Support NeoGAF

[tranciful]

I don't give a fuck about a few hetero people not being able to get married by one single judge. The propaganda and principle of the judges actions outweigh and whining or inconvenience on the part of privileged ass straight people.

This is protest. This is sending a message. I love it.

This. It communicates the ridiculousness of gay marriage bans.

 

[KtSlime]

Your analogy is bad. For it to be symmetric, it would have to go something like this:

No, this is more like Black people refusing to do business with any white people, and unable to do any business with black people because it is illegal, just because they're white and not knowing anything about them beyond that just because white people are still oppressing black people.

She's refusing marriages to ALL straight people, regardless if those straight people support gay marriage or not. She's labeling them as ALL evil. It's hypocrisy because she's doing exactly what stupid homophobes do, hating on an entire group of people.

She's refusing to perform marriages to ALL people GAY AND STRAIGHT. She is not labeling anyone as evil. And it is not hypocrisy because she is not doing what stupid homophobes do - she is not taking away the rights for straights to marry, she's simply not participating in the act. Non-participation != actively against.

 

[scar tissue]

Let's fight ignorance and stupidity with more ignorance and stupidity!

 

[Zekes!]

I'm...I'm okay with this.

 

[Yasae]

No, but I've heard good things about Austin.

Certainly a notable gay community there. Houston has an openly gay female mayor. Annise Parker. Before that, a democrat. Bill White. Before that, a black democrat, Lee Brown.

The governor after George Bush - a female democrat. Ann Richards. (Then we regressed to Rick Perry thanks to so and so's presidency).

I'm not saying Texas is the height of the progressive movement - it's still sorely lacking - but being gay here is not unusual in the slightest. Those days are long gone in the major cities, even if the more outspoken political trolls on GAF would like to believe otherwise. As usual, it's always the people who have no experience living here offering up opinions first.

I don't agree with this judge's stance. Though she's ultimately not restricting anyone's rights, it does feel a touch spiteful.

 

[J Tourettes]

I don't see what the problem is. She's not under any obligation to perform any marriages, so she isn't. Additionally, she's explaining why she doesn't to anyone that comes to her and pointing them in the direction of a judge that does.

 

[squidyj]

No, this is more like Black people refusing to do business with any white people, just because they're white and not knowing anything about them beyond that just because white people once oppressed black people.

She's refusing marriages to ALL straight people, regardless if those straight people support gay marriage or not. She's labeling them as ALL evil. It's hypocrisy because she's doing exactly what stupid homophobes do, hating on an entire group of people.

That's a terrible analogy. If blacks were right this very instant not legally allowed to own and operate businesses it might be more comparable, if it were a single black individual who... you know what? fuck it, this shit has been done to death in this thread already, if people can't be bothered to read the thread and come in with the same dumbass arguments time and time again then there's no point in rebutting them over and over.

 

[Sibylus]

Beg pardon?

And by this I naturally mean, "I'm fairly certain what I meant and what you thought I meant are in completely opposite hemispheres". But yes, letting your knee-jerk venom be bygones, I'll break this down.

"The people who are all "noooo, religion, sin, homos are ewwwwwww" are never going to be persuaded"

Persuaded to think differently, which I took to mean think differently about "religion, sin, homos are ewwwwwww" and all that. I then noted that I was one such exception, meaning that while I held such views in the past, I no longer do. I was using myself as an example of how people with this background can be and are persuaded to think differently.

There, air cleared. Swing by the gay thread and say hello sometime!

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Sounds good. If everyone just continued to carry out unjust laws all the time, we'd never move forward.

 

[AzureNightmare]

The judge was elected to his position to carry out a job and the will of the law, not use his seat for his own political and moral grand standing. If he wanted to do that he should have instead gotten elected to General Assembly or Congress.

 

[Dead Man]

The judge was elected to his position to carry out a job and the will of the law, not use his seat for his own political and moral grand standing. If he wanted to do that he should have instead gotten elected to General Assembly or Congress.

Her/She.

 

[Dali]

Since it's not her duty but rather "a right and privilege" she just doesn't take advantage of, I see no problem.

 

[Dariee]

I don't see what the problem is. She's not under any obligation to perform any marriages, so she isn't. Additionally, she's explaining why she doesn't to anyone that comes to her and pointing them in the direction of a judge that does.

Case can be closed.

 

[AzureNightmare]

Her/She.

yes yes, whatever.

 

[Particle Physicist]

No, this is more like Black people refusing to do business with any white people, just because they're white and not knowing anything about them beyond that just because white people once oppressed black people.

She's refusing marriages to ALL straight people, regardless if those straight people support gay marriage or not. She's labeling them as ALL evil. It's hypocrisy because she's doing exactly what stupid homophobes do, hating on an entire group of people.

She is refusing marriages to ALL people, not just straight. It would be more apt to say that black people decide not to do business with anyone because black people are barred from shopping at any stores.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Let's fight ignorance and stupidity with more ignorance and stupidity!

Yes! No one should ever protest! It's stupid, hateful and hypocritical!!!

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So is this the same or different than a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives?

I like where this is going.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The judge was elected to his position to carry out a job and the will of the law, not use his seat for his own political and moral grand standing. If he wanted to do that he should have instead gotten elected to General Assembly or Congress.

I find it interesting that you are saying HE. Are judges usually males in your mind? Anyway, who says she isn't doing her job? Do you realize that different judges focus on different subject matters, and they are not required to perform marriages? She is merely explaining why she decided not to perform marriages. You just don't happen to like her reasoning.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

The judge was elected to his position to carry out a job and the will of the law, not use his seat for his own political and moral grand standing. If he wanted to do that he should have instead gotten elected to General Assembly or Congress.

It's almost like you just read the thread title and competely ignored the actual content of the story in question.

No, wait. It's exactly like that.

 

[ragemasher13]

I would get upset about this, but forcing somebody to perform an aspect of their job even though its against their religion is something I consider wrong. And I suppose this falls into the same category, even if her reasoning is stupid as hell, I don't reckon she's doing anything wrong.

Meh.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

That being said, this judge is stupid. Being seen as "legislating from the bench" is political suicide for a judge in Texas. She should find a way to make her point that isn't going to end up being a career-killer.

Because this is CLEARLY helping things. The judge is a dumbfuck.

So she's using her position of authority to further her political agenda?

I say fire her.

Let's fight ignorance and stupidity with more ignorance and stupidity!

Not doing your job? Cool.

Fire her.

Fight discrimination with discrimination. Logical!

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Dominance is irrelevant. All discrimination, racism, or anything else is the same. Period. And if you discriminate against people but hate discrimination against you, you are a hypocrite. Period.

You are a hypocrite.

This is a myopic and simplistic way to view this country's history of discrimination and protest. Discrimination without power and privelige isn't nearly the same thing. In this specific scenario, it's a minor inconvenience for the couples in question. And she isn't performing gay marriages, so she's not being a hypocrite.

 

[twobear]

how many of the people who think she should be fired are gay?

 

[Box of Bunnies]

how many of the people who think she should be fired are gay?

How many people who think she should be fired actually read the story and not just the topic title?

 

[CornBurrito]

I thought that people shouldn't be forced to do their job (like pharmacists shouldn't be forced to dispense birth control) if it goes against their beliefs.

edit: Oh right, public vs private.

 

[ragemasher13]

I thought that people shouldn't be forced to do their job (like pharmacists shouldn't be forced to dispense birth control) if it goes against their beliefs.

edit: Oh right, public vs private.

Oh, I forgot to take the fact that she's a public employee into account when I decided she wasn't doing anything wrong.

I suppose if she's getting my tax dollars to do her job, and she's refusing to do her job, then she should be fired, shouldn't she?

I mean, as a geneticist if I refused to do DNA sequencing I wouldn't be employed for very long. But I'm an employee for a private pharmaceutical company so I suppose that's different from a public employee being payed by taxes.

Whatever, if she wants to be obstinate, let her. She'll probably lose the next election over this.

 

[iirate]

So now we are resulting to insults?

You will last a long time here junior.

Wait, you're arguing about a judge being a hypocrite, and then you get mad because someone insults you and end up "resulting" to an insult of your own?

Delicious.

Originally Posted by Texas Family Code:
§ 2.205. DISCRIMINATION IN CONDUCTING MARRIAGE
PROHIBITED. (a) A person authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony
by this subchapter is prohibited from discriminating on the basis
of race, religion, or national origin against an applicant who is
otherwise competent to be married.

Yep...

Which is precisely what she is doing.


I'm not going to waste my breathe in getting into an argument of the internet as it's pretty pointless but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've outlined my points earlier in this thread and we are spinning in circles now.

I'm having trouble with this "agree to disagree" business because I refuse to believe that you don't get this.

Person doesn't agree with the discriminatory nature of marriages in the USA. Person abstains from performing marriages until discrimination ends. She isn't discriminating against ANYONE; there is no one that she will perform a marriage for until she can marry anyone.

By your logic, she either shuts up and discriminates, or will be marked as a discriminatory asshole?

"I won't marry anyone until I can marry everyone" sounds like the exact opposite of that, really.

Thank you.

Oh, I forgot to take the fact that she's a public employee into account when I decided she wasn't doing anything wrong.

I suppose if she's getting my tax dollars to do her job, and she's refusing to do her job, then she should be fired, shouldn't she?

I mean, as a geneticist if I refused to do DNA sequencing I wouldn't be employed for very long. But I'm an employee for a private pharmaceutical company so I suppose that's different from a public employee being payed by taxes.

Whatever, if she wants to be obstinate, let her. She'll probably lose the next election over this.

Except this is a voluntary service, not part of her job description. I'm also sure that she knows the political ramifications of this and would rather do what is right.

 

[Pollux]

.

 

[KJTB]

Seems counter intuitive to me...

 

[Deified Data]

Fight discrimination with discrimination. Logical!

She's not discriminating against anyone. She doesn't marry gays or straights.

Is marrying people actually a required aspect of being a judge? I don't think so. I could be wrong.

 

[The Lamp]

A gay person became a Judge? In Texas? Am I the only one who thinks that is the most noteworthy aspect of the story?

Are you kidding? The Houston mayor is a lesbian. Being gay doesn't make you incapable of doing a job or getting an education or being in the professional world.

 

[Satch]

I keep reading this story and I keep having a hard time figuring out why I'm supposed to find fault with this.

???

 

[Chichikov]

Are you kidding? The Houston mayor is a lesbian. Being gay doesn't make you incapable of doing a job or getting an education or being in the professional world.

I think he was making a point about how conservative he think Texas is.
And while it's true that Texas is still a red state by and large, it's not so much in the big cities.
For example, all of Texas major metropolitan areas broke for Obama in '08.

 

[iirate]

I think he was making a point about how conservative he think Texas is.
And while it's true that Texas is still a red state by and large, it's not so much in the big cities.
For example, all of Texas major metropolitan areas broke for Obama in '08.

Yep, I think some people that don't live here don't realize how large Texas is. The state IS mostly red, but the major cities (and a few others sprinkled around) are far more liberal.

 

[YoungHav]

I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[AzureNightmare]

It's almost like you just read the thread title and competely ignored the actual content of the story in question.

No, wait. It's exactly like that.

Its almost like you suck at GAF.

No, wait, it's exactly like that.

 

[Orayn]

Its almost like you suck at GAF.

No, wait, it's exactly like that.

Says the belligerent driveby poster.

 

[KtSlime]

Its almost like you suck at GAF.

No, wait, it's exactly like that.

Just admit you didn't read the article, or do you have a better explanation as to why your comments are so misguided you can't even get the gender of the judge correct? If so I'd like to hear it.

 

[nitewulf]

A gay person became a Judge? In Texas? Am I the only one who thinks that is the most noteworthy aspect of the story?

yeah i was surprised as well, but that's also probably why she feels she has to be so antagonistic about it.

 

[Deified Data]

I keep reading this story and I keep having a hard time figuring out why I'm supposed to find fault with this.

???

No fault here. A lot of people just mistakenly assume that judges are obliged to marry people, which they aren't. With that out in the open I can't see what's left to debate.

 

[cousins]

How many people who think she should be fired actually read the story and not just the topic title?

This.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Its almost like you suck at GAF.

No, wait, it's exactly like that.

Winning.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It's not hurting anything. The straights can just wait to get married until this judge catches up with the trends of society. Geez, next thing you know you will be saying that straights have a right to get married. :lol

It sure as hell not helping.

 

[Deified Data]

It sure as hell not helping.

Brings attention to her cause. Positive and negative, but attention nonetheless. That seems to be her goal.

 

[Chichikov]

It sure as hell not helping.

Don't get me wrong, if I were tasked with coming up with the next move to help marriage inequality, I would've probably chose a different course of action.
But if the civil rights movement taught me anything, is that you never fucking know, once you draw attention to an issue, it tend to take its own life, and many great achievement started as stupid publicity stunts.

I'll reserve my final judgment until we see how this plays out.
At least she's on the right side of the issue.

 

[Cyan]

And by this I naturally mean, "I'm fairly certain what I meant and what you thought I meant are in completely opposite hemispheres". But yes, letting your knee-jerk venom be bygones, I'll break this down.

"The people who are all "noooo, religion, sin, homos are ewwwwwww" are never going to be persuaded"

Persuaded to think differently, which I took to mean think differently about "religion, sin, homos are ewwwwwww" and all that. I then noted that I was one such exception, meaning that while I held such views in the past, I no longer do. I was using myself as an example of how people with this background can be and are persuaded to think differently.

There, air cleared. Swing by the gay thread and say hello sometime!

Probably should've said "was" instead of "am."

P.S. Swing by the writing thread sometime!

 

[Sibylus]

I figured bolding the specific statement would have provided enough context, "Am" referred to the present because I myself am a present exception to the "once an ignorant hater, always an ignorant hater" characterization. Methought I was averting confusion that way.

PS. I've been wanting to, I shall try to make good on that vague and non-committal desire!