this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
375 points (98.7% liked)

News

33733 readers
3077 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.

A Texas judge is asking a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S., arguing in a lawsuit filed on Friday that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”

The case involves Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, who has been involved in years of legal proceedings to try to win the right to not perform marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for opposite-sex couples. She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 228 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

It seems completely logical to me that if a judge claims her Christianity is so vital to her being that she cannot perform duties that don't align with her Christianity then she cannot give fair and impartial judgments to anybody who is not also a Christian. Anybody of any religion that's not Christianity in her courtroom should call for her recusal. Anyone not Christian for whom she has made judgment should call for mistrals.

Not even to mention the fact that can she truly be impartial to other sects of Christianity?

[–] YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 133 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think if she wants to argue that Christianity is so central to her being that she cannot make impartial decisions, she should be permanently dismissed, as she is clearly not fit for the position. There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality, she is the problem, not her religious preference.

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I'm not entirely sure other Christians are capable of impartiality considering the long long history of Christians getting special treatment in our judicial system. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find a plethora of disgusting rulings that mentioned Christianity as a mitigating circumstance which allowed for lessened penalties.

[–] YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, don't get me wrong, the establishment of Christianity in the US is horribly corrupt. I suppose I'm arguing to judge these pieces of shit by their character, not their religion. I'm not even Christian, I just believe it's dangerous to start applying mass generalizations to any group of people. Religion has no place in justice, either in protecting or hurting someone's case.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago

Religious belief is a choice. There's no problem criticizing people for their choices.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah. I know Christians who can, but many can't. Like, how many Christians really understand that the justification to deny Alaskan native sovereignty was that they weren't Christians? I hold anti Christian sentiments, I've seen how they've oppressed everyone around them and cried foul at the sort of inconvenience they'd demand other religions experience.

[–] MOARbid1@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago

At this point, I don’t trust anyone that is religious. It has been proven time and again that they will act in the interest of their god, over the interest of humanity.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

most of them think the same way, especially the evangelical types.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More like many of them are capable of feigning impartiality, well at least you have juries. But I'm sure there's some fucker there as well to stack the decks when needed

[–] YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day ago

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but isn't all impartiality a feint? No human is free of bias; at least if they do their best to act the part, it's better than the blatant, open, unashamed corruption going on in the government today. If a judge holds dumb personal biases but puts those aside to judge, that's not "feigning impartiality", that's doing their job. Because as I mentioned before, religion has no place in justice.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are plenty of Christians out there capable of impartiality

[citation needed]

[–] YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anthony Kennedy, one of the most influential supreme court justices in establishing gay rights in the US, was Catholic.

Harry Blackmun, the majority opinion writer for Roe v. Wade, was heavily involved in church and gave several sermons.

Despite what MAGA would have you believe, it is possible to be both Christian, and not a hateful asshole (though it seems to be getting more rare by the day).

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Excellent examples, thanks. Your last line nails on the head where my thoughts are at these days.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Prime Minister Paul Martin was excommunicated from his family church when he legalized same sex marriage some 20 years ago.

He also got the supreme court(of Canada) to rule on it first to head of Stephen Harper and PP(aka Milhouse) inevitable challenge of it.

Pierre Trudeau(Justin Trudeau's dad) was a practicing Roman Catholic when as Justice Minister when he legalized homosexuality almost 60 years ago.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Excellent history lesson, cheers.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I did not know those facts, thank you. Whatever other flaws Paul Martin may have had, that took some personal conviction which I respect. And very astute of him to head off future challenges in that way.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And any actually faithful Christian should call for her recusal as well, since she's clearly just using religion to justify her lack of impartiality, since the Bible very specifically states that the rules of God do not override the rules of the land and Christians should follow the Bible without either breaking the local laws or by trying to change them.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago

A lot of Christians will. Evangelicals though. It's insane to me how Evangelicals will be the first to judge all Muslims for something like ISIS and then turn around and essentially want "Christian Sharia" in their own town. It's projection really. They want strict interpretation of religious laws but just for the laws that favor the existing structures of hierarchy.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Given that nearly 1/3 of the population is not even xtian, that'd be pretty wild. And that's before, as you point out, you start considering other sects.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Right but if all the judges in the district are Christian, then people are denied services. So she's gotta be fired. There's no other option.