A Washington judge just got admonished by their judicial conduct authority for announcing he did not wish to perform weddings for gay people. He thought this manner of office-holding was a mere "personal religious objection."
Here's the problem with this bigot on the bench. If he really thinks though his "personal religious objection," then every time he does a wedding, he is trampling on the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion....by his lights.
If he's not conducting a religious sacrament when he does a civil wedding, then the "personal religious objection" simply does not apply any more than it would to trying a lawsuit with gay parties...to which he might also object, as far as we know.
Is it too much to ask that a judge think like a lawyer just a little bit in a matter that would carry a lot less controversy if the average citizen understood the difference between a civil marriage and a religious sacrament?
