Judge refuses to marry gay couples in....Oregon?
 

Last place on earth I thought I'd see this coming from.

http://www.katu.com/news/investigato...324584151.html

You take a deep blue state where Obama won by 20 points, 60-40.

What does that mean?

It means that on average out of every 5 people there are 3 reasonable ones, and 2 batshit crazy right wingers.

Now take a deep red state, that Obama lost by 20 points, 40-60.

What does that mean?

It means that again, on average out of every 5 people there are 2 reasonable ones, and 3 batshit crazy right wingers.

So the difference between a deep blue and a deep red state is that on average one person out of five has a different worldview.

Oregon and Washington are divide kind of strange. The east sides are republican and the west sides are democrat. As far as Oregon goes, Salem, Eugene, and Portland are all extremely liberal. It is those three western cities that hold the majority of the state's population. If you eliminated the eastern side of the state, Obama would have won by 90-10. In agreement however, there will always be the crazy folk.

Very true but, if I'm not mistaken, southwestern Oregon, Medford, Ashland, Grant's Pass, Roseburg, etc. are pretty "red". These are much smaller cities but not insignificant.

There are two questions here:

1. Does the judge have the discretion to perform marriages, or not? I'll take it as correctly reported that he does.

2. Given a judge chooses to perform marriages, does he then lose discretion to freely chose which marriages he will perform, and which he will not, and instead acquire a duty to marry all comers? I think not. I can't see discretion as a thing that legally comes and goes. If one has it, one has it.

I can see a Justice of the Peace having a duty to marry any couple that shows up with a license. There should be someone to whom any socially-scorned couple can confidently turn. But judges, as holders of higher office of greater trust and dignity, may retain full discretion, I would say. What the law will be found to say I do not know.

I'm just wondering what this judge thinks he is really going to accomplish other than his fifteen minute in the spotlight.

Just as a landlord has discretion to whom he rents to and an employer has discretion on whom he hires it only takes denying a protected status once to create a lawsuit. In the judges defense, at least he decided not to perform ceremonies at all. His problem may arise out of the fact that he did officiate a few straight ceremonies after he quit performing ceremonies. I guess it will boil down to whether or not he actually refused any gay ceremonies and what reasons were given.