I agree with you on this. Now let's put it like this. Throw ohysical age out the window, dont even consider it forsake of argument. Two people go up in court for murder. One is found to be in their right state of mind and to know that murder is wrong. They get punished for murder. The other one is found to be mentally challanged and immature, thus they are not legally capable of being tried as an adult becuase they do not have the mental capabilities.

MOST kids, know if something is right or wrong. It is not a question of understanding, it is a question of whether they knew it to be wrong in the first place, not why it is wrong. So again, I agree let the punishment fit the crime, and charge the individual based o their mental capabilities.

just because there were 99 posts prior to you, doesnt mean someone else didnt post while you were typing your answer. I suggest you go back and manually count each response, only then will you know for certain without doubt that yu were the one hundredth post.

in repsonse to the original question, I thin it is 1 and 3. Let the punishment fit the crime (it should be this way no matter what) and yes charge the child if the child commits the crime.

Now a perfect example which I just found out abot the other day.

New York State law dictates, that in the case of arson, if it is found that a fire is started due to a child 7 years of age or older playing with fire, then the fire inspector is required by law to arrest that 7 year old and press charges for arson.

I do not believe the child would be kept with adults during their imprisonment, and they would be schooled and rehabilitated at the same time, but yes they are arrested and charged for their crime, because at age 7, generally speaking, a child does know it is wrong to play with fire.

right or wrong in most cases is black and white. A nine year old child knos if it was wrong to do somethign or not.

wrong, unless you refuse to perform all marriages. By accepting the state position, you are agreeing to provide the state services to everyone that teh state agrees meets requirements.

ok, by removing religioin that leaves twooptions if I am correct; public elected official or mail order candidtae (internet certificate).

If you have it from the internet, you are free to do with it as yu please. However if you are a public official, then you have one choice and only one choice: "will I perform wedding ceremony's, plural". If you decide yuo want to provide marriage ceremonies, then the only thing you can use to judge whether or not you will provide a ceremony is state law, because yuo are an elected official. This means, in the case of a gay couple, if the state recognizes the union, then you have to marry any gay could that asks you to do so if you provide ceremonies to anyone else, because you are providing a state service. If you can not in your right conscience provide a wedding ceremony to anyone who asks it of you, then you should not be providing them at all.

quote]


Moot point about my beliefs and I am most definitely not a hypocrit.

Remove religion from equation and let's stick to facts

ok, lol let's clear one thing up hu, lol, how are you able to perform marriages if you choose? lol are you a minister? justice of the peace / judge / publicly elected official? Mail order candidtae (sorry lol, couldnt resist that one in regards to internet applications)

Exactly Rose. That is what I have been trying to say this whole time.

If the job goes against your belief (not you personally, you in general) then wouldnt you agree that yuo should not be doing that job?

As far as I am concerned, anyone who states that it is wrong to do something, should not be doing a job that would require them to do that action; otherwise they become a perfect example of a hypocrite.

In the case of the current article, if the JOP refuses to provide a marriage to a bi-racial couple, then he should not be willing to perform any marriage whatsoever, as is his choice. It is NOT his choice to decide who he can and can not marry; just wether or not he will perform the rites at all.

I think you misunderstand me hun. I am not saying you HAVE to perform marriages. I am saying that if you choose to perform marriages, then you have to provide that service for all who ask it of you, not just those you want to provide it for (barring religious affiliation of course).

yes, and if it is shown tha a judge recuses himself from a petition because he can not decide based upon his personal religious beliefs, then he will be removed fromt he bench eventually for being unable to perform his duties.

if it is his religious belief to not marry someone, then he has the legal right to go thrugh his church to be able to perform marriages. BUT by accepting a GOVERNMENT position, he has agreed to waive his personal beliefs in any such manner. Very simply put, and this is a major problem with society, if your religious beliefs prevent you from doing something, say performing marriage rights to a gay couple, then you have no business accepting a job in which you will be expected to perform a marriage ritual to a gay couple if one asks you to. This all falls underneath seperation of church and state. The church has the legal right to refuse to marry someone due to belief. The state (in this case a justice of the peace) does not have that right. So if his religious beliefs conflict with his job as a justice of the peace, then he does nto qualify for that job and should not be in that position (unless of course as I stated before and marriage is a discretionary act, in which case the j.o.p. has to refuse ALL marriage requests nto just those that go against his personal beliefs)

I am sorry to hear about everything your going through hun. I pray it all works out for the best. however, in regards to your grandchildren, I am sorry to say you probably do not have any legal rights whatsoever, as I am assuming you are not their legal gaurdian, and they are not in the United States.

lol, another thing about me, I like long narrow legs

I am very opinionated, and hard to persuade otherwise if I feel strongly enough about something.

one example is I feel very strongly towards equality for all citizens, and this goes both ways. If you have the right to not participate in something, then I have the right TO participate in it if I choose to do so (assuming it is legal activities of course :smile)

In order to recuse oneself from duty (in example a judge recusing himself from a petition) the judge has to show that he/she has a personal, and legal, connection to the petition in question. For example, a judge is required to recuse themself if they are related to a petitioner. however,, to my knowledge a judge is NOT able to recluse themself due to personal beliefs. By accepting the office of judgeship, they agree to not base any decision on a personal belief system.

let's say that as another poster posted, that performing marriages is a "discretionary service" of the justice of the peace. I don't really think it is, but I have not looked.
as a discretionary service, then yes the person would have the right to refuse to perform marriages period. But the minute they agree to perform one marriage, they have to perform it for anyone who meets the state laws for marriage. They can not pick and choose between who they will and who they wll not perform the service for.

Lol I know you never mentioned the religious aspect, I said I didn't know here you were coming from with your personal capabilities of rendering services. BUT if you are a justice of the peace I highly reccommend you check with your local law offices on your belief that you can pick and choose who and why you marry someone. I know you would not chose to not marry an inter-racial couple because they were inter-racial; nt trying to say you would. But you are most mistaken in the assumption that a GOVERNMENT official can pick and choose. As long as the state legal requirements are met, a justice of the peace is bound to provide the service to anyone who applies because he is not a private organization; the position of justice of the peace is a government position.

If it is a private company yes I would agree with you. If it was a church I woudl agree with you. however a justice of the peace is not a provate company or organization it is a government position. And as a government position, they have to follow the LAWS of the state, not their political beliefs, or their social beliefs, or the religious beliefs etc.

it is not against the law anywhere in the united states for a black man to marry a white woman, or vice verse, thus a justice of the peace can NOT legally turn them away as he is a government official.

I do not knowyour situation, wether you are referring to if a PASTOR or PRIEST can choose not to marry a gay couple etc. but in this case, you can not legally choose to not marry a black adult to a white adult simply because they are black and white. it has nothing to do with religion. Also, in this particular case, iot is not a religion signing the certificate it is a justice of the peace, which is a government office, not a religious office. Which again dictates he can not choose who he does nad does not marry, so long as the marriage itself is legal in teh state of Louissianna.