Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(117,040 posts)
Tue Mar 14, 2017, 03:37 AM Mar 2017

Court Decides to Censure, Not Remove Anti-Gay Marriage Judge

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A small-town judge who says her religious beliefs prevent her from presiding over same-sex marriages was publicly censured by the Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday.

But while the court said her conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system, it does not warrant removal from the bench. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Kate Fox wrote that Judge Ruth Neely violated judicial conduct code but removing Neely would "unnecessarily circumscribe protected expression."

"Judge Neely shall either perform no marriage ceremonies or she shall perform marriage ceremonies regardless of the couple's sexual orientation," Fox wrote.

Neely has never been asked to perform a same-sex marriage, and Fox said that the case was not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.

Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wyoming/articles/2017-03-07/supreme-court-decides-to-censure-but-not-remove-judge

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court Decides to Censure, Not Remove Anti-Gay Marriage Judge (Original Post) TexasTowelie Mar 2017 OP
Who was it who complained about "activist judges??" Rhiannon12866 Mar 2017 #1
I don't know if you read the rest of the article, TexasTowelie Mar 2017 #2
You're right and I made a snap judgment Rhiannon12866 Mar 2017 #3

TexasTowelie

(117,040 posts)
2. I don't know if you read the rest of the article,
Tue Mar 14, 2017, 04:15 AM
Mar 2017

but the judge either has to stop discriminating and marry same sex couples or stop marrying anyone at all. Considering that most of the duties for the judge involve marriage ceremonies it seems like there is no need for her and she should be removed at the next election.

Rhiannon12866

(222,843 posts)
3. You're right and I made a snap judgment
Tue Mar 14, 2017, 04:40 AM
Mar 2017

I was also thinking of that Kim Davis in Kentucky. That was so messed up on so many levels - and it took them ages to resolve it!

And I wondered if they were related:

In Neely's case, the dissenting justices argued that Neely didn't violate any judicial conduct code. "Wyoming law does not require any judge or magistrate to perform any particular marriage, and couples seeking to be married have no right to insist on a particular official as the officiant of their wedding," Justice Keith Kautz wrote in the dissent that was joined by Justice Michael K. Davis.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Wyoming»Court Decides to Censure,...