Dallas Judge refuses to marry hetero couples

[FaxModem1]

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker ... 02160.html

Gay Dallas judge won’t conduct marriages because they ‘can’t be performed for me’
Posted on 22 Feb 2012 at 2:25pm
PrintEmailShare
Judge Tonya Parker

Judge Tonya Parker

Out lesbian Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker touted her refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies in her courtroom on Tuesday night.

“I have the power, of course, to perform marriage ceremonies,” Parker said. “I don’t.”

The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member. While Parker highlighted her progress in her first year as judge in what had been “the worst district court at the courthouse” with more old pending cases than the other 12 district courts, she also spoke about the importance of having an LGBT person on the bench.

Parker is the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history. As such, Parker said she takes into account the importance of her position to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable and equal in her courtroom by “going out of my way to do things that other people might not do because they are not who I am.”

Using the example of turning young couples away who want the court to marry them quickly because they are often pregnant and desperate, Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them.

“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.”

Parker also said she refused to allow a prosecutor to use the terms “child molester” and “homosexual” interchangeably in her courtroom, saying that just because the man on trial was accused of assaulting boys, the term “heterosexual” wouldn’t be used in place of “child molester” in cases where a man is accused of assaulting a girl.

And Parker said she includes the term partner when jurors are informed of the Texas Supreme Court directions that instruct jurors not to discuss cases with their husband or wife.

“What I want to do is help those folks to have dignity in that moment that they are with me to know that I see you,” she said. “I see you and in that I have reflected to them that I have respect for them.”

When asked about declining to perform marriage ceremonies in a follow-up phone interview on Wednesday, Parker said the decision was simply about equality and having to turn certain people away.

“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said.

Well, hopefully this will raise awareness, but we'll see how the public responds.

[SCRawl]

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I'm thinking that it's great, because it really points out the inequities built into their system. On the other hand, I am reminded of the type of pharmacist who refuses to carry or dispense Plan B pills, and how I would argue that such a person should not retain their job.

If I am to come down on one side or the other being more in the right, though, it's on the judge's side. Marrying people is only about 1% of what a judge does, whereas dispensing medication is about 90% of what a pharmacist does. (I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass. Someone will hopefully correct them if they are off.)

[Darth Wong]

Well of course you're reminded of the pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraception; that's the whole point she's making. That douchebag religious pharmacist is fully protected by the law, and we need to confront the fact that we have just enshrined personal prejudice as a legally protected category of conduct. So why shouldn't anyone be able to declare that they just don't want to do something on the job because it goes against their beliefs?

[Grumman]

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I'm thinking that it's great, because it really points out the inequities built into their system. On the other hand, I am reminded of the type of pharmacist who refuses to carry or dispense Plan B pills, and how I would argue that such a person should not retain their job.

If a pharmacist refuses to dispense Plan B pills, their boss should fire them for refusing to do their job. If they're self-employed, or if their boss agrees with their position, that does not apply.

A judge is not their own boss - they are beholden to the public and the government that pays their salary. If she refuses to do her job, she should be replaced.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I'm thinking that it's great, because it really points out the inequities built into their system. On the other hand, I am reminded of the type of pharmacist who refuses to carry or dispense Plan B pills, and how I would argue that such a person should not retain their job.

If a pharmacist refuses to dispense Plan B pills, their boss should fire them for refusing to do their job. If they're self-employed, or if their boss agrees with their position, that does not apply.

A judge is not their own boss - they are beholden to the public and the government that pays their salary. If she refuses to do her job, she should be replaced.

She IS doing her job. In her view, the state's laws are unconstitutional and wrong. As a judge, she has a duty to uphold the constitution. She swore an oath on it and everything. There is no law stating that a judge must take a given case or perform a ceremony on request that I know. A judge can recuse themselves from cases where conflicts exist, and a judge--just like a priest--has the power to refuse to issue a marriage license. The only difference between them is that the priest gets to discriminate on the basis of a protected class. She is not discriminating because she is refusing across the board.

It is not as if a judge did not look things up to make sure they were legal, and talk to the state bar's ethics hotline or anything...

[Thanas]

This is a bad move on her part. The judiciary should not get to decide which one of their functions they get to perform or not. As somebody with a few connections to the legal world I think this is an extremely irresponsible move.

The analogy of the pharmacist also does not apply as they are not a state-sponsored profession sworn to neutrality in political matters.

[Irbis]

I don't know. While I agree state official should perform all the duties he/she is given, compared to discriminating pharmacist one is hateful scumbag actively prolonging discrimination, other is fighting to end discrimination. Then, there is the fact that IMHO, changing marital status a few days days later doesn't impact quality of life the way lack of crucial medicine access does. So, while I not approve, I can clearly see which of the two, given choice, should be understood/accepted.

[Broomstick]

While judges are able to perform marriages they are not, to my knowledge, required to do so. A pharmacist refusing to dispense medication, however, could have serious health implications and in some locations finding an alternative would be nearly impossible. A judge can perform weddings, but it's not the main focus of his/her job. A pharmacist's job, at least in retail, is to dispense medications so a refusal to fill a legal prescription is more like a bench judge refusing to hear trials than refusing to perform marriages.

[SCRawl]

This is a bad move on her part. The judiciary should not get to decide which one of their functions they get to perform or not. As somebody with a few connections to the legal world I think this is an extremely irresponsible move.

The analogy of the pharmacist also does not apply as they are not a state-sponsored profession sworn to neutrality in political matters.

The pharmacist profession is also licensed by the state, and has its own oath of office. Consider:

Oath of a Pharmacist

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Note the bolded passage. It does not have the proviso "...so long as it does not violate my religious views".

About this sort of dilemma, I like the "Amish bus driver" analogy that Rachel Maddow has used on her show. If an Amish guy applies for and gets a job as a bus driver, he can't then claim that he should be able to opt out of driving a bus because, well, he's Amish, and he doesn't believe that people ought to drive buses. The point at which he ought to have opted out of the process was before he applied for the job, because his belief system is in clear opposition to the nature of the job he's applying for. Similarly, if a person becomes licensed as a pharmacist then he ought to be prepared to execute duties with which he personally disagrees. If contraceptives are too "hot button" to not be given a pass, then how about antibiotics? I will grant that there probably weren't all that many "Christian Scientists" employed as pharmacists, but the principle still applies.

Finally, I would say that while a judge has the power to marry people, a judge does not have the responsibility to do so. A judge must adjudicate matters brought before his (or, in this case, her) court, opting out only in special cases such as conflict of interest. Is this a political statement being made by this judge? I believe that it is, and I'm somewhat distressed by this, as judges ought to be above politics. But if there's a case where I'm willing to issue a free pass, this is it, and anyway I think that judges ought to be making better use of their court's time than officiating weddings.

[Rogue 9]

Well, in the first place it isn't realistically inhibiting anyone's ability to get married; as mentioned in the article there are twelve district courts in the courthouse, as well as at least one circuit court if not more. If a couple wants to be married by a justice of the peace, they can ask another one.

Second, the court's primary function is to hear trials. If they are required to perform marriages, as opposed to having the duty to perform them, it's news to me. But this being Texas, it's probably moot anyway; the next time she's up for reelection or a retention vote, she'll probably be out on her ass.

[Thanas]

I don't know. While I agree state official should perform all the duties he/she is given, compared to discriminating pharmacist one is hateful scumbag actively prolonging discrimination, other is fighting to end discrimination. Then, there is the fact that IMHO, changing marital status a few days days later doesn't impact quality of life the way lack of crucial medicine access does. So, while I not approve, I can clearly see which of the two, given choice, should be understood/accepted.

They are both actions borne out of a political belief. No matter how reprehensible one of the two are, they are both acting out of a politcal belief.

The pharmacist profession is also licensed by the state, and has its own oath of office. Consider:

In which case his scumbag action is even more reprehensible.

About this sort of dilemma, I like the "Amish bus driver" analogy that Rachel Maddow has used on her show. If an Amish guy applies for and gets a job as a bus driver, he can't then claim that he should be able to opt out of driving a bus because, well, he's Amish, and he doesn't believe that people ought to drive buses. The point at which he ought to have opted out of the process was before he applied for the job, because his belief system is in clear opposition to the nature of the job he's applying for. Similarly, if a person becomes licensed as a pharmacist then he ought to be prepared to execute duties with which he personally disagrees. If contraceptives are too "hot button" to not be given a pass, then how about antibiotics? I will grant that there probably weren't all that many "Christian Scientists" employed as pharmacists, but the principle still applies.

If a person becomes a judge she ought to be prepared to execute duties with which she personally disagrees. This is the same.

What next, a judge protesting against the death penalty? Judges are not lawmakers nor should they be. This blurs the line and while I give her every right to do something in her private capacity, she should not do so in her official capacity as a judge.

[Broomstick]

Hmm... if I recall correctly in some jurisdictions in the US it's the jury that decides death penalty vs. life in prison, not the judge, but leaving aside that little quibble...

Again, performing marriages is an extra privilege that judges have, not an obligation. Most marriages aren't performed by judges anyway. This is, to my mind, more in line with a pharmacist declining to perform vaccinations rather than a pharmacist declining to dispense drugs.

I have my reservations about her tactic, but she seems to be refusing to perform any and all marriages based on marriage law being discriminatory, not on an aversion to marriage in and of itself, and she's not discouraging marriage in that she readily refers people to other judges still conducting marriages. I agree that's skirting the edge of what is acceptable at best. Presumably, if same-sex marriage became legal/recognized she'd start performing marriages of all sorts and we'd then be bitching about judges who marry heterosexuals but still refuse to perform the deed for homosexuals - which would be a clear case of discrimination but that's still very much a hypothetical future situation in the US.

I also agree she'll probably be out on her ass next election cycle. She'll be removed from office by a fairly normal mechanism for removing unacceptable judges that still aren't bad enough to warrant a formal recall.

[Simon_Jester]

I think I'm with Thanas on this one.

The US has a horribly polarized political structure. People on the far end of each party are teeter on the edge of deciding that the other party isn't even a legitimate government. You get people who think that Barack Obama does not have the right to become president of the United States because he's a Democrat and therefore hates America, that the Republican candidate of the week actively wants to drive us all into theocratic corporate slavery and therefore everything he says and does should be rejected and fought- that any Republican role in government will always make things so much worse.

Me, I think the person criticizing the Republicans has a point, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that civil society needs a working government, which means someone has to keep up the appearances of political neutrality. Your opinions about right and wrong may inform what you do on the job, as a civil servant or a judge. Whatever latitude is granted to your office, you may use, because you're a human being and not a cog in the machine. But they can't define which parts of your job you're willing to do, or who you'll do it for. That breaks down the whole concept of the apolitical civil service, which we need now more than ever.

If a public official really wants to step outside the boundaries of their office, I understand that. If someone really wants to make a decision for personal reasons that conflicts with their job, that's human nature. But in a civil servant, that should be grounds for resignation, not for refusing to do the job in the first place.

I can see a civil servant refusing to do their job as acceptable in two kinds of cases.

One is the 'Nazi argument:' if the political system is becoming so repugnant that any good person should immediately refuse to play a part in it. The US is not near that line; it does not force its government employees to commit atrocities or acts of petty tyranny.

The other is when the state's policies are impacting you in your capacity as an employee- say, if the state has stopped paying you. Then you can go on strike as part of the employee/employer relationship, which is different from doing it as part of the public/public-servant relationship.

[Thanas]

Hmm... if I recall correctly in some jurisdictions in the US it's the jury that decides death penalty vs. life in prison, not the judge, but leaving aside that little quibble...

It is also the law who decides who gets married, but that did not stop the judge from protesting.

[SCRawl]

If a person becomes a judge she ought to be prepared to execute duties with which she personally disagrees. This is the same.

The issue is that civil society needs a working government, which means someone has to keep up the appearances of political neutrality. Your opinions about right and wrong may inform what you do on the job, as a civil servant or a judge. Whatever latitude is granted to your office, you may use, because you're a human being and not a cog in the machine. But they can't define which parts of your job you're willing to do, or who you'll do it for. That breaks down the whole concept of the apolitical civil service, which we need now more than ever.

Thanas, Simon, I would agree 100% with your position -- as it is, I agree with it about 95% -- if the job description of County Judge in Texas includes something like "...must officiate all marriages brought before the court, assuming all paperwork has been filed, etc..." There are multiple avenues to obtain an officiant, including others within the civil structure.

Persons authorized to perform weddings in Texas include licensed or ordained Christian ministers, priests, Jewish rabbis, officers authorized by religious organizations, justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of criminal appeals, justices of the courts of appeals, judges of the district, county, and probate courts, judges of the county courts at law, judges of the courts of domestic relations, judges of the juvenile courts, retired justices or judges, justices of the peace, retired justices of the peace, and judges or magistrates of a federal court of Texas.

So if a couple does not want a religious ceremony, any judge of any stripe, from the "Supremes" right down to the JOPs can make it legal. My Google-fu is not strong enough to find out if a judge's duties include performing marriages, just that they are empowered to do so. It's a fine distinction, but one that's made all the time in law when provisions use words like "may issue" instead of "shall issue".

Once again: I really don't like that a judge is effectively using her bench to make a political point. But as Broomstick has stated, she'll face the consequences when it comes time to seek re-election. If the members of her electorate do not approve of the job she's doing, she will get a clear response.

(Note: I generally don't approve of voting for positions such as judges, for the very reason that judges should be above politics. I don't like what this judge is doing for this reason, but I'm willing to give her a pass for the reasons I've stated previously.)

[Thanas]

Thanas, Simon, I would agree 100% with your position -- as it is, I agree with it about 95% -- if the job description of County Judge in Texas includes something like "...must officiate all marriages brought before the court, assuming all paperwork has been filed, etc..." There are multiple avenues to obtain an officiant, including others within the civil structure.

The job position of a pharmacist also does not include "must fulfill all prescriptions before him". Nor are there no other avenues for the customers there to get their medicine. It is just harder, just as it is harder for the couples to get married now.

Once again: I really don't like that a judge is effectively using her bench to make a political point. But as Broomstick has stated, she'll face the consequences when it comes time to seek re-election. If the members of her electorate do not approve of the job she's doing, she will get a clear response.

So if people approve, it is okay to make an unethical choice?

(Note: I generally don't approve of voting for positions such as judges, for the very reason that judges should be above politics. I don't like what this judge is doing for this reason, but I'm willing to give her a pass for the reasons I've stated previously.)

I am not willing to give anybody who thinks their professional ethos upheld by decades of tradition should suddenly be swept aside because they happen to disagree with a political issue.

[SCRawl]

Thanas, Simon, I would agree 100% with your position -- as it is, I agree with it about 95% -- if the job description of County Judge in Texas includes something like "...must officiate all marriages brought before the court, assuming all paperwork has been filed, etc..." There are multiple avenues to obtain an officiant, including others within the civil structure.

The job position of a pharmacist also does not include "must fulfill all prescriptions before him". Nor are there no other avenues for the customers there to get their medicine. It is just harder, just as it is harder for the couples to get married now.

The text of the oath I quoted previously seems to disagree with you in principle. And from what I've read the only place a person can purchase many medicines (including Plan B, which is an OTC drug) is from a pharmacy. Further, since for some people timely access to medicine can mean the difference between life and death, I am willing to cut the pharmacist less slack. Timely access to a wedding is, I think you'll agree, less critical.

So if people approve, it is okay to make an unethical choice?

Is your objection purely on the grounds of professional ethics? If that's the case then I see your point, though it makes the pharmacist's analogy just as relevant.

I am not willing to give anybody [a pass] who thinks their professional ethos upheld by decades of tradition should suddenly be swept aside because they happen to disagree with a political issue.

Perhaps my offer of a "pass" is overstating it. My original statement (in the first response to the OP) stated that between the two examples -- the judge and the pharmacist -- I would come down on the side of the judge for having exhibited less egregious conduct, for the reasons I stated and have since elucidated. But both are still wrong.

Note: I edited Thanas' last quote slightly, for clarity.

[Ultonius]

About this sort of dilemma, I like the "Amish bus driver" analogy that Rachel Maddow has used on her show. If an Amish guy applies for and gets a job as a bus driver, he can't then claim that he should be able to opt out of driving a bus because, well, he's Amish, and he doesn't believe that people ought to drive buses. The point at which he ought to have opted out of the process was before he applied for the job, because his belief system is in clear opposition to the nature of the job he's applying for. Similarly, if a person becomes licensed as a pharmacist then he ought to be prepared to execute duties with which he personally disagrees. If contraceptives are too "hot button" to not be given a pass, then how about antibiotics? I will grant that there probably weren't all that many "Christian Scientists" employed as pharmacists, but the principle still applies.

The problem with that analogy is that while the job of bus driver doesn't really involve anything other than driving a bus, a pharmacist does dispense a wide variety of medicines and medical products apart from contraceptives and even antibiotics, and would therefore be able to carry out at least part of their duties. There might also be some wiggle room if the pharmacy had other members of staff to whom the pharmacist in question could hand off duties that they found morally questionable. While there probably are no Amish bus drivers, there are Amish firefighters in the volunteer fire companies of Pennsylvania, and they perform most of the duties of a firefighter, while leaving the driving of the firetruck to a non-Amish colleague.

[Soontir C'boath]

I don't see any real transgression as presumably judges can refuse to officiate marriages because they'll go on their lunch break, are uncomfortable pronouncing newly weds because their parents are divorced, or however many other reasons they choose. Perhaps adding a political reason makes it less benign, but the outcome is the same.

[Thanas]

The text of the oath I quoted previously seems to disagree with you in principle.

No, it just says that you are supposed to do so.

And from what I've read the only place a person can purchase many medicines (including Plan B, which is an OTC drug) is from a pharmacy. Further, since for some people timely access to medicine can mean the difference between life and death, I am willing to cut the pharmacist less slack.

If he has a monopoly, yes. Which I find hard to believe. I also agree that the pharmacist action is more morally revolting. Both should be severely reprimanded at the very least.

Is your objection purely on the grounds of professional ethics? If that's the case then I see your point, though it makes the pharmacist's analogy just as relevant.

Professional ethics do include "not agitating politically" in this case I would think, so yes. (Considering the federal oath of judges does not allow for any sort of discrimination, for once. I am unaware if Texas judges are required to swear the same).

Perhaps my offer of a "pass" is overstating it. My original statement (in the first response to the OP) stated that between the two examples -- the judge and the pharmacist -- I would come down on the side of the judge for having exhibited less egregious conduct, for the reasons I stated and have since elucidated. But both are still wrong.

I agree that she is marginally better. Just marginally because while her action is understandable, you just cannot have judges interefere in politics with powers related only to her job. She uses her special status in society to engage in activities that she should not engage in and therefore should be tossed out. (The Pharmacist too in case you are wondering).

[White Haven]

Which, ultimately, is the point the judge is trying to make. 'If it's not okay for me, it's not okay for anyone else. Pick one.'

[Simon_Jester]

About this sort of dilemma, I like the "Amish bus driver" analogy that Rachel Maddow has used on her show. If an Amish guy applies for and gets a job as a bus driver, he can't then claim that he should be able to opt out of driving a bus because, well, he's Amish, and he doesn't believe that people ought to drive buses. The point at which he ought to have opted out of the process was before he applied for the job, because his belief system is in clear opposition to the nature of the job he's applying for. Similarly, if a person becomes licensed as a pharmacist then he ought to be prepared to execute duties with which he personally disagrees. If contraceptives are too "hot button" to not be given a pass, then how about antibiotics? I will grant that there probably weren't all that many "Christian Scientists" employed as pharmacists, but the principle still applies.

The problem with that analogy is that while the job of bus driver doesn't really involve anything other than driving a bus, a pharmacist does dispense a wide variety of medicines and medical products apart from contraceptives and even antibiotics, and would therefore be able to carry out at least part of their duties. There might also be some wiggle room if the pharmacy had other members of staff to whom the pharmacist in question could hand off duties that they found morally questionable. While there probably are no Amish bus drivers, there are Amish firefighters in the volunteer fire companies of Pennsylvania, and they perform most of the duties of a firefighter, while leaving the driving of the firetruck to a non-Amish colleague.

Volunteer firefighters are volunteers. If a man volunteers to charge into burning buildings to save little old ladies, but refuses to drive a truck, I'm not going to tell him he can't do the burning building part. No one can force him to drive trucks against his will, and since he's volunteering for the dangerous part of the job, I'll forgive him his own little weirdness.

But what would we think of a volunteer 'firefighter' who turned it around- was willing to drive the truck, but not to actually go into buildings and fight fires, because he worships a fire god or something? Would we really want such a person around the firehouse, taking up a slot that could theoretically go to someone who is willing to do the hard, dangerous part of the job along with the easy one, and take the risks along with the perks?


Civil servants are paid by the state to run the machinery of law and order in society. That means doing things that are disagreeable, that any person with a shred of empathy isn't going to enjoy- like sending people to jail. If they're not willing to do that part of the job, they're not really doing the job at all, any more than the firefighter who refuses to put out fires is.

Of course, that's in general. Here, in particular, this judge is only refusing to carry out one of her duties, and a minor one- so maybe it's harder to hold her at fault. Then again, as Thanas says, she's doing something wrong that the fake firefighter isn't. She's using the special powers of her office as tools in a political game. This time, you personally might approve of that, because you agree with the cause she's doing it for. But you might not approve next time it happens. Say, when it's fundie judges refusing to officiate gay marriages. Or refusing to try certain types of criminal defendants because they don't think the thing they're charged with should be illegal.

Which, ultimately, is the point the judge is trying to make. 'If it's not okay for me, it's not okay for anyone else. Pick one.'

She has a right to make the point- but does she have a right to pick and choose which parts of the duties of her office she performs as a way to make the point? If she does, who else has that right, and what might they do with it?

[Masami von Weizegger]

Sorry if this is incorrect, but seeing as I'm not American I might be wrong, but is marrying people part of her actual, official duties? I was under the impression that it was an optional service that individual judges could render if they so choose, often for a fee. If that were the case, this tangent of arbitrarily choosing which duties of office to undertake is rendered kind of moot.

Either way, I don't have much of a problem with someone using their position to take a stand against injustice, whether it is against her official duties or not.

[Sute]

Sorry if this is incorrect, but seeing as I'm not American I might be wrong, but is marrying people part of her actual, official duties? I was under the impression that it was an optional service that individual judges could render if they so choose, often for a fee. If that were the case, this tangent of arbitrarily choosing which duties of office to undertake is rendered kind of moot.

I think your impression is correct, according to an article I found.

Parker wrote in an emailed statement that performing marriage ceremonies is not her duty as a judge, but, rather, "a right and privilege" that she chooses not to exercise.

[Broomstick]

And from what I've read the only place a person can purchase many medicines (including Plan B, which is an OTC drug) is from a pharmacy. Further, since for some people timely access to medicine can mean the difference between life and death, I am willing to cut the pharmacist less slack.

If he has a monopoly, yes. Which I find hard to believe. I also agree that the pharmacist action is more morally revolting. Both should be severely reprimanded at the very least.

There are parts of the US, typically rural and sparsely populated ones, where a particular pharmacist may have what is effectively a monopoly. In urban areas, no, there are alternatives but out west a woman may have travel hundreds of kilometers to get to any form of health care, including the pharmacy, nevermind how far she has to go to get to the next one.

Sorry if this is incorrect, but seeing as I'm not American I might be wrong, but is marrying people part of her actual, official duties? I was under the impression that it was an optional service that individual judges could render if they so choose, often for a fee. If that were the case, this tangent of arbitrarily choosing which duties of office to undertake is rendered kind of moot.

^ This.

I think many people in this thread are missing this point. Marriages are not a "duty" of a judge, they are the privilege of one. There is NO obligation for a judge to perform a marriage anywhere in the US that I am aware of. Refusing to do so may be dickish in some circumstances, but I don't think it actually is on the list of job duties for any judge.

In the US, in part due to the way it expanded, there is a laundry list of who can perform weddings because for most of US history the frontier was a bit sparse when it came to clergy. In addition to clergy of various religions and judges, in various jurisdictions court clerks, county clerks, town clerks, town treasurers, mayors, and so on can perform marriages, in California anyone can apply for a temporary license to perform a marriage, and some states still recognize "common law" marriage which is basically two people shacking up and declaring themselves married (OK, usually they have to live together for a period before it's legally recognized). Note that NONE of the above are required to perform marriages as part of their job except, perhaps, the clergy (that would be determined by their religion). They are allowed/permitted/able to perform marriages, largely due to historical reasons that left people in small settlements that may or may not have had officially recognized clergy who nonetheless felt a need to be able to make legal marriages.

Most marriages in the US are performed by clergy, and culturally that's still preferred. (Hell, even I sought out a minister and I'm not terribly religious day to day and not even abrahamic in faith) That might be why the Americans here aren't that bothered. As I said, a judge refusing to perform marriages is a bit dickish but just one judge in an urban area (Dallas) doing this is probably less alarming than, say, a judge with a long string of DUI's who drinks his lunch and still has a car.

Stop and think about it a bit - a black lesbian got elected in the notoriously redneck state of Texas. I have to wonder about the guy/gal she defeated. It may be she really was that much better than the alternative.

I also agree in many ways with the notion that electing judges is not an ideal situation. Again, it goes back to early years in the US. Small communities at the edge of or even beyond state and Federal effectiveness had to organize their own communities and typically chose electing locals to various posts as a means to deal with it. If a small community needed a sheriff NOW and couldn't wait for the government hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away to send someone they picked one of their own. Haven't actually looked into it, but it wouldn't surprise me that the further west you go the more judges in the US are elected rather than appointed.