???
So familiar....
Question: If two heterosexual women came to her asking to get married, would she perform the civil service? Hmmmmmm. The quandary.
As Daughter of Eve points out, she can't a priori know a person's orientation, but she can decide she doesn't like traditional, i.e., heterosexual marriage.
I am enough of a libertarian to say that I'm OK with this. After all, if her conscience doesn't allow this and if there are others willing to perform marriages, then she should opt out of performing the ceremony.
Is she any different than the NYS Clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? I am not sure. I only know NOM vigorously defended the NYS clerk. I think though, that anyone who violates the law and does not do the job they are required to perform should seriously consider leaving their job.
*IS* it violating the law to act in accordance with your beliefs? If this judge's religious beliefs prevent her from doing this small part of her job, I am not aware that this breaks any laws. I appreciate NOM for pointing out that everyone has the right to believe and act in accordance with those beliefs... even if we disagree.
She is different. Her job doesn't require that she perform marriages. She can do it or not, as she prefers. In NYS, a county clerk is required to issue marriage licenses as part of her job duties. If you don't want to do your job, then quit. This judge does her job. Performing marriages is not a requirement, it's an add-on.
So let me get this straight Rene.... if you disagree with them then they're required to do it by law, if you happen to like what they're doing, they can choose?
Um, arbitrary much? Bias for breakfast?
Andrew and beetlebabee pulled out of reserve. TC Mathews hyper-posting. And posts from the pro-equality side being blocked or deleted. NOM in dispair.
I agree with Publius. But I maintain that the judge's obvious political bias is making her look foolish--not judicious.
hahaha. You are a hoot Will. The trouble with ssmers is they have a hard time staying on topic. Keep it on topic and polite, you'll do fine.
This is fine. Pointless if you ask me but whatever.
Just remember, if it this were a straight judge who denied a marriage liscence to homosexual couples the mountain of lawsuits would stand taller than Mt Everest.
Actually, Will, I feel quite cheerful.
Still as the saying goes...don't mess with Texas judge. : )
Rene is just trying to use her thinking as a excuse, So this woman can discriminate againts others at will. This judge is lucky that I am married, Because if my wife and I were engage and about to get married. We might make a trip to Texas and force her to marry us and if she doesnt. Sue her for everything she has and if she doesnt like it. Then, Maybe she should have never thought about discriminating againts others and not doing her job either.
@ TC Matthews
No, Rene is correct on this one. The NYS clerks ran into trouble because their beliefs prevented them from doing their jobs. It isn't her job to perform wedding ceremonies, so she can't be fired for it.
Although I am pro-gay marriage, I feel Judge Parker is abusing her power by making opposite-sex couples suffer because of her own personal objections. I wouldn't mind if she were forced to resign, but she cannot be fired.
I would hope that all public officials entitled (at least if not speficially required) to perform marriages in states where SSM is legal will refuse to perform any marriages as long as SSM remains legal there.There is no point to marriage if it is not exclusively opposite-sex.
I think reasonable allowances can be made for people to accommodate their beliefs. I agree, it's distasteful for her to use her office to preach, as someone said earlier, but beyond that, it's just common courtesy to give people a little room, just like you'd make allowances for someone who had a handicap or other issue. We're all human, we're all different. That's ok.
Wow. When did the "equality" crowd get so hard nosed?
This person is acting as a citizen and NOT as a jidge. She wants to make her case by abusing her government job. Like any citizen she can come to public enues such as this blogsite and make her case.
Before she starts telling people what is right and wrong she needs to start With the basics that underlie her political pose and her SSM argumentation.
1. Same sex sexual behavor is immoral. If she would make a moral argument about right and wrong then she can start with her moral counter argument.
The born that way assertion is not an argument on right and wrong. She needs much more.
If she has no moral argument then she disqualifies the plea for moral neutrality. She probably cannot give a sound argument to support te underlying assumption that same sex sexual behavior is morally correct. We'll see.
2. If SSM would have no legal requirement for same sex sexual behavior then she needs to make her legal argument on some other basis than stuff that is not legally required. If SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship at law then she needs to find a different basis for complaining about the marriage law.
If she puts on the table her underlying assumption is that SSM would be a sexual type of relationship under the law then she needs to return to item 1.
3. She needs to state the essentials of the type of relationship she has in mind when complaining that she as a citizen cannot marry. She will probably need to return to item 1 and proceed with this question of righ and wrong types of relationships.
4. She needs to give her best reason for drawing a line against the types of relationships that are neither marriage nor SSM. This is about types of relationships and not sexual orientation.
Again she will probably need to get items 1 to 4 sorted out before jumping on this item. No skipping.
5.She needs to give her reason for elevating gay identity politics to the favored status that was once reserved for the supremacy of white identity politics. If that is the basis for her complaint and for her case to redefine marriage law then let's put it on the table for frank discussion.
If gay identity is not the basis of her complaint nor the basis of her proposed remedy then she had best keep gay identity out of her rhetoric
If she is up for a virtual tete-a-tete then this is the stuff she needs to dicuss. No queer theory gibberish. No blathering about a right to something she needs to first define and defend. No free passes for her just because of identity politics. Whatever her claims each of them must be tested by the very same terms of argumentation that she would depend on when attacking the marriage law.
Until she gets these basics done she has no moral nor intellectual basis for preaching about what is not right or wrong. I doubt she can get past items 1 and 2 without sleight of hand.
If she wants to make this personal ... as her tactics indicate she wants a direct encounter e ... then she can come here or she can meet me at Opine Editorials and take her time to put forth her best possible arguments.
Chairm Ohn
The Opine Editorials
As Rene pointed out, NY county clerks are REQUIRED to issue marriage licenses as part of their job. This Texas judge is ALLOWED to perform marriages, but not REQUIRED to do so as part of her job. See the difference? It's that nagging problem called the law.
Who'd would want to be married by a queer, anyway? Ask her to officiate and you don't get a marriage ceremony - you get a sermon that implies you are a bigot. Is there a shortage of 'justice of the peace'? Not.
This shows the problem of Judges like V. Walker and this lesbian, they don't serve anyone's interest except their own. They don't uphold their respective constitutions and instead, want to confer special rights upon themselves and their fellow extremists.
@ NOM moderators
In the past some of my longer, more thought-out posts in the past have been delayed by your website's filter. I can only assume this filter was put in place to block out offensive and hateful language. So to see comments like Little Man's
and M. Jones'
I can't help but feel enraged.
There is no excuse for this kind of language in any forum. Terms like "queer" are not-anti-gay, they are hateful slurs. They have driven people to depression and suicide. As moderators, it is your job to make sure people do not use slurs when posting comments. Please remove these posts and make sure they do not occur again. Thank you.
Spunky
This marriage equality issue really has you religionists riled up! What's the big deal, really? Why do you care so much what total strangers do in the privacy of their anonymous lives?
Spunky, are you concerned about all uses of the words or really just the use of them by someone who disagrees with you about something? I bet if you asked the judge she would have no problem being described as a lesbian. But you have a problem so please explain it.
I am really curious about your reasoning.
You couldnt have said it any better M Jones. These judges are only out for themselves and who cares about anyone else.
Spunky, I happen to notice that there is a poster going by the name of QueerNE. Should he/she be blocked as well? Is that also offensive?
@ Chairm, TC Matthews
I can't believe I have to explain this. But here it is:
I object to the term when it is used as a pejorative way to reference gay people.
Was spunky's clarification enough, or do you still not get it? Was "pejorative" confusing? If you have any questions as to spunky's explanation validity, those of us in here who are homosexual would be more than happy to expand on spunky's information so you can understand what spunky meant. Unless, of course, you just don't want to.
Pervert: a unusual, or abnormal sexual act that is habitual; to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt
Corrupt: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to degrade with unsound principles or moral values
Miscreant: a person who does something that is illegal or morally wrong
Unsound: not healthy or whole; not mentally normal : not wholly sane; not valid or true
Depraved: marked by corruption or evil; especially: perverted
Heathen: uncivilized, unenlightened, Godless
Immoral: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Decadent: marked by decay or decline; characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence
Miscreant: unbelieving, heretical, depraved, villainous
Sociopath: someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior
Pathology: deviation giving rise to social ills
Proclivity: an inclination or predisposition toward something; especially: a strong inherent inclination toward something objectionable
Looks like you are going to have to redefine a lot more words Spunky, but a rose by any other name...
Now you have to worry about the fact that the judiciary is starting to rule against your rediculous assertions for want of a clear and concise discriptive of your proclivty; to the extent that your own "expert" witnesses cannot agree upon the definitions of the words: Gay, Homosexual, Identity, Innate, immutable...
Spunky, are you the source for that quote? If not, why did you make an appeal to authority without citing that authority?
I expect that you did so because you think that the prototypical lesbian is authoritative because she self-identifies as a lesbian.
The judge is a lesbian, she announced, and that is the reason she would lecture others, she said, on right and wrong. Her authority to do this is the authority to which your quote appealed.
Queer is an umbrella term according to your quoted text. Is she or is she not a lesbian and thus a queer?Given your own response, and her own remarks, is she os is she not relying on thes self-claimed identities to do what she has promised to do? Yes.
That self-referential approach indicates a deep problem in her (and your) view about right and wrong and about marriage law.
If calling people by the names they have claimed for themselves is wrong, because they sayso, then their judo-by-lexicon is not such a bright idea. It is really a power grab. Just like the demand that marriage is to be gutted and in place of its core meaning the gay identity group gets t pour into the hollowed out word the supremacy of their identity politics.
The judge is invited to deal forthrightly with items 1 through 5 in my earlier comment. As are you and other SSMers.
If she had planned to ambush brides and grooms, then, she had best prepare herself with better rasoning than the old standvy, "Because I sayso."
She can choose not to perform weddings but she wants to abuse brides and grooms. That is her choice, too, and she has got her PR moment. But she announced that she will complain and reclaim wedding as her platform to namecall.
Note that she would probably object to a "straight" person ... a ridicuous label that the gay identity group uses on others ... lecturing "gay" couples who'd SSM. And I do not expect reciprocity ... the very opposite occured in Canada.
All good for you in terms of right and wrong, Spunky?
The few rogue New York clerks are required to issue marriage licenses and will only issue them to hetero sexual couples (bogoted, abusing their office, should be fired), this judge is not required to perform marriages and does not to so for anyone. (Equality minded). It isnt discrimination to treat different things differently, These two things are different.
The office of the clerk is required to issues liscenses; much like the office of the judiciary is required to perform civil marriage cermonies. The employees of these public offices are each afforded the apportunity to have these tasks assigned to a fellow employee.
Afterall; it is not as if the lines for joke marriages are out the door and around the corner.
As finally pointed out by Reformed, another KEY difference here between this judge and the NY clerks, is that she is not performing ANY marriages, where the Clerks were saying " we will only perform marriages that we personally approve of. "
Also it is for the cause of greater inclusiveness and a belief and understanding of what is constitutionally required, not the cause of discrimination and what ones religion dictates.
My source was the Free Dictionary by Farlex, which I did cite. The word "here" was a hyperlink to the definition and usage note. So the next two paragraphs are irrelevant.
In the definition of "queer," the noun form is always considered derogatory. Am I splitting hairs? No; this is often the case. It's why words like "retard," "hermaphrodite," and "cripple" are considered offensive labels while their adjective forms are not as bad (although still offensive to some).
The concept of "offensive labels" is the same reason I take offense to M. Jones' remark, even though he uses the term "lesbian." The way he uses it is not to refer to her sexuality, but rather to label Judges Walker and Parker as irrational and unprofessional. They're not capable of making good decisions. They're LESBIANS! This kind of labeling implies that their gayness is somehow a cause of their "selfishness," and that every gay person is like this. Aside from being bigoted, it is of course incorrect.
And again,I object to pejorative labels of gay people.
The rest of your post just reiterates your previous argument. I'm not sure why you're doing this, since we both oppose Judge Parker's actions and agree she is abusing her power as a judge.
The bottom line to all of this madness is that homosexuality is a behavior NOT a state of being. It is an unnatural sex act between two people that is an abomination before God. We are living in a world that is vigorously declaring that it is a natural sexual behavior when the very act itself produces very unhealthy and life threatening health issues. Talk to doctors and surgeons who provide care to these people. No matter how many laws are passesd in this world to permit same sex marriage, it will never and is eternally unable to be equal to heterosexual marriage. So gays, pass your laws. Your way of living will never prevail in human society. THERE IS NO EQUALITY between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. I sincerely pray that all of you come into the knowledge of Truth. Jesus went to Cavalry to die for you and me nailing our sins to the cross to set us free. But His Work doesn't end there. He rose from death in victory into Heaven bringing us deliverance from any sin or bondage. He took our sins upon Him and gave us His Righteousness engrafting us back into the family of God. Gay people, by having these laws passed for same sex marriage, you are being deceived and duped into living a lie by the Devil. The Devil hates God and His prize creation, the human race. The Devil can't create and is why he has infused homosexuality into the imagination of mankind. God creates and is The Creator, hence He created heterosexuality. To all living things God said to "be fruitful and multiply" Homosexuality can't produce, but hetrosexuality can. Gay people, you will ultimately lose in the end if you don't repent. It is not God's Will that ANY man perish, but for ALL to come to complete repentance. I adjure all of you to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior and let Him guide you into theTruth. For Jesus says, "I say only what My Father says."
TT,
The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution stands in opposition to your rediculous assertion that the right of conscience and free exercise thereof is unconstitutional.
@ NOM moderators
Post #31 by Robert contains PEJORATIVE use of the word "religionists".
I object to pejorative labels of *all* people.
Please Remove-- and don't let it happen again.
Spunkmeister
Spunky, do people on your side of the argument not refer to "straights" "breeders" and the like in similar manner? With disdain or disapproval? If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. Which is it?
I would not have chosen to use those words myself, because I choose to be generally more positive, but you cannot force people to always refer to your choices in life in positive ways. The words "Queer" "Gay" and "Lesbian" are used frequently by both sides. If it must be blocked for one, it must be blocked for all.
I would guide you to places where "Queer" and "Lesbian" and "Gay" are used, with even less sociably acceptable terminology--- Run by, of all places, Queerty.com, a popular gay online forum. In scanning the page (I wouldn't recommend it for the casual reader, much of it is pornographic in nature) there were quite a few instances of the use of the word "Queer" and worse. Pejoratively.
Again, I would not have chosen to use those words, but for QueerNE, Queerty, and LittleMan, they seem to think it's fine. Food for thought.
Is it surprising to anyone that ssm is creating conflict with religious liberty?
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington recently signed ssm into law.
She also had a hand in this:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/in-washington-state-a-victory-for-conscience
Is it mere coincidence that the vast majority of people who support ssm are anti-religious freedom?
It makes me a little angry that this judge would defy the law this way. I can understand her having a problem with some things she doesn't agree with, but really, she comes off as quite offensive.
Good point AM. It's like they want to control the conversation. It's ok for them to say and do things, but it's not ok for us. Is that really equality?
In this instance the only marriages that this jurist can officiate over are traditional marriages; so claiming the jurist is not discriminating is disengenuous because her stated rational for not performing marriages is that she is forbidden by law from officiating over marriages she personally approves of.
@ Spunkmeister
"Religionist" is not a pejorative term. People never shouted the word "religionist" when brutally murdering religious zealots. I wish the same were true for the word "queer." If, however, the moderators feel Robert was using it pejoratively, then they should remove his post.
@ Andrew
No, I don't like the term "breeders" either, as it is a pejorative term for a straight person. I also don't like the word "straights" being used in a derogatory way (e.g.: that's the problem with Judge Scalia and those other straights, they only think of themselves). And I'm not going to visit every website where people are saying offensive things. I saw some unacceptable language here and so I will address it here.
Yet again, please stop comparing QueerNE's use to Little Man's. I've already discussed this.
I love this. I have no problem condemning offensive and hateful words, even when pro-gay people are saying it. But no one here can even admit that Little Man and M. Jones said anything wrong, much less admonish them for it. Shame on all of you.
"People never shouted the word "religionist" when brutally murdering religious zealots. I wish the same were true for the word "queer.""
While it's true that many people have been persecuted and even died for their beliefs, no one group has the corner on that distinction. Gays persecute and are persecuted, as are Muslims, Christians and nearly every other group or association of people. People aren't perfect, they're flawed. Sometimes ugly things happen, but not just to you or the ones you love. "Religionists" may not be a term that is widely used, but people of faith are often spit upon verbally. It happens to all of us.
I think the words people use reflect on them. I notice that they don't block the terms "hateful" and "bigot" even though it is nearly always used negatively against people who believe in marriage.
Freedom of speech is a two edged sword.
Goodness gracious JS.
It is funny that you would think that gay people (I often use "people" after every descriptive adjective) are trying to make any sort of lifestyle prevalent in human society. They simply want to be treated with dignity and respect and equal treatment of the law.
Being gay is not a behavior, it is as deeply an ingrained identity and understanding of who one is as is being straight. Knowing who you are from some of the earliest childhood memories, gay people want kids who identify or will identify as gay to grow up in a world where they know they are as valuable and worthy as anyone else, and treated as full first class citizens.
You are welcome to determine what it is that god wants for you in your own personal life, but that is for each individual in their own personal relationship with god to come to an understanding of. It is not your nor anyone elses place or duty to tell others what it is god wants for them.
Stop praying that god does YOUR will, and start praying that his will is done, whatever that may be, whether you understand what that is or not. And do not automatically assume that you do know what his will is. The Bible is NOT the be all end all of his will, and you should not assume that you have the correct interpretation regardless. Least of all an interpretation that fits all people in all places in all eras.
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Benjamin Franklin
Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
"Homosexuality" is a religion, as is "Secularism." The question is which faith are our laws, history, and traditions based on?
Hint:
The wall facing the Speaker Of The House contains a relief of Moses handing down the Ten Commandments to nine Supreme Court Justices - the source of our laws.
The laws of nature and natures God were intended to constrain judicial passions.
I just like to see a lesbian or gay in public office that didn't focus solely on promoting their own agenda.
TT, quit trying to make divisions among people. We're all the same race, all the same people. Unique, but not estranged. The voice of the people dictates law. If you want to change law, convince the people, don't try to shame them for having ideas different than yours. Throwing disdain around as a weapon isn't the best use of your efforts, and is only convincing to the weak who succumb to peer pressure rather than rational thought and belief. I never understood what meaning it has for some people to go around with a "second class" label on their foreheads. You don't see Ron Paul followers running around with stickers on their foreheads or duct tape across their mouths when their ideas are not convincing enough to win elections. Buck up and get better arguments if you want to change the laws. As it is, you're just not that convincing, and I resent the God slamming all the time from your side of the issue. Respect goes both ways.
"I just like to see a lesbian or gay in public office that didn't focus solely on promoting their own agenda."
True. She doesn't sound like a very judicial person to me. I wonder if they can vote her out, or if they're stuck with a lifetime appointment.
Spunky, you linked to a page with many definitions and many sources. You did no attribute the quote to the actual source.
But, as I said and as your subsequent remarks attested, the quote relied on the self-referential claim that identity politics dictates the use of these common words.
Even at that you are simply mistaken. These terms are often used as non-prejoritave nouns and not merely as adjectives by the very people who have claimed special ownership of the words and the use of these words.
You go so far as to assert that someone used theses words offensively because by your reckoning that person's sexual orientation ... or identity ... is the real issue. Do you not see the problem in your attempt to police comments based on identity politics?
I have not condoned disparaging use of such words. But you want to begin with the false claim that such use took place earlier. And that claim is based on your reflexive feeling that the straight commenter (you explicitly presumed straightness as intrinsic to the offense) misused words that are reserved for use by the selected or rather the self-selected.
Point is that you made an appeal to the authority that is self-referential and then posed as if to merely question your claim and appeal to authority is to add yet more offense to what you perceived or imagined in the first place.
You did this to try to shame people even as you would seek a higher level of civility here because you felt that someone was trying to insult. You explained your thinking and I take it at face value.
Why are doing this? See items 1 through 5 in my earlier comment. Her sociopolitical identity is irrelevant to officiating weddings ... but she would press identity politics into it. As would you in your metacommentary.
Back to the actual topic: if a self-described lesbian thinks it is oxymoronic to perform weddings (her term and her usage) in the way she described in her quoted comments, then, she can try to make her case now that she has had her PR moment.
Or someone else with insight into this kind of thinking might give it a try.
How would it be oxymoronic to perform the officiating at a wedding of bride and groom?How would her performance be considered an an oxymoron?
Maybe she will reclaim the adjective and the noun forms of the word and reframe its usage too.
So if I'm a single guy, say paraplegic or something, with no practical hopes for marriage.... can I refrain from performing marriages as well?
Does the job come with it's own soap box?
@ Chairm
If the Free Dictionary isn't a good e ough source for you, then I don't know what to tell you.
As for who uses disparaging terms, I'm offended no matter who uses the term, as long as the meaning is the same. If gay people want to use it in a pejorative way, I will voice my displeasure. As long as you refer to gay people as "queers" you are stating that your hatred for gay people. That's what slurs mean, and that's why I get so offended.
Oh, and Little Man, the next time you want to make a point, be a man about it and use your real handle. It makes you look credible. Words like "queer" do not.
I'm done talking about this.
I'd love to know what Spunkmeister, aka Little Man, has to say about his choice of words.
TT,the law should penalize the formation and maintenance of same-sex sexual relationships,and treat all people equally in doing so."Being gay" is a misunderstanding of homosexuality that can not excuse homosexual activity because nothing can.A weakness for a bad habit is not "who you are".
She's an elected official,not sure of term length or susceptibility to recall or gerrymandering of her district.
To 'The Truth'
You are clearly wrong. The Bible IS the 'be all end all' for all of the people throughout the earth. God is Alpha and Omega, The First and The Last. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle of My Word will pass away." thus sayeth the Lord. He created life. But God and His Word need not be defended. It stands on its own and has withstood the arguments and intellect of man throughout time. It is God's Will that I seek and not my own. Gay people just have a difficult time accepting what He says in His Word about their way of life. Just always remember that God loves you in spite of yourself and before you leave this earth, I hope and pray that you receive Jesus in the pardoning of your sins. Jesus has paid in full the debt of all of your sins with His life. Now that's true Love!
Spunky
I disagree that the term "religionist" is not pejorative.
The dictionary definition you link to defines it as a a "zealot" which carries the connotation of extremism or fanaticism.
Several of the ssm supporters that comment here use it regularly along with "hater" and "bigot".
-----
Moderation of a blog is somewhat of an art.
I am grateful to NOM for providing a forum for pro-marriage supporters and to the moderators for keeping the pro-ssm (who obsessively troll any and all blogs that are pro-marriage) from taking over the comment threads.
JS said:
The bottom line to all of this madness is that homosexuality is a behavior NOT a state of being. It is an unnatural sex act between two people that is an abomination before God. We are living in a world that is vigorously declaring that it is a natural sexual behavior when the very act itself produces very unhealthy and life threatening health issues. Talk to doctors and surgeons who provide care to these people. No matter how many laws are passesd in this world to permit same sex marriage, it will never and is eternally unable to be equal to heterosexual marriage. So gays, pass your laws. Your way of living will never prevail in human society. THERE IS NO EQUALITY between homosexual couples and heteosexual couples.
Very well put and of course this behavior was freely chosen by them. It is a choice they made and not born with.
Carefull folks.
Whenever these miscreants consider that they may have chose to do that thing they do they tend to take themselves out.
"it is one of the few ways where man can sin against himself."
Just saying...
AM: "Moderation of a blog is somewhat of an art. I am grateful to NOM for providing a forum for pro-marriage supporters and to the moderators for keeping the pro-ssm (who obsessively troll any and all blogs that are pro-marriage) from taking over the comment threads."
Amen. If the moderators were to let them, SSMers would swamp this page with obnoxious posts and insults. Thankfully, the moderators have created a nice place for supporters to dialogue, while some dissenting commenters are tolerated.
NOM learned to do a little moderation on their facebook page, where the SSMers once dominated and actually began to think it was their page. They do an ok job of deleting trolls, who obsessively create new pages to come on.
Walker exemplified a type of judge who put his personal policy preference ahead of his judicial obligations on this particular issue.
Parker has promised to do the same in "'her court'. That is what they have in common. That is the context for what M Jones said in comment #29 -- the comment to which Spunky objected.
That objection expressly relied on identity politics. First in assuming that the commenter must be "straight". That label was assigned on the convenient assumption (whether true or false or undetermed) that the objection was overshadowed by the supposed identity group of the person voicing the objection.
Spunky might agree that the content of the objection is not intrinsically offensive -- afterall Spunky's own stated view of Parker's behavior is also less than favorable.
What is the basis for the complaint? That a "straight"person must conform to a speech code that does not apply to the judge in question. Not apply because the judge has authority due to her membership in an identity group. The asymmetry is inherent in the complaint.
Judge Parker's misuse of the public office is reminisent of Mayor Newsom's misuse of the mayoral office in San Francisco on this very issue. Newsom regularly referred to "gays and lesbians" as did his legal representation in courtrooms where the judges also made ample use of the noun forms.
Presumably the use of these words is not in itself pejorative. The identity of the speaker is not automatically cause for complaint. And the content of a comment is not automatically pejorative just because the commenter uses these words or objects to misuse of the judicial office. An inference of ill will is a stretch.
Comment #29 does not use these words pejoratively. Spunky mispercieved rather too readily. The next step was for Spunky to attempt to shame others by extension.
That is much the same ploy of Judge Parker whose identity politics is at the root of the story and, unsurprisingly, at the root of Spunky's complaint about comment #29.
A soiopolitical identity is not a sexual feeling nor a sexual behavior nor a sexual orientation. Parker is not unable to marry.
Her claimed identity group does not grant her special status to chide others. But that too is part of Parker's political ploy.
Make no mistake --she is misusing her job as judge to make a political statement. Again that she has in common with Walker.
So back to PARKER's transparent publicity stunt.
Parker needs to explain what she meant by her reference to oxymoron. SSMers who think they understand what she meant might take a shot at explaining her remark.
Oxymoron. Explain her usage.
Regarding civility in the public discourse on the conflict of ideas, a good frame of reference is an exerpt of William Bennett's 2003 book that is available at the website of the Claremont Institute.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.313/pub_detail.asp
I don't agree with all of what Mr. Bennett says in his book but I recommend it for the ground it covers and his overall tone.