On the bright side, at least she is not discriminating. She is not specifically targeting any single group of people. She is just saying that she won’t marry anyone until she can marry everyone. This still adheres to the principle of equality, which on some level, should be admired by every decent human being.
It’s like when Oklahoma decided to drop National Guard spousal benefits for not only homosexual couples but also heterosexual couples as well, thus avoiding discrimination by equally screwing over every married Oklahoman in the National Guard. Yeah, Oklahoma may have backstabbed the brave men and women who serve out country, but at least they did so equally. The lack of discrimination in their betrayal is at least partially respectable. (but as you can probably tell, though I respect the equally applied nature of Oklahoma’s approach, It annoys me that the state has no respect for patriots who serve our country… In my humble opinion, punishing the 99% of heterosexuals in the National Guard was not worth it just to spite the 1% of homosexuals in the National Guard, but silly me for thinking that patriotism is important)
But yeah, at least Oklahoma didn’t discriminate when it backstabbed patriots, so the state exercised at least some small sliver of principle in regards by upholding equal (poor) treatment under the law.
Similarly, this judge’s decision to not marry anyone is an appropriate personal choice that is at least principled on some small level, even though it, in effect, withholds a basic civil service from every citizen.
There have been stories of social conservative judges in marriage equality states who have refused to marry anyone (gay or straight) because they don’t feel comfortable with performing same-sex marriage but they also don’t want to discriminate against certain Americans. Therefore, they sidestep the issue altogether by refusing to marry anyone.
These socially conservative judges should be praised for their nondiscriminatory stand on principle, as should the socially liberal judges who have essentially made similar nondiscriminatory stands on principle, even if we disagree with some of the core views that compelled such action.
So again, refusing to marry everyone is totally okay for socially conservative judges to do in marriage equality states. And, refusing to marry everyone is totally okay for socially liberal judges to do in non-marriage equality states. We can’t merely praise one of these actions and condemn the other. That would be hypocritical.
As long as these conservative and liberal judges are treating all couples equally, I don’t see what the big deal is. In fact, I like the fact that these judges can’t be forced to violate their conscience. If you have any respect for conservative judges refusing to marry everyone in order to uphold their values, then that same respect should be afforded for liberal judges as well when they refuse to marry everyone to uphold their values. Even if those values are questionable, the tactic is still perfectly legitimate.
I want to preserve the sanctity of marriage as much as the next guy, but I feel people should give credit where credit is due. This judge’s decision is a completely legitimate way to go about things, and I would consider myself a hypocrite if I criticized this judge’s approach but then went on to praise conservative judges who did basically the exact same thing.