Thursday, July 9, 2015

Toledo, Ohio judge refuses to marry gay couple, issues statement

This is quite interesting.


Toledo judge issues statement after refusing to marry same-sex couple

Excerpt:

TOLEDO, OH (Toledo News Now) -

Almost two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to legalize same-sex marriage, a Toledo Municipal Court Judge refused to perform a local same-sex couple’s wedding ceremony.

After Carolyn Wilson and her partner were told that the Duty Judge would not marry them on Monday, Judge C. Allen McConnell has issued a statement on the incident:

"On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment. The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best. The court has implemented a process whereby same-sex marriages will be accommodated. I will continue to perform traditional marriages during my duties assignment. I am also seeking advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio at this time as to whether or not I can opt out of the rotation. Upon receipt of the advisory opinion from Supreme Court , I will abide by its decision."

Equality Toledo Board Member and attorney Rob Salem says the statement doesn’t comply with the laws of the court.

“I don't think this is a very complicated issue. This court, the Toledo Municipal Court, requires the Judge on duty to perform marriages,” he said. “Judge McConnell took an oath of office when he became judge to uphold the laws of this land. He vowed also to apply those laws as equally and fairly without any regard to his own personal biases and prejudices.”

Equality Toledo Executive Director Nick Komives says the wording in the statement itself was upsetting, and after speaking with Wilson, she echoed the same sentiments.

“He referred to the couple as non-traditional, and the Supreme Court just said that's not the case,” he said. "It's also upsetting because they were asking for an apology from him and rather than actually giving a true apology, he decided to apologize for their wait time. Which just frankly is not enough. She (Wilson) was really just not satisfied with the apology that they received and I think rightfully so. They were humiliated by what happened and then had to wait, so I can see why they're so upset."
More at link

The couple didn't like the wording of the apology?? They judged it an untrue apology and rejected it on that basis?? They aren't satisfied, even though they got married??

Nothing less than total capitulation will do for the homosexual agenda, will it? Not too tolerant are they.

The remainder of the article quotes an American Civil Liberties Union representative, who came down on the side of the homosexuals, not the religious liberty the Judge is supposed to enjoy. It's interesting to see what will happen next. Will his religious beliefs will be accommodated, and will he be allowed to opt-out of the rotations, or whether he will be forced to submit to the homosexual agenda despite his beliefs.

I think we can see where this is going.


17 comments :

  1. Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

    29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

    30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To me, its evidence of spiritual warfare. If they just wanted the right to marry, they have been granted it. If a hand full of officials decline due to religious beliefs, yet there are still officials who will perform the ceremony and they end up married, isnt their mission accomplished? Logical minds would say yes. Their real goal is to force Christians to comply and actively help them sin.
    Jennifer

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is it not standard for Judges to op-out or recluse themselves when there is a possible conflict of interest? His personal relationships with his family , friends, church and Jesus would do harmed!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Recuse To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Could Judge C. Allen McConnell use this?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love the conflict of interest approach. It IS a conflict of interest so that would not be a lie. I believe this is so interesting because it can b a precedent...landing either way on the battle line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a nice idea but I don't think that will work. Conflict of interest means, for example, trying a case where the judge had a child killed by a drunk driver, and now hes the judge in a seperate drunk driving case. Or, owns stock in a compsny that is being prosecuted. I think they will say in this instance thst they expect a judge to rule according to law, with impartiality.
      Jennifer

      Delete
    2. "The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States." Wikipedia on judicial disqualification

      the better term is recusal

      Obviously in this case the 'source outside yourself' would be the bible

      The 28 U.S. Code § 455 says- Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
      (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
      (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
      (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,

      of course as the complainant mentioned this would also bring up impartiality issues in all future cases where a homosexual is involved and question his past impartiality. So it might not be best to go forward on these bases and stick with a constitutional recusal on the basis of religious conflict.

      As the comment states below, it is interesting to see what a Muslim judge would do under the same circumstances, and see how his judicial disqualification would be treated.

      Delete
    3. The problem is a lack of enforcement.

      Delete
  6. It's so interesting to see not once but two times in the article in the responses from the pro-people-practicing-the-sin-of-homosexuality rights guys:


    "I hope he changes his mind and does the right thing."
    "You need to do the right thing."

    Really? The right thing according to who? Whose standard of right?

    I commend this man for standing up for his beliefs. If they continue to press him, then I expect he will resign rather than capitulate (as this is what the opposition would prefer, not tolerance). It's astonishing to be alive in a time when we have moved past the watering down and redefining of the term "tolerance" to a state where people essentially want us as believers to shut up and believe what they believe instead.

    Here is an excellent article from GotQuestions on how believers should respond to a government that flies in the face of God's standards of right and wrong: http://www.gotquestions.org/civil-disobedience.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. “He referred to the couple as non-traditional, and the Supreme Court just said that's not the case,”

    Call me crazy, but I don't think same sex marriage has been practiced for millennia all across the globe. In fact, I don't think it's been practiced before the 1900s. Something that is 'traditional' is something that is handed down from one generation to the next. Considering America didn't have SSM a generation ago, that would make this person a roaring idiot. But the enemies of truth can't be expected to be on the side of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, if the refusing judge was a Muslim...

    (we all know how that double-standard would play out...)
    Todd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He would be exempt because muslims have their own courts, a separate judicial system to which all muslims are religiously obligated to go to plead any case. You have excellent examples of this in Britain, with more than a few cases of investigative journalism on the subject.

      Now, if a muslim sought to go to law school and pass the bar and serve on a federal court, and THEN claim to have a religious exemption...

      it would be interesting to see the secular response. I suspect they'd cave because the whole muslim community would rise up in the streets until the "injustice" was resolved. Because Christians don't behave tribally, unlike "identity politic" groups (generally denoted by the term "community" being after the description), they don't have as much political clout in this system.

      Delete
  9. There will be a huge lawsuit forthcoming.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The "tolerance" crowd is indeed the least tolerant of them all...

    Kudos to this judge.

    -Carolyn

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can get an article 15 for studying the bible in the military. It's one of many reasons military personal have left to pursue other careers. Check out this link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-declare-war-on-words-husband-wife/article/2567925

    ReplyDelete
  12. What if he was truly a "traditional" Christian & refused to marry, say, a Catholic couple who had been divorced before? What if he refused to marry a Jewish man & a Pentacostal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was a born again believer in Christ, obedient to His command not to heartily applaud (or participate) in the deeds of darkness. (Rom 1:32). As has been said, "To approve homosexuality is to be unfaithful to Jesus Christ, who has saved us from our sins." @ebenzblog #truthwins

      Delete