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.

This opens a whole new door.

Ok if it's against his belief and is forced to marry this couple, what will happen if a gay couple comes along, will he be then forced to marry although it's against his beliefs or religion? Will they start forcing doctors to kill unborn babies? where will it stop. No, he should not be forced. Because it's his belief he's being chastised for it.

Go somewhere else to get married. I think it will open up pandora's box.

if there is a chance that the ability to perform task impartially anyone can recuse/excuse themselves from participating in the service.

I like how you think

I never stated whether I agreed or disagreed with his decision of not wanting to perform service because the couple was interracial and still wont comment on that. But have found it amusing that people think that just because one can perform a service that they must on demand.

Exactly, just where will it end once we start forcing someone to go against their beliefs?

Not somewhere that we should even go.

ok...this is JMO...IF it is an elected government official paid by the people...then they should only uphold the law. if it is legal then they have an obligation. if the person is a minister or got their license on the internet and does private services (not that kind ya pervs lol) then it's up to them to decide.

clear as mud????

hi Kim, did you say something???

nope....rose (my inner voice) said it

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)

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.

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).

At no time did this JOP say they could not get married, he said he would not perform the service.

Nothing to do with religion so let's just remove that factor from this equation. Let's simplify things.

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.

And I am responding my little ray of sunshine, No I do not.

If I chose to, I could perform your wedding ceremony and on that same token I can refuse YR just because I chose to.

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

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

Remove religion from equation and let's stick to facts

Hmmm, I never came to that conclusion unless I missed something again. I just thought if it was government they had to follow the local law. A private marriage ceremony, they could descriminate for what ever reason they wanted to, and not have to explain it.

ahhh that explains it, you are as clear as mud then

but can you IF you are an elected official and performing your duties as one???

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)