What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Judge refuses to perform gay marriages. Sets up fund. (1 Viewer)

NorvilleBarnes

Footballguy
This one is a little different than Kim Davis.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/09/oregon_judge_refuses_to_perfor.html

Marion County Circuit Judge Vance Day, a former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, took steps Thursday to create a legal defense fund in an apparent response to his decision not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Day took action because of what he described as "deeply-held religious beliefs," KGW reported.

"It's an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment," Day spokesman Patrick Korten told the news station.

In recent months, Day has not performed any marriage ceremonies, KGW reported. His courtroom is in Salem.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted unanimously Thursday to approve Day's request to establish a legal defense fund.

Day noted in an affidavit signed Aug. 19 that he was seeking to establish the fund to defray legal expenses in connection with inquiries by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability involving allegations of violations of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct and the Oregon Constitution.

"These legal expenses arose by virtue of, and were related to, my service as an Oregon Circuit Judge," Day wrote in the affidavit.

He acknowledged in the affidavit that he is bound by provisions of state law that spell out the establishment, administration and termination of legal expense trusts.

State law allows public officials to set up such trusts to collect money for their legal defense in a variety of circumstances, including investigations brought by public bodies.

It was not immediately clear whether Day was under investigation.

Oregon law allows a wide range of officiants at marriage ceremonies. Among those allowed to conduct such proceedings, known in legal parlance as "solemnizing" the marriage, are state judges, federal judges (including magistrates), county clerks and religious congregations.

The judge didn't return messages from The Oregonian/OregonLive for comment.

The Marion Circuit Court website lists six judges available to perform weddings: four Circuit judges among the current roster of 14, one retired Circuit judge and a Municipal Court judge.

It also includes this disclaimer: "This list is informational only and does not guarantee that a particular judge will be available to perform any particular wedding ceremony."

-- Bryan Denson

 
So, solemnizing a wedding ceremony is a discretionary function, and one which he no longer performs for anyone regardless of gender identification?

 
I have no idea what the law is on this. If judges are allowed to perform marriages but aren't obligated to do so, then I have no problem with this.

 
I think whether you do weddings is optional, however, if you choose to do them you must do them for anyone. You can't pick and choose.

 
I have no idea what the law is on this. If judges are allowed to perform marriages but aren't obligated to do so, then I have no problem with this.
I think one of the problems *may* be that he used to perform marriages and now he stopped. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like it could have some of his rulings vulnerable to an appeal if a defendants homosexuality or religion was part of a case and he appears to be biased. Kudos to him for referring applicants to other judges and not ordering his staff to follow his own religious beliefs as Kim Davis did.

Other than that, I thought it was amusing that he used to be the chairman of the Oregon GOP and that he immediately set up a defense fund. It will be interesting to see what the allegations of misconduct are.

 
I want to know what happens to any unspent money in his defense fund. That is the key question. Because judges aren't required to officiate and there are a lot of other judges available who will. So it seems unlikely to lead to a long court fight and I sense a money grab.

 
I think whether you do weddings is optional, however, if you choose to do them you must do them for anyone. You can't pick and choose.
And it looks like the judge agrees with this philosophy, as he has refused to perform ANY marriages since before gay marriage was legalized.Should be the end of the thread but I doubt it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think whether you do weddings is optional, however, if you choose to do them you must do them for anyone. You can't pick and choose.
And it looks like the judge agrees with this philosophy, as he has refused to perform ANY marriages since before gay marriage was legalized.Should be the end of the thread but I doubt it.
If he stopped officiating all marriages, it should be fine and not his legal obligation. But if he's doing any, that's a problem.Eta: so yeah, seems we're all in agreement here. Where's tim to stir it up?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great to hear. We just have to sustain enough momentum until we get Trump in office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was kind of hokey that the citizens got to vote on gay marriage. I know plenty of people when would had voted that down.

 
Eminence said:
Rayderr said:
Eminence said:
You can't force people who have given their life to faith to start disobeying it.
True. It's up to those people to choose careers that will not require them to disobey their faith.
I'm arguing for a grandfather clause and apologies to anyone who was sent to jail.
How would this work exactly?

Suppose you would have supported a grandfather clause for slave owners too?

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
So, solemnizing a wedding ceremony is a discretionary function, and one which he no longer performs for anyone regardless of gender identification?
I think it depends on the state. A lot of judges are required to perform ceremonies during the hours of operation of the courthouse unless otherwise occupied with time-sensitive court business.
 
Joe Summer said:
James%2520Bond said:
I think whether you do weddings is optional, however, if you choose to do them you must do them for anyone. You can't pick and choose.
And it looks like the judge agrees with this philosophy, as he has refused to perform ANY marriages since before gay marriage was legalized.Should be the end of the thread but I doubt it.
Well the article implies the allegations are related to gay marriages - but it's possible they're completely unrelated.

But if he's doing this for "deeply held religious" views, does that mean ALL of his rulings are lined up with this? Are there times he's guided by this instead of the law?

 
Eminence said:
Rayderr said:
Eminence said:
You can't force people who have given their life to faith to start disobeying it.
True. It's up to those people to choose careers that will not require them to disobey their faith.
I'm arguing for a grandfather clause and apologies to anyone who was sent to jail.
How would this work exactly? Suppose you would have supported a grandfather clause for slave owners too?
This is not an apt comparison. Nothing about owning a slave deals with religious rights.

Anyone who has the ability to marry had the option not to marry gays. Anybody wants to gain the ability to marry and make a career of it will be forced to marry them.

Don't run people out of their life's work because of a sudden change of litigation. Maybe these people would have chosen different careers had they known they'd be forced to do something against their religion to keep a job.

 
Eminence said:
Rayderr said:
Eminence said:
You can't force people who have given their life to faith to start disobeying it.
True. It's up to those people to choose careers that will not require them to disobey their faith.
I'm arguing for a grandfather clause and apologies to anyone who was sent to jail.
How would this work exactly? Suppose you would have supported a grandfather clause for slave owners too?
This is not an apt comparison. Nothing about owning a slave deals with religious rights.Anyone who has the ability to marry had the option not to marry gays. Anybody wants to gain the ability to marry and make a career of it will be forced to marry them.

Don't run people out of their life's work because of a sudden change of litigation. Maybe these people would have chosen different careers had they known they'd be forced to do something against their religion to keep a job.
Things change. Deal with it.

Did I miss where this judge can no longer make a living?

 
This is not an apt comparison. Nothing about owning a slave deals with religious rights.

Anyone who has the ability to marry had the option not to marry gays. Anybody wants to gain the ability to marry and make a career of it will be forced to marry them.

Don't run people out of their life's work because of a sudden change of litigation. Maybe these people would have chosen different careers had they known they'd be forced to do something against their religion to keep a job.
:lol:

 
Eminence said:
Rayderr said:
Eminence said:
You can't force people who have given their life to faith to start disobeying it.
True. It's up to those people to choose careers that will not require them to disobey their faith.
I'm arguing for a grandfather clause and apologies to anyone who was sent to jail.
How would this work exactly?Suppose you would have supported a grandfather clause for slave owners too?
This is not an apt comparison. Nothing about owning a slave deals with religious rights.

Anyone who has the ability to marry had the option not to marry gays. Anybody wants to gain the ability to marry and make a career of it will be forced to marry them.

Don't run people out of their life's work because of a sudden change of litigation. Maybe these people would have chosen different careers had they known they'd be forced to do something against their religion to keep a job.
FYI, many southerners entire life's work up until the civil war was entirely dependent on slavery. Slave owners wanted an exemption too...

 
Eminence said:
You can't force people who have given their life to faith to start disobeying it.
I'm sure you are just :fishing: , but I will remention what I brought up in the other thread. (A quote I read somewhere, adjusted for this thread)

No one's being jailed for practicing their own religion. Someone's being jailed for using the government to force others to practice their (the gov't official) religion.
 
Eminence said:
Great to hear. We just have to sustain enough momentum until we get Trump in office.
Trump.thinks the idiot clerk is right where she belongs and has said so. The Evangelicals supporting Trump are so hilarious.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top