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.

top 69 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 227 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (19 children)

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?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 132 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality

    [citation needed]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 66 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 53 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Why can’t you just let people be happy?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Of course its some Texas asshole

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Great news! Her bitch ass doesn't have to marry a woman! Your fucken non-problem is solved you galaxy class cunt

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    In a just world she would be disbarred

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why doesn't she get a job at the church if she feels so strongly about it. We don't need her judging people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    As a Christian, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances, and anyone trying to tell me otherwise is oppressing me, no matter what harm that may cause to other people.

    Or, more simply: I deserve special rights and privileges.

    These people are just a lot more obvious in their desire for theocracy now, but the whole Seven Mountains Mandate thing has been around for longer than I've been alive.

    They just want to be Ya'll Qaeda.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    As a Christian, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances

    I know you are being facetious but there is something called presuppositionalism that is gaining steam in the evangelical / Christian nationalist community right now. For most Christians, they try and “prove” their faith through apologetics or their own (incorrect) interpretations of science and history. Some will skip that and say that whether or not Christianity is true is irrelevant, because there’s a “judeo-christian” foundation to our society, so our government should reflect that.

    Presuppositionalism just says “assume Christianity is true”. Presuppositionalist feel no need to prove Christianity is true or even that governance should be democratic. To them, Christianity’s truth is a given that isn’t up for discussion, so the discussion starts around how to make laws that reflect Christianity i.e. a theocracy.

    Take abortion for example. To a presuppositionalist Christian, they don’t have to provide any sort of secular justification as to why it should be outlawed. It is against God’s will, and our God is the true god, so it should be outlawed. If people vote to legalize it, then they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on it.

    Presuppositionalism is also behind all those theobro fascists shouting “Christ is King!” That is a very specific, presuppositionalist statement. Christ is King over the earth to them; it is an assertion they are making and they don’t care about backing that up; they only care about implementing their King’s will on “His” earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I'm either not or barely being facetious.

    I grew up in a family like this.

    Basically, I barely survived developing critical thinking skills.

    Yeah presupp is logically ludicrous, it just flips the burden of proof around on its head.

    And then, it allows anyone to either have their own interpretation of God's word, which thus cannot be challenged, or, God will just 'talk' to them, either by developing a fragmented personality and inner monologue, or 'signs and wonders'...

    They're fucking bonkers, is what I'm trying to say.

    I will 'not all Christians' this, yes, obviously not all of them are this nuts, but whoo boy, many many parts of American Christianity are just in another league, as compared to many other places, when it comes to just serving as an excuse for a personal power trip.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago

    If she feels that religious she should be unbenched and disbarred, as religion is extremely partial and such followers cannot see things outside that lense

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    If your religion overrides your ability to judge fairly, then you cannot uphold your duty as a judge and should step down.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago*

    Wacko, Texastan

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    You want to enforce Christianity? Go be a pastor not a judge, you fucking cunt.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    They’re going to strip abortion rights (done), then LGBTQ2A++ (in progress), then interracial marriage. You know it.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    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

    Leviticus 20:10-16:

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Delulu folk.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    I would like to ask the federal courts to end texas judges nationwide.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    By that "logic," no federal court finding is valid.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I misread the title by missing the word "equality" and was intrigued by the idea of a Texas judge calling for the abolishment of marriage XD

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Alabama tried this back in 2017 with Common Law marriage in response to a number of gay couples attempting to claim it following the 2015 ruling requiring same-sex marriages to be recognized. Now Alabama requires an official court recognition of any marriage. And as a result, a handful of counties have operated in defiance of the Supreme Court by refusing to issue same-sex licenses. Another set have ended the practice of issuing marriage license at all.

    But its not a practical solution, given the amount of legal scholarship surrounding the concept of marriage. Like, marriage and adoption are the two established methods of including two biologically unrelated individuals in the same legal household. There's no other universal interstate mechanism for doing it.

    Incidentally, one historical method of getting around same-sex marriage restrictions for gay couples was for one partner to legally adopt the other as a child. There's a whole host of reasons why this isn't a good legal substitute for marriage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Government should not be involved in marriages.

    These are contracts between citizens. Nothing more. Consenting adults that need a way to manage the outcome if the contract needs to be disolved.

    There is nothing more to do.

    And all citizens are equal, male or female, it doesn't matter because you cannot discriminate who gets to enter into a contract.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Who is going to enforce the terms of the contract, if not the government?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    That's my point. The government manages and arbitrates contracts. Not marriages in the religious sense. And a contract has to apply equally to all citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I think that's how it works now, and has even prior to gay marriage being the law of the land, but the religious busybodies think their particular religion should somehow have a say in what is a government institution (and merely because of cultural inertia, I guess? xtians seem to think they own the very concept of marriage, which is....hilariously provincial, but that's what xtians seem to excel at).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Not marriages in the religious sense.

    Governments don't manage marriages in the religious sense, they manage them in the legal sense. That is, and has always been, the fight wrt same sex marriages.

    And as marriage is the primary way by which two people from different families join together into a new legal family - with a host of legal consequences following that joining of households - you absolutely need marriage overseen by the state, for the same reason you have a host of other legal institutions overseen by the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    They shouldn't though. The only thing they should care about are contracts. You want to get married? Go ahead no one cares. The government shouldn't care. You want to have a method to divide up property allocate for child support, you get a contract. There is a difference.

    Government should encourage people to enter into a legally binding contract for obvious reasons, but they should not care what religion or what sex the people are. Citizen a forms a contract with b. That is all there should be to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    The only thing they should care about are contracts.

    A marriage is a contract.

    The government shouldn’t care.

    As soon as its time to pay taxes, the government cares. When you're declaring ownership/sale of property, the government needs to determine if the re-titling is legal and has to care. Household accumulation and collection of private debts means the government has to care. Knowing legal residency as a result of marriage is a requirement. Knowing the legal parents/guardians of children is under government purview, as is knowing which school district the children are eligible to attend.

    There's so many downstream consequences of marriage, I could hardly list them all.

    they should not care what religion or what sex the people are

    Theocratic governments are naturally going to care about the religious inclinations of their residents and the violation of taboos. And Americans need to recognize that we are absolutely living in a theocracy, at least under certain Christian Dominionist state and national bureaucratic leaders.

    "Well, but we should/shouldn't..." is ultimately a decision left to the voters, and one that can change with every new election cycle. It isn't a moral imperative that overrides legal authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people. Only much later did it become a legal thing, and that still isn't everywhere. Overall, governments have tried to fuck around with transnational, inter racial, same sex, same sect, same community, regionalism, forced, age, arranged etc.

    A broken government is one that interferes with marriage. Next thing you know they are going to start picking and arranging for genetics and other bullshit.

    No. The government should not be involved at that level. A citizen may enter into a contract with the government if they wish. Thats it. I can get married today, and there is no legal bond unless I want one.

    Taxes, ownership of property are all other scenarios, and can be assigned in a freely entered contract.

    Legal residency does not matter and should not matter.

    Perhaps if they have a contract, then they can establish sponsorships. Again, my main point here is citizen a can get a marriage contract as can citizen b. Do not discriminate based on any of the things I mentioned before.

    What school district a child attends is relative to where they live of course, married parents or not.

    I am saying all of this to point out that governments need to treat any citizen the same if they form a contractual union. That is the point Obama trying to get across.

    I can legally marry people. For some of them they involve the government, others don't care.

    A failed government is one that allows some citizens into legally binding contracts but not others based on arbitrary reasons.

    Maybe that helps you see what I am trying to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people.

    Brother, I've got some news for you...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    I can marry people, some went and got the government contract some didn't.

    So marriage is sometimes a contract, but not always.

    It really is a personal and sometimes spiritual thing.

    It is cultural as well.

    The contract part that some governments provide, well that is the point I am making, there should be no discrimination as to who enters it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I can marry people

    When one of the people you married is in a coma in the hospital and the spouse wants to make conscientious medical decisions on the partner's behalf, the hospital will refuse to grant these wishes because these people are not recognized as married by any actual institution that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    You keep focusing on the least interesting part.

    Focus on the fact that two people could be married, and the government STILL doesn't give a shit about your life partner. A contractual marriage must allow ANY consenting adults. Focus on the point that matters! Because the part you are focusing on is NOT the marriage part at all.

    When one of the people you married is in a coma in the hospital and the spouse wants to make conscientious medical decisions on the partner’s behalf, the hospital will refuse to grant these wishes because these people are not recognized as married by any actual institution that matters.

    By the way, your personal bias is showing. There are lots of places in the world and many situations where what you said is not true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I hope DropTheT is proud

  • source
  • 53 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post