An anonymous New York judge asked the New York Ethics Committee whether a judge can refuse to conduct the marriage of a gay couple? While the committee did not let its yes mean yes or its no mean no, Rob Vischer at Mirror of Justice says they did “opine that the judge could choose to conduct only those weddings of his relatives and friends . . . tantamount, in the committee’s view, to refusing to conduct marriages ‘on a facially neutral basis’ and the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct do not require a judge to conduct weddings”:
“In the committee’s view, the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct do not, by their terms, require judges to perform marriages. Accordingly, unless a judge is required by law to perform marriages, the committee sees no impropriety if a judge declines to conduct all marriages. Similarly, it is permissible for a judge to consistently decline to conduct marriages for anyone who is not a friend or relative as such a policy honors the judge’s time constraints and does not raise reasonable questions about invidious discrimination, bias or prejudice.”
Read the committee’s entire response here
While I have you, can I ask you something? I’ll be quick.
Twenty-five thousand people subscribe to First Things. Why can’t that be fifty thousand? Three million people read First Things online like you are right now. Why can’t that be four million?
Let’s stop saying “can’t.” Because it can. And your year-end gift of just $50, $100, or even $250 or more will make it possible.
How much would you give to introduce just one new person to First Things? What about ten people, or even a hundred? That’s the power of your charitable support.
Make your year-end gift now using this secure link or the button below.
