Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[GMDino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-judge-places-bizarre-rules-wedding-rules_55a46b99e4b0b8145f7376f6?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Quote:A Texas judge is so opposed to same-sex weddings that he wants every couple he marries -- straight or gay -- to sign a document acknowledging his views.

The agreement required by Judge James R. DePiazza, of The Colony, which is just north of Dallas, states that he doesn't want to perform same-sex weddings but will do so if asked.

"Judge DePiazza prefers to NOT conduct same-sex ceremonies, but will not decline anyone who chooses to schedule with him," the document states (the caps are in the original).

The document requires that those who wish to be married by DePiazza agree to not only acknowledge his views, but also not mention same-sex weddings to him "before, during or after the ceremony."

If anyone does, the service will be stopped and the participants will be given a refund, DePiazza told WFAA, the local ABC station.

DePiazza also will not allow photographs or videos, not that there will be much to capture. His services will be bare-bones affairs strictly limited to "a brief formal declaration of civil marriage ceremony."

Celebrants will be allowed to take photos in the court after the ceremony, once DePiazza has left.

"I decided that for my own privacy," DePiazza told the Houston Chronicle. "Because people take pictures and can doctor them or take little snippets out of video to warp what happened."

The document is the polar opposite of the previous form, which began happily with "Congratulations on your upcoming wedding!" and concluded with "Thank you for your consideration, and again CONGRATULATIONS!!" (The caps are in the original.) The document contains no congratulatory messages.

(Compare the original document found at this link to the revised form found here.)

The judge told the Dallas Observer that he had the option to stop performing marriages altogether, as justices of the peace are not required to do them.

"I made the decision that, for my constituents, if that is their desire -- it doesn't matter to me what a person's sexual preference is, what their sexual orientation is," DePiazza told the website. "Regardless, they're a human being and they deserve dignity and respect. If that's the way that they want to live their life, that's between them, their partner and either they believe in their God or not, that's their choice."

At least one expert believes DePiazza's new form may not be legal.

"I think it's an interesting innovation in trying to hold your nose and do your job by making everybody else hold your nose as well," Katherine Franke, the director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia University's law school, told the website. "It's creative, but I don't imagine it will stand up in court."

However, Denton County Judge Mary Horn said she thought DePiazza's form was "considerate."

"I think it's probably a good idea to let everybody know, in advance, your position," Horn told WFAA, which reported that she refuses to perform same-sex weddings.

Any couple wishing to schedule a wedding with DePiazza can email his office at JP2Court@DentonCounty.com or call 972-434-7200.

At least he's doing it for both SSM and SM....right?

My favorite part is he's worries they will "alter the photos or videos" to make it look like "warp" it into looking like something happened that didn't!

[fredtoast]

To me this really makes him look bad. Basically he is saying "My religious beliefs are of the ultimate importance to me, but just not quite as important as the money I make with this job."

I am sure his god will be impressed.

However, not matter how bad it makes him look it might be legal.

[BmorePat87]

Do not mention the same sex marriage that he is performing while he performing it.

"I am so glad that we are getting marri... ummm, that we are doing something at the court house today".

[fredtoast]

Forget my claim that this might be legal. He can't tell people what they can say or not say. That is just ridiculous.

[Rotobeast]

(07-14-2015, 11:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Forget my claim that this might be legal.  He can't tell people what they can say or not say.  That is just ridiculous.

He can, if they sign the contract, correct ?
I assume it would be binding, with the conditions needing to be met to receive his services.
I don't agree with it and I'd never sign such a thing, but if one did.......
:snark:

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2015, 12:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: He can, if they sign the contract, correct ?
I assume it would be binding, with the conditions needing to be met to receive his services.
I don't agree with it and I'd never sign such a thing, but if one did.......
:snark:

In order for a contract to be binding there has to be consideration given by both sides.  In this case the judge is not giving anything up at all.  He is legally required to marry them even if he does not agree with same sex marriage.

It would be like a store owner saying he will only accept black customers if they agree to certain terms.  That just is not legal.

[Rotobeast]

(07-14-2015, 12:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In order for a contract to be binding there has to be consideration given by both sides.  In this case the judge is not giving anything up at all.  He is legally required to marry them even if he does not agree with same sex marriage.

It would be like a store owner saying he will only accept black customers if they agree to certain terms.  That just is not legal.

Oh, I get that he cannot refuse his services.
I was just thinking that if anyone were silly enough to sign the contract, they would be bound.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2015, 12:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It would be like a store owner saying he will only accept black customers if they agree to certain terms.  That just is not legal.

But if I am reading the OP correctly he is requiring everyone to sign the contract. Not just the "black" customers.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2015, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But if I am reading the OP correctly he is requiring everyone to sign the contract. Not just the "black" customers.

So:

Quote:It would be like a store owner saying he will only accept black customers if everyone agree to certain terms.  That just is not legal.

I think we all understood his point.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2015, 07:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So:



I think we all understood his point.

Looks more like you changed his post to try to create a new one.
 

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2015, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks more like you changed his post to try to create a new one.
 

How so? His point was:

Quote:In order for a contract to be binding there has to be consideration given by both sides.  In this case the judge is not giving anything up at all.  He is legally required to marry them even if he does not agree with same sex marriage.

Changing one word in his example doesn't change his point nor was his point dependent on the example. Not to mention, the change wasn't even necessary. His point was that the judge legally has to marry people despite his personal convictions, so requiring someone to sign a contract agreeing to conditions in order to get a service he legally has to provide whether or not someone signs the contract makes the contract nonbinding. The fact that he makes all people sign it is irrelevant in Fred's point.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2015, 11:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Changing one word in his example doesn't change his point nor was his point dependent on the example. Not to mention, the change wasn't even necessary.

Well I guess the obvious question is:  why change it then?

BmorePat87 Wrote:His point was that the judge legally has to marry people despite his personal convictions, so requiring someone to sign a contract agreeing to conditions in order to get a service he legally has to provide whether or not someone signs the contract makes the contract nonbinding. The fact that he makes all people sign it is irrelevant in Fred's point.

According to the OP. He is not required to perform the ceremony. Perhaps another word change is isn't in order.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Fart noise.

The anti equality side of life is so butthurt. They've been freaking out, kicking and screaming in every way imaginable.

It's pathetic, but like a bad car crash, your eyes are for some reason drawn to it.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2015, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I guess the obvious question is:  why change it then?

Because I assumed you'd shut up if one word was changed in a trivial part of his post. Oh, how I was wrong.

Quote:According to the OP. He is not required to perform the ceremony. Perhaps another word change is isn't in order.

No. As long as he chooses to be in the marriage business, what Fred said stands true.


Question: do you disagree with anything that Fred actually said or are you trying to nit pick because you have nothing else to offer?

[GMDino]

(07-15-2015, 07:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because I assumed you'd shut up if one word was changed in a trivial part of his post. Oh, how I was wrong.



No. As long as he chooses to be in the marriage business, what Fred said stands true.


Question: do you disagree with anything that Fred actually said or are you trying to nit pick because you have nothing else to offer?

:troll:

[*Nately120*]

(07-14-2015, 11:52 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Fart noise.

The anti equality side of life is so butthurt.  They've been freaking out, kicking and screaming in every way imaginable.

It's pathetic, but like a bad car crash, your eyes are for some reason drawn to it.

But I don't wanna treat people with respect and equality!!!  Waahhhh I wish Jesus were here to back me up on this one!

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2015, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: According to the OP. He is not required to perform the ceremony. 

This is correct.  I was thinking of the court clerk who is required to issue a license.  But this guys is a Justice of the Peace who has the authority, but is not required, to perform marriages.

However, he is just like any other business.  He is not required to provide services to everyone, but he also can not refuse services to people in protected classes.  So it all goes back to if homosexuals are a protected class in Texas.  I am pretty sure they are not.  And he was very careful to avoid saying that his refusal was based on any religious belief because that is illegal under the Federal Civil Rights Act.

This type of discrimination will continue for a few years, but eventually homosexuals will be protected classes in all states.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2015, 07:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because I assumed you'd shut up if one word was changed in a trivial part of his post. Oh, how I was wrong.



No. As long as he chooses to be in the marriage business, what Fred said stands true.


Question: do you disagree with anything that Fred actually said or are you trying to nit pick because you have nothing else to offer?

Well, I was talking to Fred not to you. You just found it necessary to add your misguided $0.02.

If you look just above you will see that Fred has agreed with me (at least to the best extent that he is capable).

IMO the man is doing nothing discrimitory or illegal. He is offering a service he is not bound to perform; however, he will only do so if anyone wanting his services agrees to sign a contract.

Pointing out the fact that someone changed a post in an effort to prove their erroneous point is not "nit picking". It is calling out a non-forthright poster..

[GMDino]

(07-15-2015, 01:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I was talking to Fred not to you. You just found it necessary to add your misguided $0.02.

If you look just above you will see that Fred has agreed with me (at least to the best extent that he is capable).

IMO the man is doing nothing discrimitory or illegal. He is offering a service he is not bound to perform; however, he will only do so if anyone wanting his services agrees to sign a contract.

Pointing out the fact that someone changed a post in an effort to prove their erroneous point is not "nit picking". It is calling out a non-forthright poster..

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2015, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I'm not even going  to bother. 4 post later and he still won't tell me what he disagrees with. I should probably just quote him and keep saying he was erroneous.