Syracuse judge refuses to perform marriage for same-sex couple: ‘It was real weird’
Syracuse judge refuses to perform marriage for same-sex couple: ‘It was real weird’
Felicia Pitts Davis performed a ceremony for a heterosexual couple but bailed out on two women waiting to be married, sources say.
Summary
Syracuse City Court Judge Felicia Pitts Davis refused to officiate a same-sex wedding, citing religious beliefs.
Another judge, Mary Anne Doherty, performed the ceremony.
Pitts Davis’ actions, considered discriminatory under New York judicial ethics and the Marriage Equality Act, are under review by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
You're viewing a single thread.
Officiating a marriage is a "performance". A kind of art. It's not substantially different than giving a speech, acting on stage, or playing music. And forcing people to perform something they don't believe in, is wrong.
Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds? Would it be right to tell them they have to do it, because they chose to paint portraits for a living?
If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different. There is no art or creativity there. But telling somone they have to give a performance they aren't comfortable with, is wrong. You don't force actors to do love scenes against their will. This is substantially the same.
Forcing someone? She's employed in a public service position and paid by the public means she serves people in all aspects codified by the job. If you can't, stop collecting your paycheck and go work in the private world, where you can deny anything you want because of your silly religious beliefs.
Judges are allowed to perform weddings. They aren't required to. It's not their job. You need to pay one, unless they're willing to do it for free. But that's up to them.
That is not true. It is literally their job. Where are you getting this idea that judges aren't required to officiate weddings in New York? The article even says she's violating discrimination laws.
I didn't realize that was New York law.
I guess I disagree with it and suggest it's a bad law.She could choose not to perform any weddings I guess.
Your disagreement is noted.
The rest of us think that judges should not be able to say no to a law just because they're bigots.
And I have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing if the judge refused to marry an interracial heterosexual couple.
Thank you for registering my complaint.
I don't think a judge should be able to say no to a law for any reason.
And I would absolutely say the same. Even for a hetrosexual homoracial couple. (Is homoracial a word?) I'd say the same if the judge didn't like that the couple wore sneakers into the court. It doesn't matter the reason. Nobody should be required to create any kind of art, they disagree with.
Which is why the Judge should stop performing weddings at all. That may be her only legal option.
Yeah, well maybe she should have thought about that when she married the heterosexual couple first and then refused to do it for the queer couple, showing it was basic discrimination.
This isn't rocket science.
Just wanted to let you know that your argument is about as pedantic and nebulous as it gets. Surgeons perform surgery. As in, a surgeons job is to operate on a patient. Is that art? Come on now. The judge is not putting on a fucking act, she is doing a job. Her religion should play no part in her role as a public servant. She can go eat a bag of dicks.
It certainly is art. Surgeons can choose not to perform any surgery they don't want to.
It sure is. Everything is art, all of the time. Watching TV is art. Eating a sandwich is art. Taking an extra 3 minutes on a bathroom break at work, is art. You’re defending a bigot, which is also art.
By the sound of it, she was the on-duty judge at city hall. It was a public service because it’s the most basic kind of legal marriage, a courthouse marriage. There is barely any ceremony or performance, and lots of people do it prior to the real ceremony because it is considered a formality.
Why shouldn’t a public servant who is assigned that duty be required to follow through? I understand not wanting to do it if it’s a whole ordeal, but if this is the bare minimum required to formalize a marriage, should that not always be available to all people regardless of their race, sex, etc?
It should be available to everyone. It shouldn't even be a ceremony. Just file the paperwork. It's only a contract after all.
If it was her assignment that day, and part of her job, signing the paperwork is all that she should be expected or required to do. Performing a ceremony would be too much to require I think.
For fuck's sake... performing the ceremony is literally her job.
The tiniest bit of searching would have told you this before you started acting like a legal authority.
There is no particular form or ceremony required except that the parties must state in the presence of an authorized public official or authorized member of the clergy and at least one other witness that each takes the other as his or her spouse.
So it seems the judge doesn't actually need to do anything more than be a witness. Then she could have done simply that, without saying anything. I wonder if she even new that.
But that link says nothing about the required duties of judges. They are nearly in the list of approved people, able to perform marriages. Also strange it comes from the department of health.
The ceremony aspect of marriage is not just a ceremony, it’s a requirement. Asking the basic questions is part of the court procedure, it’s what makes an officiant different than a notary.
She refused to sign the paper, essentially.
It's only a requirement as a vestigial remainder from religion, since all they can do are ceremonies. Legally it realy is nothing more than a contract, and could be treated as such.
Ok, cool. Law should be updated. Noted.
In the meantime, here in reality, I know this because I got married at city hall as a formality and my wife and I tried to just have it signed, since our real ceremony was months later. We were refused, because according to the clerk, we needed to follow a full procedure.
Stop arguing in bad faith, you’re just plain wrong here. Until laws and procedures actually change, the fact is that those are the minimum requirements and she refused to do them.
No. A priest, sure. They should only offer religious marriage to those who conform to the religion, whatever it is.
State licensing of the relationship, if offered at all, needs to be offered without discrimination. That is separation of church and state. An official of the state must officiate according to the law, not their own personal beliefs.
Agreed. But the performance of a ceremony shouldn't be needed at all by the state.
And in this case it almost isn't. She could have simply been a silent witness to vows, and signed the form.
She wasn't being commissioned. She's a judge. It's her job. If a Muslim wanted a job at a butcher shop, that Muslim would have to be willing to handle haram meat as part of their job. You don't commission a butcher shop and you don't commission a judge.
Also, a marriage is a legal contract. This has nothing to do with art.
Judges are allowed to perform weddings. It's not part of the job. Their job managing court proceedings. If you want one to show up to your wedding on the weekend you usually have to pay them.
That is simply not true in New York and I have no idea why you are talking about this like you're some authority.
I was a wedding photographer in New York, 13 years ago. So yah. Respect my authoritay!
How does that in any way make you a legal expert? I did a voice-over for a video for the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency about nuclear power plant regulations. Do you know what I know about nuclear power plants or regulations? Not a fucking thing. And I would never claim to have some insight into the law just because my job involved being in proximity to legal language.
You weren't even a wedding photographer there when it was legal for gay people to be married. That happened in 2015.
This is not a good look for you.
How does staying at a Holiday Inn Express make somone a surgeon?
Got it. You're a troll. Sorry I wasted my time.
This was a court proceeding, look at the actual article. The marriage happened in court.
Not everything happening in a court is a court proceding. It's just a building where the judge happens to work, making it easy for them.
The point is that it’s part of standard process and procedure, and she made an off-duty judge come in on her day off to do it instead.
It’s an asshole move. She should not be a public servant if she intends to hold up proceedings based on her beliefs. Especially one with authority like a judges.
Per the NY bar, “you can get married by signing a written contract of marriage witnessed by two or more people. The contract must be acknowledged in front of a New York judge by the parties and witnesses.” Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
If you’re not willing to do part of a job (officiating at all NY-legal marriages) then don’t take the job. Or quit when you realize you won’t do the job.
Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn't just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.
Yes, because in order for the marriage to happen, you need an officiant to ask some questions of both parties and confirm that they know what they signed and that it was all above board. That is not a performance, that is standard court procedure and the minimum requirement to get married.
As I said if it was simply signing the next paper in the stack you'd be right. But she was asked to perform the wedding. That's something else entirely.
Officiating a marriage is a “performance”.
What kind of bullshit argument is this? Taking the job is agreeing to make those "performances", as they are part of the job.
Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds?
What nonsense is this? Obviously he shouldn't have taken that commission!! If he does, it's perfectly reasonable to sue him for not doing the job he accepted and was paid for.
If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different.
Nope, same thing. Part of the job.
Part of American democracy is that religion and governance is kept separate. What she is doing is undermining the democracy she works for. To favor her religious beliefs instead.
Unfortunately that is all to common for Christians, and they feel entitled to shit on everybody else.
But would you also find it OK if she issued death penalties for working on a Saturday? Should we just accept that?
Religion has no place in public service, and it's particularly despicable that a judge doesn't respect that. Her job is literally to uphold the law.Those performances are notpart of the job. The job allows judges to perform weddings. It doesn't require it. They have actual trials to run most of the time. That's their job. They do weddings on their off hours, their iwn time. If you want one to perform your wedding you have to ask, and usually pay them to show up. Even when doing them at the courthouse, they're donating their time. It might even be tax right off.
So hilariously wrong it hurts.
Crushingly idiotic take. You can argue that almost anything done with professional competence is a form of art. It's her fucking job. She can live her life according to her backward, dark age mythology on her own time.
Judges do perform weddings on their own time. They are allowed to do them. It's not part if their day to day 10 to 4 job.
Judges do perform weddings on their own time.
No, they perform them during business hours.
They are allowed to do them. It's not part if their day to day 10 to 4 job
Yes, it actually is.
You are partially correct. Judges are allowed to perform marriages in their off hours as they are ordained to do so.
Big HOWEVER here...
Courthouse weddings are an offered service of the state. These judges are officially on the clock to perform these services which are booked through government infrastructure meaning that when they are performing this service they do so as government employees operating on Government funding. This is provided by the Government as a means to make marriage accessible to all protected legally marriagable couples. When a judge is engaged this way this is specifically what they are being paid by the government to employ their time. They cannot spend their time on other matters.
Nothin but a lil troll
I wish I had realized that sooner. Also, I see they pulled the "some of my best friends are homos" card.
You either need to do more or less drugs. I'm not sure which.
Additional issue - how can I trust a judge not to be biased if they can’t get past their own bigotry and do part of the job they were hired to do?
They aren't hired to perform weddings. They are hired to judge court proceedings. As a judge, they're granted the ability to perform weddings on their own time. But that's up to them.
Ok, so you don’t know ny state law at all. Cool!
Edit: for anyone else who doesn’t know ny state law and didn’t want to read the article to read how she violated it: “Judges are authorized, but not obligated, to perform marriages. Judges who choose to perform marriages may not unlawfully discriminate when deciding which couples they will marry.” As she married a hetero couple right before them and then walked out in the middle of her shift when it was this couple’s turn, there’s going to need to be clearly documented extenuating circumstances for this to have been anything but a violation of her duty.
Wasted time reading this thread, you write with the arrogance of the uninformed convinced it's deep thinking.