Tonya Parker, Dallas Judge, Won't Conduct Marriage Ceremonies Until Same-Sex Couples Are Able To Wed In Texas (VIDEO)

One Texas-based judge is making her stance on her state's refusal to grant same-sex couples the right to wed publicly known by nixing all marriage ceremonies in her courtroom.

Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker, who is openly gay and a Democrat, said her decision was based simply on equality. "I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period," she told the Dallas Voice.

Believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history, Parker clarified her stance at this week's Stonewall Democrats of Dallas meeting. Rather than turning couples away coldly, she passes marriage ceremonies on to other judges so they can be completed, NBCDFW.com is reporting.

"I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state," she explained. "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."

Comments

[joe Chippa]

05:46 PM on 03/10/2012

This women dosent need to be on a bench at all.... Geeze what is the removal process in TX for Judges... She wants to have same sex mariages great move to state that dose... Thants not TX...

[Fenrir Lokison]

09:10 PM on 02/27/2012

Who cares about what this judge feels? If he does not want to marry straight people. Move on to other judges who will.

[GWBear]

01:20 PM on 02/27/2012

Very brave - and appropriate.

[David610]

11:39 PM on 02/26/2012

Has this judge stop hearing other cases because of racism in our justice system? Strange how this black judge and many other judges can take a stand and speak out on gay marriage but not the racial inequities in our criminal justice system for black men and women. There was a case a few years ago when a black judge spoke out about the racial injustices in plea deals and sentencing black men. That judge was crucified by the same white media praising this judge stand on gay rights.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39536917/ns/today-today_news/t/black-judge-rejects-plea-deal-white-boy/#.T0sEEnmb6JI

[sme chan]

12:17 PM on 02/26/2012

Good on her. Solidarity in its finest form :)

[a hughes]

11:56 AM on 02/26/2012

Love this. It's a great little view into the colorful culture of Texas' legal community. There are lots of bold characters like this one, who are often more open minded than you'd think. Bravo to this woman for the courage to stand up for her convictions.

[Pho3n1xSun]

11:18 AM on 02/26/2012

I love this woman :D

[paul87920]

06:01 AM on 02/26/2012

There's a county clerk up in New York (a state that allows marriage equality) who refuses to perform same-sex marriages. How is this any different? And why is it okay for that woman to recluse herself from performing same-sex marriages, but it's suddenly not okay for this woman to recluse herself from performing heterosexual marriages?

[DealWithItBrah]

07:44 AM on 02/27/2012

the difference is one is unconstitutional, the other is not.

[GDWhiteman]

08:57 AM on 02/25/2012

I find myself wondering if I have standing to sue the State of Texas for denying my right as an ordained Christian pastor to marry same-sex couples? I don't have the money to mount such a lawsuit, but if anyone has a notion of where I might find an attorney willing to do it pro bono, I'd be happy to serve as a plaintiff. I don't know if it's already been tried and failed - I'm not a legal scholar. I just know what's right, and law's forbidding same-sex marriage are not.

[DMiller1234]

12:15 AM on 02/26/2012

No, you do not have standing to sue the State of Texas.

There exists three requirements you must meet to show standing: Injury; Causation; and, Redressability. You fail on the first requirement alone as you possess no legally protected right to marry same-sex couples in the State of Texas...therefore, you have not (nor will you in the immediate future) suffered injury.

In addition, there exists three prudential limitations: Prohibition of Third Party Standing; Prohibition of Generalized Grievances; and, Zone of Interest Test. As to the second limitation, your perceived "injury" is widely shared with many others.

[GDWhiteman]

08:36 AM on 02/25/2012

As a Christian pastor in TX who refuses to marry hetero couples until this injustice is eradicated, I'm deeply saddened by those who criticize this judge and demand that she grant special privileges to one class of people to the point where they call for her removal from office for not granting their demands. Their ignorance of the duties of a judge pales next to their ignorance as well as downright ignoring of the book that many Christians consider a definitive guide to living.

There is no "definition of marriage" in the Bible. This is a considerable stretching of a biased interpretation of scripture. Inaccurate and biased translations and interpretations with regard to same-sex loving relationships is rampant. In the original languages and the context of the culture, the Bible says not one thing against loving same-sex relationships - not one. In the one case where Jesus is confronted with such a relationship, He praises the faith of the Roman centurion who came to Him pleading for the life of his same-sex lover without so much as a finger wag at the relationship. In the original Greek, the word used for the Roman centurion's "servant" is "pais". Greek has many words for servant. Pais refers specifically a slave purchased for same-sex sexual services. Ignorance abounds and hate with it. Truly sad for all.

[ccocualw2004]

11:30 AM on 02/25/2012

This is not a debate about gay marriage, which I do not oppose. This is about a judge who is being openly biased. Regarding your allegations that anyone who would criticize this judge is ignorant, I will direct you to the Texas Code of Judcial Conduct; Preamble and Canons 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps you will read this material and make an effort to understand its meaning and purpose and then, perhaps reconsider who you feel is ignorant.

[GDWhiteman]

04:04 PM on 02/25/2012

OK, I've read it, and see no violation with regard to refusing to perform marriages. Perhaps you'd like to point out the specifics of where you believe this judge is violating the Preamble and Canons 1-3 inclusive? I still willing to be enlightened or engage in further debate as appropriate pending your response.

[Ganji]

04:44 AM on 02/25/2012

and i will laugh when a Judge in a state that did pass gay marriage refuses to do a ceromney for a gay couple..fair is fair

[paul87920]

05:57 AM on 02/26/2012

That's already occurred in New York, so you can imagine the chuckle and the smile on my face when I saw that the shoe is finally on the other foot.

[Fogy]

03:45 AM on 02/25/2012

"Marriage" isn't about love.
You can be in love and not be married.
You can be married and not be in love.

"Marriage" isn't about sex.
You can have sex and not be married.
You can be married and not have sex.

"Marriage" isn't about children.
You can have children and not be married.
You can be married and not have children.

"Marriage" isn't about religion.
You can be religious and not be married.
You can be married and not be religious.

"Marriage" isn't about vows.
You can make vows without being married.
You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; "I do".

"Marriage" isn't about rings.
You can wear rings without being married.
You can be married without exchanging rings.

Supporters and non-supporters both need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS.

Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship, and inheritance. Marriage is not a religious creation. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people. Remember, the power is vested in the pastor by the State, not the other way around. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are about what we ASSOCIATE with the legal fiction called marriage. They are not the marriage itself.

Denying US Citizens benefits without compelling legal reason is unconstitutional, and sexual orientation is not a compelling legal reason. Neither is bigotry.

[Pho3n1xSun]

09:42 AM on 02/26/2012

I don't think anyone else could've said it better. F&F

[Fogy]

03:43 AM on 02/25/2012

Having not read this state's laws, does it actually say gay marriage is illegal? Last we checked the States were forbidden by the powers vested in the federal government by the Constitution from discriminating without compelling legal reason. Sexual orientation is not a compelling legal reason so I'm confused why the state thinks it can defy the US Constitution.

Gay marriage has always been constitutional. It's only the bigotry of our officials and the ignorance of the public that allows the false notion that gay marriage can be legislated separately from hetero marriage.

[revadiaz]

02:03 AM on 02/25/2012

Ok, since many people are doing their best to create a secular country. You know remove God and all that jazz from public things, events and schools. Wouldn’t it make sense that we remove the word, "Marriage" which is strictly a religious term from our courts system? Let's call every union just that, a "union", no matter the gender. Then the religion term that began with religion, "marriage" can stay with the religious. You don't see judges performing water baptisms or giving communion so don't allow judges to do "marriages". Why not let the society have "unions" and the religions have "marriage". Tell me what you think and please don’t be mean I have a legitimate question.

[Fogy]

03:57 AM on 02/25/2012

Only religious people think marriage is a religious term, mostly because they limit the extent of their studies to their religion. Society in general has been complacent and not really had a reason to put that much effort into understanding what marriage really is, except that last time when interracial marriage was taking its turn at the "you can't do that, we religious folks OWN marriage" debate. Remember how that turned out?

You'll find my post above that explains it, but suffice it to say marriage is not a religious institution. Not one marriage happened in these United States where the preacher acted unilaterally without the permission of the State. "By the powers vested in me by the state of... I now pronounce you man and wife". Sound familiar? Try passing yourself off as married without that non-religious license.

I'm married, straight and I'm an atheist. Not one moment of my wedding was religious. Are you going to say to my face that I only have a civil union and I can't call myself married? 'cause them's fightin words.

Why not let society have equality and freedom from small minded group-think bigotry? Why don't the religious folks go make up a word of their own instead of usurping a word that doesn't belong to them? THINKING it belongs to them does not change the fact.

[revadiaz]

07:49 PM on 02/25/2012

"Not one marriage happened in these United States where the preacher acted unilaterally without the permission of the State. "By the powers vested in me by the state of... I now pronounce you man and wife". " - This has no bearing on Historical fact.

"You'll find my post above that explains it, but suffice it to say marriage is not a religious institution" - This is an uneducated assumption.

I agree that people from societies from around the world got together and had unions in order to propagate their seed and protect the family unite. But it was not called "marriage". I have studied and read many of the earliest writings in human history and these writings show that fact. Marriage was a term used first specifically by religious people. Our forefathers called in marriage and said it should be between a man and a women. They got that from religion not secularism. Or they would not have written that way.

[ta2t2o]

04:22 AM on 02/25/2012

With Freedom of Speech - why should we have to call it something else, just to appease the irrational sensibilities of the Religious Right? Sorry - I don't ever hope to be Civil Unioned - but some day I'd like to be Married. Do you not call it a wedding then? Must we come up with a new term for that - like a Unioning? If it's just a problem with semantics - that would be fine. But it's evident that this isn't the only problem they have with it.

[MN4Life]

01:00 AM on 02/25/2012

As always, the individuals complaining that this judge isn't 'enforcing' the law or is 'putting her needs above the law' haven't bothered to educate themselves. In Texas, all that is required to be married is a marriage license and a 'Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage.' This 'declaration' allows the individuals to get married just by signing it in front of a witness at the County Clerks office. No officiant needed.

As such, her participation in any marriage ceremony is completely at her own discretion, as is any judges in Texas.

[Fogy]

04:00 AM on 02/25/2012

Is there a law in Texas explicitly denying the license to same sex couples? If so, is there an explanation how they get around the Constitution? Seems to me without any of that that any couple can get married.

[MN4Life]

09:30 AM on 02/25/2012

Texas has an amendment to their state constitution banning same-sex marriage. As the Declaration requires the couple to have a marriage license, and under that amendment a marriage license won't be issued to same-sex couples, same-sex marriages can't be created through the use of the Declaration or through common-law. No one is 'getting around' anything, but the existence of the Declaration is why Texas judges such as Tonya Parker do not have to perform marriages as part of their job. They can perform them if they wish, but have no obligation to do so.