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

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 days ago

    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.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        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.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            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.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              18 days ago

              Performing a ceremony is absolutely a creative work. One that shouldn’t be required for a state to accept a marriage to begin with. But that’s a separate issue.

              If my friends thought I was a racist homophobe I doubt they would’ve had me officiate their wedding. That would’ve been weird.

          • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            18 days ago

            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.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              18 days ago

              It certainly is art. Surgeons can choose not to perform any surgery they don’t want to.

              • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                18 days ago

                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.

      • maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        18 days ago

        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?

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          18 days ago

          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.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              18 days ago

              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.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  That doesn’t mean she knows everything about the law. Any judge would be able to admit that. That’s why they have specialities like family court, or criminal court, copyrights, etc.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    18 days ago

                    Dude, you think you know more about the law than she does because you were a wedding photographer in New York before gay marriage was legal.

                    I don’t even know what you think qualifies someone to be a judge but I’m glad it isn’t that.

          • maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            18 days ago

            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.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              18 days ago

              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.

              • maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                18 days ago

                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.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  It might be in ignorance. But it’s certainly not in bad faith. I do actually believe everything I’ve said. Though some of that has turned out to be wrong.