Second Oregon Judge Stops Performing Weddings After Gay Marriage Ruling

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

A second Oregon judge reportedly stopped performing marriages after a federal court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, citing his personal religious beliefs. Washington County Judge Thomas Kohl told The Oregonian he made the "personal choice" after a federal judge overturned the ban last year.

"Last summer for personal faith-based reasons, I decided to not perform weddings as a judge," Kohl wrote in an email to The Oregonian. The judge has long been known for public displays of faith, and has performed weddings for years, according to the paper.

The news comes days after a state ethics investigation into another anti-gay marriage judge found Marion County Judge Vance Day displayed a photo of Adolf Hitler in the county courthouse. Day was the first Oregon judge to say publicly that he would not marry gay couples because of his religious beliefs.

Under Oregon state law, judges, county clerks, and other officials can perform weddings but are not required to, casting uncertainty on the legality of Kohl's decision. Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has led a highly publicized battle against granting marriage licenses to gay couples, and spent five days in jail for repeatedly refusing to comply with federal law.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/thomas-kohl-washington-county-stops-weddings

[closeupready]

1. As long as he's not discriminating against gay people, I don't care.

[yeoman6987]

2. I agree

Judges are not required to perform marriages with their job.

[MADem]

3. WTF is UP with all this Pacific Northwest BIGOTRY?

I am just shocked--I really didn't understand how much of it was happening up that way.

Of course, I've never spent any real amount of time up there--all I know is what I read in the papers. And what I'm reading makes me disinclined to visit....

[closeupready]

5. The Pacific Northwest has ALWAYS had a perhaps not-well-known reputation

for being DEEPLY homophobic. As people have migrated around, and times have changed, it might not be as bad as it used to be, but I've heard from other gay friends of mine over the years about this aspect. I don't know if it's the Mormon character of the American West or what it is.

[MADem]

7. Yeah, racism, too....

I have only become aware of all this in the last year or two. Talk about paradigm-busting reality!

I guess I had this stupid stereotype in my head that people who were "environmentally interested" and who drank expensive coffee couldn't POSSIBLY be haters! Stupid ME!

[bluedigger]

6. Two judges do not comprise the entire PNW.

Now, what's up with all the anti-Hispanic bigotry in Mass? Should anyone visit there? All I know is what I read in the papers.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html

[MADem]

11. Sorry--that comparison is a fail. "All?" I'm not just talking about judges.

There was the vicious pushback against #blm (some of the racial slurs flung were incredibly ugly and sustained) and then there was this, very recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7146556

And, damn--who knew about this? Not me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027106060

Trying to compare these separate, disparate events that have occurred recently with a single case where a couple of blatant fuck-up brothers with long criminal records behaved in a criminal fashion (and were brought into custody to answer charges) is just not equivalent.

Those two brothers were jailed as they should have been -- but that cop, those judges? They're still walking around.

But more to the point, what are you trying to say? That two wrongs (even though you picked a lousy example, trying to compare two criminal brothers to a couple of judges, a cop, and a city full of people with restrictive covenants on their house deeds) would somehow make a right? What will it take before you say, "Shit, there's a problem here--people in AUTHORITY--not punk criminals-- aren't acting in a correct fashion."

smh!

[bluedigger]

14. The judges are not acting criminally, just deplorably.

I think throwing an entire geographic region under the bus for the actions of a few is ignorant. I just picked a notable recent occurrence from Mass.; I doubt it would be hard to find more. (In fact, having grown up in New England, I'm positive it would be pretty easy.) And I'm sure that there are plenty of laudable individuals to refute your premise that the PNW is somehow generally morally deficient.

I'm not defending the judges' choices here, but I do realize they have a right to make them, however wrong they are. Feel free to attack them as individuals, but don't hold them up as representative of the general population. How many judges are in Oregon, anyways? Hundreds? This has nothing to do with "two wrongs making a right" and everything to do with not stereotyping populations, because that leads to bigotry. Using it to fight homophobia just makes me smh.

[MADem]

16. So now we're moving the goalposts from bigotry to criminality?

I made a comment that I was surprised at all this Pacific Northwest bigotry I've seen in the news lately, and I am. Its not just homophobia, it's not just "judges" (it's cops and angry everyday citizens) it's ugly and INSTITUTIONALIZED racism through the use of restrictive covenants that still, despite being unenforceable, define population boundaries by race. It surprised me. It also surprised me to learn that the migration of black people to Oregon was proscribed BY STATE LAW until the last century--1926, to be precise. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016128714

Previous to this, I never identified the region with issues of race or discrimination, never even thought about it in that fashion-- but I'm learning that I was mistaken--that the area DOES have problems, as were alluded to during the #blm protests. I think these attitudes are all of a piece--and they should be challenged vigorously.

In response, I get a "two wrongs" argument, a goalpost shift and an "under the bus" gripe.

Look, either the region has issues it needs to address, or it doesn't. I think it does. It's not "throwing a region under the bus" to point out the obvious and say so. There have been a number of instances of intolerance in the region that have made the national news lately. Using the "This other place has had problems too" excuse doesn't cut it, either. It's always the right time to focus on wrongs and correct them. This should be regarded as an opportunity to fix a problem, not an excoriation.

[The empressof all]

8. There are rotten people everywhere

Seriously though, I would hardly call Seattle or Portland bastions of bigotry. I have lived in PNW for almost 30 years and although it is far from perfect, my area is solidly blue and would not tolerate this kind of homophobia nor support a government official who had these views.

[SoapBox]

12. Agree.

There are rotten people every where.

I was born and grew up in Portland area...once you leave Portland and Seattle areas and head to the more rural regions (of which there are a lot) it can become more conservative.

[MADem]

17. See 16 above--follow the link. Surprising. nt

[PasadenaTrudy]

26. East of the Cascades

is pretty conservative.

[uppityperson]

21. The big cities, and some small towns, are very liberal overall, but the rest of the state has a lot

of rightwingers. Places with universities also tend to be leftist. Places with military bases tend to be righties.

Here's a DU link from last yr with a map.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10823382

[MADem]

22. The red guys always seem to move INLAND!

Something about access to the sea must make people liberal...?

[Xithras]

34. Sadly, that's not the case

Most of my family on one side lives in the Newport area on the Oregon coast. Except for a handful of liberal bastions, most of the Oregon coast is just as conservative as the rest of the rural state.

[MADem]

35. Maybe it varies by state...?

[allan01]

4. to this board, isnt there a seperation clause in the us constitution of church and state ?

[eggplant]

9. I don't see what the problem is.

Judges are not required to officiate for every wedding they are asked (or even any). It is a privilege, not an obligation. They can choose to only do it for close friends, for example. Some people have claimed that it is a public affordance -- a service being offered -- and as such doesn't allow for discrimination. This is incorrect.

No wedding requires a judge to perform it.

[MADem]

18. Would you see a problem if he said he wouldn't marry interracial couples

because of Loving v. Virginia?

Basically, he's announcing "I'm a bigot judge."

If I were a gay person ready to stand before him in court, I'd ask for him to recuse himself. I wouldn't feel I could get a fair shake from the guy.

It's not about the weddings--there are other options. It's about announcing that BECAUSE of the gay marriage ruling, and BECAUSE of his "faith based" objections, this judge decided to stop marrying people. He's throwing down. If he wanted to be subtle about it, he'd do it with no fanfare. "Oh, weddings? I'm not doing those anymore--no time." Instead, he announces that because of those GAYS, he can't do it anymore.

The guy is using his position to trumpet his bigotry.

smh.

[eggplant]

23. No, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Rabbi refusing to marry two Catholics, either.

Wanting his to recuse himself in a court case is reasonable. And people are free to trumpet their personal opinions, and people are free to respond accordingly.

As for whether his stated opinion should be enough to get him thrown off the bench, that would depend on whether there was any *evidence* that his decisions or his trial demeanor show bias, not what he says outside of court.

Assholes are allowed to stand up and shout that they are assholes. Actually, I prefer they do that. It makes them easier to identify.

[MADem]

24. Now you're comparing a rabbi to a government official.

See where you've gone all pear shaped with that argument?

He's not talking "out of court." He's trumpeting what he intends to do (or not) while wearing the robes of office. He is saying that a change in federal law has impacted what he intends to do as part of his duties, AND he's making a point of bringing his religion into the discussion as some sort of justification.

Assholes on the public payroll are NOT allowed to stand up and shout that they are assholes without consequences.

The consequences in this case should be that any ruling he made involving a gay person should be scrutinized for evidence of animus and bias, for starters. Any individual from a group, faith based or otherwise, that his faith group has a "beef" with, they too need to check this guy if he ruled against them. His "homophobia by way of religious teachings" bias might have interfered with his ability to do his job.

Had he quietly just stopped doing marriages, he wouldn't have a problem and no one would even notice. Instead, he used the occasion of the federal law change to announce that he had a bias and how he intended to "handle" it.

He's INVITING scrutiny. He's gonna get it, too.

[eggplant]

28. Didn't we have this fight in a different thread?

When a judge officiates a marriage, they aren't doing it as a part of their job.

It's not a duty.
They're not being paid by the public to do it.**
They're not acting as a public servant.

Just like when they go grocery shopping. Or attend Klan meetings. Or meditate in their Zen garden. Or have freaky sex.

Oh, and by the way, they can do all of those things while wearing the robes of their office.

Judges are allowed to be assholes. If it can be shown that it affects their role as a judge, then there can be consequences. But there has to be an identifiable bias. Simply expressing an opinion about a non-judicial matter isn't enough. If the judge had announced *loudly* that they are gay, would than mean that any ruling they made against a heterosexual should be scrutinized?

There is nothing wrong with scrutiny. But be prepared to find that their rulings don't show any particular bias. And then be prepared to let it go when you don't find any.


**How do I know this? Because retired judges can still do it. And they aren't on the public payroll.

[MADem]

29. I don't think so--maybe you were 'fighting' with someone else?

I think you are wrong.


In many states, not any old asshole can marry people (that is changing in many states). It may be an "optional" "duty" but it is one that is afforded to that judge BECAUSE he wears those robes.

His secretary doesn't have the same ability, by virtue of her keyboard, nor does the courthouse janitor, by virtue of his broom, have the option of exercising their officiating talents to join two people in civil matrimony. The judge, though, does--because he has that robe and gavel and title.

Retired judges get pensions, don't they? Yes, I think they do--so technically, they ARE on the payroll. Like I am. I'm subject to recall, too, not that it matters terribly.

I think you might want to liken it to giving the oath of office, for enlistment or promotion. I can do it, even now, even though I am not being paid to exercise any talents as a Naval officer because I have the USN, Retired designation (and yeah, I do get paid every month) after my name and rank. If I wanted to swear in someone, it would take a little farting with the paperwork, but it could happen. I've made it happen for others in years gone by, in fact.

I think I might get into "conduct unbecoming" territory, though, if I alerted the media and announced that I'd volunteer to swear in anyone save (insert ethnicity) (insert gender) (insert orientation). Or that I intended to suspend my long held volunteering practice of assisting, say, a reserve unit or a MEPS in administering the oath of office because I didn't want those lousy (insert group of your choice) included in the lot.

And I'd deserve it, too.


I think you are unsure as to what a retired judge can or cannot do, in point of fact: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/08/the_secret_lives_of_retired_judges.html

....In the federal system, where judges are appointed to life terms, retirement works a bit differently. According to the "Rule of 80," a judge over the age of 65 can step down at full salary, provided that the sum of his age and years of service is at least 80. He can also take "senior" status, which means he'll stay on with a reduced work schedule. A senior judge must hear at least a quarter the number of cases of a full-time judge.

[eggplant]

31. Sigh.

Let's go through your points one at a time.

You are correct that not just anyone has the power to officiate a marriage. Judges do, because of the title. But retired judges do, too, and they no longer have a gavel. They are not employed by the court. They don't "wear the robes".

Your argument about pensions being "on the payroll" is really quite a stretch. Certainly there are judges that can officiate, that upon retirement don't receive a pension. I imagine that a city court judge who works for one term and then quits doesn't get a pension. But they can still officiate.

Your attempt to "liken it" to a military position, which is subject to a completely separate set of rules (UCMJ), doesn't fit here. Your earlier argument that Rabbis don't count here because they aren't civil servants falls squarely on military personnel as well. Either you accept my point, or we dismiss yours.

None of the judges we are discussing are federal judges, and I'm pretty sure the one in question doesn't have a lifetime appointment.


So, let's recap.

Judges are entitled to officiate marriages. They have no obligation to. It is not a duty. This power does not cease to exist when they stop being judges. Public funds do not pay for their services. They are free to pick and choose which marriages they wish to officiate. Stating their feelings in public regarding how they would make this choice is their right.

Unless someone can demonstrate their lack of fitness for the job (biased rulings, etc), life goes on. And if one can demonstrate this, it won't be because of this thing they said in public.

[MADem]

33. Sigh. I think you are wrong. Again.

I just provided you to a link where I showed that retired judges CAN "wear the robes."

I also told you they get pensions--that's in the link, too. Big pensions, too. Judges can be "returned to duty" out of retirement--that's in there as well.

My purpose in comparing judgeship to military service was to draw a governmental analogy, not a line-for-line comparison. Government pensions tend to operate in similar fashion--paid once a month, provisions for recall to duty, caveats about how you conduct yourself when referencing your official capacity...things like that. But you knew that, I'm guessing...and you tossed in the UCMJ for fun, I'm sure.

So....looks like I've refuted every point you've made, there. And let's recap, yet again:

Judges aren't "entitled" to make bigoted statements saying that they don't like federal law so that's why they're changing their tune on something they've done all along. They CAN do it, if they're stupid, and they WILL get "pushback" for it. That's hardly 'entitlement' by any stretch--it's more like pisspoor judgment.

And it DOES open up every single decision they've made to extra special scrutiny, and could serve as grounds for appeal. Further, if he ever marries anyone ever again, and subsequently refuses a request by a gay couple, he could be accused of sanctioning state-sponsored discrimination.

He has INVITED scrutiny with his pronouncement. He wanted the attention, perhaps? If that is the case, then someone likely WILL make the effort to demonstrate his lack of fitness with a challenge to one of his rulings.

[eggplant]

37. I have no interest in continuing this.

[niyad]

10. so. . . . we have a judge who openly admits that his religious beliefs trump the law. just

wonder how that affects his rulings?

[uppityperson]

20. There is no law saying he has to perform weddings.

[niyad]

36. I realize that. but he is saying that his bigoted religious beliefs are so important to him

that he won't even perform marriages for people he approves. so, I have to wonder, how much of this religious bigotry spills over into his job performance.

[Yo_Mama]

27. No, that's not the case at all. He is not discriminating and he is not breaking the law.

He has the legal authority to perform weddings, and the legal authority not to perform weddings, and since he might feel uncomfortable performing some, he is choosing not to perform any.

There's nothing illegal about what he is doing.

[passiveporcupine]

30. If he was performing marriages for heterosexuals

and denying gays, then I'd have an issue with it. But he is refusing all marriages. That's his choice according to the law (although I disagree with the law). If this were a critical part of his job, obviously, I'd disagree with his right to deny it.

And here I was all excited because Oregon did something right (yesterday I found out my small rural town's long battle with a Wal-Mart expansion to a super store was finally defeated for good! Yay!!!)...and then I hear this and still wish Oregon was a more progressive state.

The sad part is that Washington county is west of Portland, and should be the blue part of the state. But it's all mixed up and we have conservatives everywhere.

[Squaredeal]

13. Common among NJ Republican Mayors

Most NJ Republican mayors have long since refused to officiate at any marriages in their official capacity to marry couples since they are not allowed to discriminate. This is not because of their personal religious beliefs but for political considerations to assure their party's core voters, the religious right, that their party supports "family values". This often means that couples who want to be married by a mayor have to go to a neighboring town if their own mayor is a Republican.

[Martak Sarno]

15. his RELIGIOUS beliefs?

While he may not have to issue marriage licenses, you have to wonder how his religion affects any decision he makes to issue a death penalty. Didn't someone in his bible say that wasn't up to an earthly judge?

[uppityperson]

19. There is a difference between performing weddings and issuing legal marriage licenses.

"State law allows judges – and others such as county clerks – to perform marriage ceremonies, but doesn't require them to offer the service."

If he doesn't want to do marriages, he is not required to, so long as he doesn't discriminate against a group.

[Punx]

25. Judges are Elected

Here in Washington County.

I will remember that name when the time comes.

[left-of-center2012]

32. As I understand it

The judges "may" perform weddings,
but aren't required to do so?