moonbattery logo

Feb 24 2012

Homosexual Judge Refuses to Perform Heterosexual Marriages

When California voters passed a ban on homosexual “marriage” and black-robed autocrats promptly struck it down, we got a hint of the contempt the left-wing degenerates comprising the judicial ruling class feel for the wishes and mores of the public. Here’s another hint:

Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won’t perform marriage ceremonies until gay couples can wed.

During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”

In other words, she is a homosexual, so she is going to exploit her position of power to stick it to anyone who isn’t, just like Vaughn Walker, the San Franfreakshow judge who initially blocked California’s Proposition 8.

Tonya Parker, sexually deranged judicial activist.

On tips from Bob Roberts and G. Fox.

40 Responses to “Homosexual Judge Refuses to Perform Heterosexual Marriages”

  1. Bob Roberts says:

    And a somewhat related story…

    In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation.


    I’d like to know their definition of “adequately represented”.

  2. Bob Roberts says:

    And an unrelated story…

    Amazing – honesty from an atheist, though he “he preferred to call himself an agnostic”.

    He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.


    I’ve always stated right up front that I don’t know of any religious people who’ve come up with positive proof “God” exists… but on the other hand, it’s pretty obvious if one just looks around and pays attention.

  3. mojo says:

    So don’t. Bigot.

    I believe there are other judges, and even (gasp) pastors/priests…

  4. Stephan the Original says:

    What is so difficult for these deranged people to understand about male and female? All of them had one of each to create their lives and I bet they know how to plug appliances into the wall, so, frankly, they will ALWAYS have the problem, not me.

  5. modd kenwood says:

  6. Dr. 9 says:

    When we saw the will-of-the-people (Prop 8) ignored and swept aside out in Mexifornia, simply to appease radical gays and their sympathizers, that was a clear signal that democracy is no longer in effect in that state. It also explains why the Left worked so hard, for so long, to eradicate the concept of majority rule. Now, a relative handful of radicals can walk into a courtroom and disrupt the lives of tens-of-millions, especially when the useful idiot on the bench is “one of them”.

    In fact, that was the case when Prop-8 was struck down. The presiding judge, who all but ignored the argument of the people when he ruled against them, came out and admitted he was gay, (after being outed by the media) but only “AFTER” his decision! It was a truly outrageous corruption of justice.

  7. A. Levy says:

    And yet, the fools out there not only tolerate this behavior, but keep returning the same people to power! Obviously, Einstien’s definition of true insanity was 100% correct.

  8. Beef says:

    She’s a liberal judge; the Law is what she says it is.

    We are long, long past the rule of law in this country.

  9. JNN says:

    Someone might want to check the law but I think that a judge can be impeached for failure to perform their official duties. Its time to put the SMACKDOWN on these arrogant snobs.

  10. StanInTexas says:

    There is already marriage equality in Texas and in america. Everyone is under the same law and they all he the same ability AND RESTRICTIONS to marry or not marry.

    The big lie of the gay marriage agenda is that they want equality. What they really want is a special right for themselves and a redefinition of marriage to suit an insignificant minority of the population.

  11. Stephan the Original says:

    Exactly right Stan, the question to ask anybody is how can you claim there is ‘inequality’ when the SAME rule to find someone of the opposite sex to be married to applies to everybody?

    Language has been hijacked on this issue – even the word ‘homophobia’ is purely an invention – created only to justify hate.

  12. Joe says:

    Stan, I once tried to explain that to a gay friend of a friend. I told him that he and I had exactly the same rights – to marry the one woman of our choosing. If you choose not to like women, that’s too bad. It’s like talking to the wall, only less intelligent.

  13. StanInTexas says:

    Gay people claim that do not have equality because they cannot marry the person that they love. But there are many restrictions in place on marrying the person you love. They are demanding that we change one of them for their selfish purposes. Then they arrogantly claim that none of the others will ever be changed.


  14. Alborn49 says:

    I am sure there is a way to recall this judge’s election. I do not live in TX so I will leave it the people of TX. I am a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. And if you do not like the laws in one state move to the one with laws that most suits your beliefs.

  15. Naqamel says:

    This kind of crap is *exactly* why we passed a State Constitutional Amendment preventing gay “marriage” here – to stop liberal activist Judges like this rat.

  16. Naqamel says:

    And by here, I mean TEXAS.

  17. oldguy says:

    I think what gays want is to force churches to perform the ceremony. They are anti-church but to be married in city hall is not good enough for them.

  18. IslandLifer says:

    She, who wants to be he, needs to be dragged out of the courthouse into the streets and be given the tar and feathers

  19. Jeff says:

    What these homosexuals and the other deranged sexual perverts fail to understand or want to understand is that there WILL BE a backlash against them. I used to be of the live and let live mindset. But not any more, the more they push to normalize their and force me to conform to their agenda the more pay back they are going to get. I am now to where I was a long time ago in my attitude towards homosexuals: that the only good faggot was a dead faggot. I dont care who is offended by this. Death to tyrants! Obama is evil.

  20. Jay says:

    Gays should be able to marry, but this judge is going too far in her advocacy. The law is the law. It’s her job to uphold it.

  21. Jimbo says:

    She may be legally allowed to perform a marriage ceremony, but there’s no way on God’s earth she can EVER unite anyone in Holy Matrimony. That’s a fact.

  22. AC says:

    The big lie of the gay marriage agenda is that they want equality. What they really want is a special right for themselves and a redefinition of marriage to suit an insignificant minority of the population.

    Eh, that’s half true.

    Some of them simply want some of the legal benefits of civil marriage, such as community property, household tax status, and the right to make medical decisions should one partner be incapacitated.

    All of these things can be accomplished through existing contract and family law without marriage, however drawing up all the paperwork is time consuming and only serves to feed more money into the greedy gullets of lawyers.

    What we need are civil unions. If gay households are legal (as they are) then they deserve streamlined access to the legal system.

    We don’t have to call it marriage, and no matter what a bureaucrat or politician says, no state issued marriage license will ever be a substitute for religious sanction.

    People who want to get married need to see a spiritual advisor.

    For law and bureaucracy, that’s the job of City Hall.

    The sooner conservatives support common sense civil unions simply as a way of equalizing access to the legal system the sooner we can undermine the radical agenda of the far-left extremists, who won’t stop their quest for special privileges once they do reach a state of equality.

  23. StanInTexas says:

    AC, in many states such as California, civil unions were granted and made law. That was not enough. As soon as the gay community got what they wanted, they immediately wanted MORE.

    As with most things Liberals demand, anything you give them is only A GOOD START!

  24. son of a preacher man says:

    Well at least she is not letting her personal religious convictions get in the way of doing her job. /sarc


    Sorry Jodie from a thread past. I was being a sarcastic a- but not at you.

  25. StanInTexas says:

    Good point, SoaPM.

    Do you think she would be hailed as a courageous reformer if she were using her position “to give them a lesson about” the power of prayer in their lives?

  26. Jimbo says:

    Another thing – can anyone come up with definitive proof this thing is actually qualified for it’s position as a judge and not simply an affirmative action placement?

    I bet not. Maybe qualified enough to be one of the anointed one’s communist czars – but certainly not qualified enough to serve people.

  27. WDLKD says:

    So what? She won’t perform wedding services? Who cares? I’m sure there are other places that people can go to get married. you don’t need a judge to sign a piece of paper. I never viewed marriages as the domain of the government in the first place.

  28. Jodie says:

    son of a preacher man says:
    February 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “Sorry Jodie from a thread past. I was being a sarcastic a- but not at you.”

    Thanks so much for clearing that up! I forget what your comment was, but knowing now that you were kidding, I’m sure it was funny. I wish I would have read it that way.

  29. Gunny G says:

    Judge, meet rope.

  30. Restless says:

    Gee, I wonder how the libs would react if a judge in Massachusetts refused to marry any gay couples? I doubt they would call that judge “courageous.”

  31. Alan says:

    “But, but, Your Honor, my sister and I really DO love each other. Why are you so bigoted and close-minded?”

  32. NorthernX says:

    Who cares. I wouldn’t want to be married by this carpet-munching/pole-polishing (it’s hard to tell) freak of nature either…

  33. Stephan the Original says:

    Exactly, Alan, and what happens if it was two sisters or two brothers? After all, they’re adults and they love each other, and it’s not as if we have to worry about congenital diseases of any children…

    Honestly the sickness of the mind this stuff evidences is beyond comprehension. MALE and FEMALE. It is NOT difficult.

  34. Stephan the Original says:

    AC, but why should society confer that on them, beyond their own capacity to organise their own lives? Marriage is built around the potential of male and female to procreate, the only reason government should have any interest. Otherwise, you’re approving essentially of the state being given the power to rubber stamp ALL relationships.

    One thing about this stuff – it’s highly likely that should full blown communism ever become reality, those in the homosexual lifestyle will be very surprised that they will be quickly rounded up and shot by the ruling regime. Of what use will they be then, since they prefer not to make new generations of peasants for the elite?

  35. Sam Adams says:

    Stephan the Original says:
    February 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    AC, but why should society confer that on them, beyond their own capacity to organise their own lives? Marriage is built around the potential of male and female to procreate, the only reason government should have any interest. Otherwise, you’re approving essentially of the state being given the power to rubber stamp ALL relationships.

    Exactly. Gays can “marry” today anywhere in the US by simply finding a minister to perform the ceremony, or by pronouncing their own vows. What they don’t get is state recognition of their marriage. Two guys want to walk down the street holding hands, telling others they are married, no one will stop them.

    (Just as an aside, if a guy walks down the street with three women, claiming to be married to them, he can be prosecuted for polygamy, even though the government never officially sanctioned or recognized any of those marriages. On the other hand, a guy walks down the street with three women, claiming to be living with them, having sex with them and having children with them….no problem as long as he doesn’t claim to be married to them. Odd, eh?)

  36. Sinister66 says:

    nobody has the “right” to get married

  37. TexasDoc says:

    So the dyke won’t marry anyone in her court. Easily solved–go to another court or see your local minister or justice of the peace.

  38. Sam Adams says:

    Sinister66 says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    nobody has the “right” to get married

    First, you should try and explain that to the gays.
    Second, in a free society, people have the right to enter into contracts with other people, essentially unencumbered by the government. Marriage is, at its core, a contract between two people (or a contract between two people and their Creator).

    Other than assuring that the two people are legally adults, what business is it of the state’s in granting permission to marry?

  39. Waylon Smithers says:

    Reminds me of The Simpsons episode where the gays wanted to march in a town parade.
    Don’t you have you own parades? Yes twenty but we want to march in this one.
    There will be no satisfying their demands.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy