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.
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.
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.
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.
As a
Christian>insert any religion here<, my worldview is inherently superior and correct in all instances
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?
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.
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.
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.
Religious belief is a choice. There’s no problem criticizing people for their choices.
At this point, I don’t trust anyone that is religious. It has been proven time and again that they will act in the interest of their god, over the interest of humanity.
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.
most of them think the same way, especially the evangelical types.
There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality
[citation needed]
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).
Excellent examples, thanks. Your last line nails on the head where my thoughts are at these days.
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.
Excellent history lesson, cheers.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Right but if all the judges in the district are Christian, then people are denied services. So she’s gotta be fired. There’s no other option.
Given that nearly 1/3 of the population is not even xtian, that’d be pretty wild. And that’s before, as you point out, you start considering other sects.
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?
shes essentially KIM DAVIS but with a law degree.
… And a lifetime appointment
They’re going to strip abortion rights (done), then LGBTQ2A++ (in progress), then interracial marriage. You know it.
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.
Pedophiles can’t be presidents.
Oh wait… It’s the USA we’re talking about. Sorry.
deleted by creator
I don’t think anyone is taking this constant assault step-up as seriously as they should.
We thought Roe Vs Wade was safe, now nobody even talks about it anymore. Project 2025 outlined all of this and how to accomplish it and so far they’ve been following the playbook to great success.
And we’re here “LOL AT THE FUNNY LADY.”
Yah it won’t pass or even be considered. Today.
But next time someone with more power and influence raises it with a stronger case or argument, most of us will have tuned out as it gains more and more traction. Like they did with everything else so far.
After same-sex marriage they will go after interracial marriage. I dare some fucker to tell me that’s hyperbolic, I already know the pretense and argument they will use to “ease” in the long dick of dicking americans.
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
In a just world she would be disbarred
Why doesn’t she get a job at the church if she feels so strongly about it. We don’t need her judging people
oh she judges people at church too, to be sure
Well, she can judge people, but just in the sense of giving them side-eye; the kind of judging that has no real effect…and she’d have lots of opportunities to do that with the other church ladies.
Delulu folk.
Of course its some Texas asshole
Texas is a deathcult desperately trying to fool people into thinking it is only just another shithole drowning in cruelty.
they lure naive/stupid non rich people to thier state with the promise of no income tax.
Why can’t you just let people be happy?
She has been arguing that, as a Christian
That’s why
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
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.
For real, secede already you worthless rednecks! Let’s make a straight trade for Puerto Rico so we don’t have to change the flags
Wacko, Texastan
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.
Who is going to enforce the terms of the contract, if not the government?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people.
Brother, I’ve got some news for you…
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).
