Bangladeshi Pastor Describes Attempt to Slit His Throat

Bangladesh Credit Sajid Muhaimin Choudhury-compressed
Photo Credit: Sajid Muhaimin Choudhury

DHAKA, Bangladesh (Morning Star News) Two of the three suspected Muslim extremists who tried to cut the throat of a pastor in northwestern Bangladesh last week met with him in mid-September and feigned interest in converting, the church leader told Morning Star News.

Luke Sarker, the 52-year-old pastor of Faith Bible Church in Ishwardi, Pabna District, received hospital treatment for the minor neck wound he sustained in the assault on Monday (Oct. 5). He said an unknown person had called him on Sept. 17 who expressed interested in converting to Christianity.

“I said, ‘I cannot convert you, but you can come to me to know about Christianity,’” he said.

The following day, two people came to his house by motorcycle, and he discussed Jesus with them. His wife offered them tea. After telling them how and why Jesus came into the world, and that Jesus was the Savior of mankind, he read them some verses from the Gospel of Matthew, among several other passages from the Bible.

“They said they liked whatever I shared with them,” he said. “When they left my home, they said they would like to come again to my house. I appreciated and welcomed their forthcoming visit, because telling about Jesus is my work.”

On Monday (Oct. 5) three people came to his house on the same motorcycle without any prior notice at about 8 a.m., and the two who had visited previously asked if he remembered them.

“I said I could remember and greeted them and took them inside my room,” he said. “I spent around half an hour with them discussing about Christianity. Suddenly, one of them grabbed my neck just under the chin. I tried to shout but could not. I was groaning and tried to bite the fingers of the grabber. The other two persons tried to slit my throat with a knife.”

  • Connect with Christian News

His son and daughter rushed in to fend off the assailants, and his wife also came in shouting for help. A neighbor also arrived, and the attackers fled, he said.

Pastor Sarker, originally from Satkhira District in southwestern Bangladesh, has been working as a pastor at the church mission for five years.

Pabna District Police Chief Alamgir Kabir told Morning Star News that a case for attempted murder had been filed and one person arrested. The person detained in connection with the attack, 28-year-old Obaidul Islam, is reportedly a member of the Islami Chhatra Shibir, student wing of violent Islamist political party Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami.

“We have arrested one person so far, and he will be produced in court next week,” Kabir said.

Following the Sept. 28 killing in Dhaka of an aid worker of a Christian-backed organization and the assassination of a Japanese businessmen on Oct. 2 in Rangpur – with the Islamic State allegedly claiming responsibility for both attacks – the government should not be dismissive of the attempted slaughter of Pastor Sarker, a Christian leader said.

“The attack on a Christian at this time could be a ploy to draw the attention of foreign countries following the killing of two foreign nationals in Bangladesh,” said Nirmol Rozario, secretary general of Bangladesh Christian Association. “Christians are in a vulnerable position now in Bangladesh. The government should not take the incident lightly. They should ensure more protections to Christian communities so that no such incident takes place anymore.”

In addition, Christians in Kotalipara, Gopalganj District recently faced an attempt to seize their church land. Area Hindus on Aug. 26 tried to forcibly take the land in order to run a street through it, sources said. Local Christians who tried to stop them were badly beaten.

Local officials stopped the violence, but influential Hindus have continued to try to seize the land and have threatened to bomb the church building and kill the Christians, sources said.

Sunni Muslims make up 90 percent of Bangladesh’s population, according to the 2011 census, with Hindu making up 9.5 percent of the total population, which the U.S. government estimates at 163.7 million people. The remainder of the population is mostly Roman Catholic and Theravada-Hinayana Buddhist. There are also small numbers of Shia Muslims, Bahais, animists and Ahmadiyya Muslims.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Nidalap

    And so the march to remove all Christians from office continues. Once that is accomplished, setting out to remove them from the public square will be all the easier. Eventually, our nation could become just another Christian-persecuting dictatorship where other nations will send missionaries…

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Oh please. I would wager that 90% of public office holders are Christian. You are regurgitating a Tony Perkins line that he uses to garner donations.

    • Ganymede425

      Considering that many Christians and Christian denominations are supportive of same-sex marriage, the notion that this is some sort of Christian witch-hunt is farcical.

      • DNelson

        Agreed. Even if there were none, it is still farcical.

      • Tyler Bryant

        @Ganymede425 Wrong, there are NO true Christians and Christian denominations that are supportive of gay marriage! NONE! Gay marriage, being an extension of homosexuality, is an abomination to God and no true New Testament church and follower of Christ(which is a true Christian) supports anything God condemns. Case closed. (2 gavel knocks) Court is adjourned.

        • Ganymede425

          You are free to argue that those Christians which support same-sex marriage are apostates, but it doesn’t actually help your argument.

          Whether they are “real” Christians or apostates, the fact that not all Christians condemn same-sex marriage is the death knell for any argument positing that this is an anti-Christian witch hunt.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Yes, all Christians DO condemn gay marriage, or they aren’t TRUE Christians! “Christian” means to be Christ-like, and Christ DOESN’T approve of gay marriage. He considers it an abomination due to its being an extension of homosexuality. Marriage, as ordained by God, is between man and woman, and thats the only marriage God approves of. FACT!

          • Ganymede425

            Repeat it as often as you like, the Christians on the other side say the exact same thing about you.

            It still doesn’t bolster the OP’s argument.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Whether you believe it or not, they(who support gay marriage) ARE NOT CHRISTIANS! Christians, just like Christ, do not support gay marriage!

          • Ganymede425

            And the Christians on the opposite side of the issue might say the same thing about you.

            Unfortunately, such proclamations mean nothing in relation to any claim that the investigation of this judge has anything to do with an anti-Christian animus.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Scripture is Scripture, and Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination, and therefore so is gay marriage as an extension of it. Its a perversion of God’s ordinance of marriage since the very first couple in the human race as being between Man and Woman. Christ and the Bible says its sin, so its sin, and any true Christian(as I’ve already said this means to be Christ-like) doesn’t approve and support what the Bible condemns. End of story. Case closed. (two gavel knocks) Court’s adjourned.

          • Ganymede425

            “Scripture is Scripture”

            You didn’t happen to notice that, even amongst the many Christian denominations that actively oppose same-sex marriage, there are still scriptural and doctrinal differences between them? Neither Roman Catholics nor Irish Protestants supported same sex marriage, but that didn’t stop them from waging a bloody war over doctrinal differences.

            Though, maybe you’re aware of that one true Christian denomination that gets all questions of Scripture correct.

            Which is it? Which denomination is right?

          • Tyler Bryant

            There is only one Bible, one Word of God, whose proper English translation is provided for by the Grace of God in the King James Bible and its modern descendant the New King James Bible. The King James Bible(whose original languages are Hebrew and Greek) is THE BIBLE. The Catholic Bible is false as it changes a lot from whats written in the original languages and corrupts what God handed down. So that, for one, ISN’T the Bible, nor is any other that alters anything from the original language. As to “Christian denominations” there isn’t one with absolution that gets all Scripture right as different kinds of Churches from such denominations, such as Methodist and Baptist, don’t believe identical, such as some believing in not having music or in baptism by sprinkling instead of by immersion as ordained in the Bible. Going by an individual Church(of an denomination) which preaches the Gospel and is a New Testament Church, like mine at Little Rock Baptist Church, is much better than trying to find a whole denomination that gets it completely right as there isn’t one.

          • Ganymede425

            “Which denomination is right?”

            “there isn’t one.”

            If this is true, then every Christian denomination is equally damned and arguing over the doctrinal propriety of same-sex marriages is completely moot.

          • Tyler Bryant

            A New Testament that teaches and preaches the Gospel of Christ can argue gay marriage is against Scripture correctly. Any Church of any denomination thats a New Testament Church is NOT damned at all, so no not ever denomination is equally damned.

          • Ganymede425

            Yes, I am well aware you believe that “My religion is right and your religion is wrong.”

            It still does not produce any evidence that there is some sort of anti-Christian witch hunt going on.

          • Spectrum

            The term “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. Those who support same-sex “marriage” are really saying they support homosexuality itself. The two are mutually inclusive. This is how the gay agenda has conned people – by making “rights” and homosexual practices a “package deal”, a Trojan horse of deception. You can’t ( realistically ) have a marriage without the sexual component of it.

          • Ganymede425

            This still doesn’t change the fact that major Christian denominations actively support same-sex marriage and bless said unions.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Any denomination that actively supports same-sex marriage is NOT a Christian ANYTHING, denomination or otherwise. For reason I’ve already explained. End of story. Now I’ll tell you the Salvation Plan in case you haven’t heard it so you’ll know the truth of God. Because of humankind’s sin against God from their progenitors every human got stuck with a sinful nature requiring annual sacrifices to God unblemished male animals(such as goats or sheep) for the sake of it being as pure and close to perfect as possible on their behalf to pay their sin debt which requires a fatality since sin is fatal, with prophecies about a Messiah being given throughout the Old Testament. Because these sacrifices were imperfect God(the Father) sent His only Son, Jesus Christ(God the Son) to be born as a human from a virgin(to be untouched by man’s sin) to fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah and to die on the cross for the sins of all humanity, both back then and today, for all time. All sins besides blasphemy against the Holy Spirit(God the Holy Spirit, the last aspect of the Holy Trinity, which is the one true God), past, present, or future can be forgiven by accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior and allowing His perfect sacrifice to pay your sin debt to God so you can dwell with the Lord for all Eternity. Whether you have accepted Christ or not I don’t know and can’t say, but if you haven’t at some point in the future beyond now if you haven’t heard this, the Salvation Plan before, you will be called on by God to accept Christ and will unavoidably make one of two choices; One, except Christ and assure you’ll be with Him in heaven, or two reject Christ and, if you never reconsider if the Lord gives you more chances to get saved, burn in hell for all Eternity paying your sin debt to God yourself. Its really that simple. I pray God’s will be done in your life.

          • Ganymede425

            Yes, and, as I’ve said before, Christians on the opposite side of the issue would say the exact same thing about you. End of story.

            Your argument is nothing more than a continuation of “My religion is right and your religion is wrong.”

          • Tyler Bryant

            Read my last comment over if you haven’t about the Salvation Plan. I made an edit to it after originally posting it to explain God’s will. And wrong again, this is not about “religion” and mine or another’s being right or wrong, this is about the Will of God. God says in His Word(readable in English in the King James Bible) that homosexuality is an abomination and that marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore “gay marriage is, as a perversion of God’s ordained marriage and an extension of homosexuality, also an abomination. It is SIN! It is contrary to His Will! End of Story. This is about my version of the Bible, God’s word in English, being right and ANYTHING that says otherwise being WRONG, as it is! Get it right. “Religion” doesn’t even factor in. If you write back in denying the truth of the Salvation Plan or contradicting anything I’ve said beyond this point, your comments from here on will be ignored. If you have any questions to ask, I’m all ears anytime and will gladly answer them.
            Case closed. (two gavel knocks) Court is adjourned.

          • Ganymede425

            ” If you have any questions to ask, I’m all ears anytime and will gladly answer them.”

            How does any of this relate to claims that the ethics investigation of this judge amounts to an anti-Christian witch hunt?

          • Tyler Bryant

            This judge hasn’t lost his rights to religious liberty and the free exercise of his religious beliefs just because hes become a judge. For him to be subjected to an ethics investigation questioning his fitness as a judge because he won’t do something that violates his faith(that was the whole reason for his taking this stance) looks like nothing but persecution for this judge because he and his livelihood are being threatened over something that he has absolute rights to. I don’t know if hes a true Christian or not, and therefore don’t know if this is anti-Christian persecution specifically, but its religious persecution without distortion.

          • Ganymede425

            What you seem to be forgetting is that a religiously motivated action can also be illegal.

            For instance, while killing someone via stoning for wearing a garment of two threads might be motivated by a sincere religious belief, it is still impermissible under both US law and under the mores of modern society.

            But in either case, nothing you say here is evidence of an anti-Christian witch hunt.

            “absolute rights”

            I’m not sure you have a solid handle on absolute rights. It is well established that religious conviction does not provide an exception to generally applicable law.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Wearing mixed fabrics is no longer forbade as Christ has fulfilled and set us free from the Mosaic law. Stoning people to death is also not required anymore as Christ prevented a adulterous woman from being stoned to death in the New Testament. Nowadays mercy is to be shown, though the Bible does talk of Capital punishment. In answer to you statement about something being disallowed in US law and modern society, the Bible says that if man’s laws contradict God’s commands, we are to follow God over man(Acts 5:29). One such case is gay marriage, and just like Kim Davis, any true Christian should be disobeying this law as it contradicts God’s. Under the U.S. Constitution this is called “free exercise of religion” in accordance with the First Amendment, given the Bible’s status as a religious book under it, and is therefore legal according to the Supreme Law of the Land. Any such establishment that says otherwise is whats illegal, not acting on ones religious faith.

          • Ganymede425

            “Under the U.S. Constitution this is called “free exercise of religion” in accordance with the First Amendment”

            With this statement, you confirm you don’t have a solid handle on “absolute rights.” Even a rudimentary perusal of Constitutional jurisprudence would reveal that the First Amendment does not create exceptions to generally applicable laws. You might rule differently if you were a Supreme Court justice, but you aren’t one.

            But yeah: Jews, without belief in the New Testament and with their adherence to the Mosaic Covenant, have a sincere religious belief in the passage that calls for the death of those that wear mixed fabrics. Would you allow such sincere believing Jews a special exception to murder laws so that they can engage in this sincere religious practice?

          • Tyler Bryant

            No, you’re wrong. The U.S. Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and it makes NO exceptions to these rules. The First Amendment itself makes an absolute statement and any so called “perusal of Constitutional jurisprudence” to say otherwise is nothing but an attempt to twist the Constitution to suit ones own end, just as SCOTUS did in their gay marriage ruling. All I’ll say about that. And if “generally applicable laws” trump Constitutional rights(which they don’t) then how come the federal government originally had it custom to accommodate those of a religious faith so that they could perform their duties without violating their faith when faced with something that carried that threat? As to the Jews still holding on to their belief in Mosaic law and refusal to believe in Christ and the New Testament, they are following a false religion as they are wrong in their beliefs and not allowing Mosaic law to be carried out in the US is the right way to go. May just make it easier for them to realize the truth and accept Christ as being who and what He is. So no, in their case an exception shouldn’t be made to murder laws.

          • Ganymede425

            ” As to the Jews still holding on to their belief in Mosaic law and refusal to believe in Christ and the New Testament, they are following a false religion as they are wrong in their beliefs and not allowing Mosaic law to be carried out in the US is the right way to go. May just make it easier for them to realize the truth and accept Christ as being who and what He is.”

            Wait, so the United States government should not allow Mosaic law to be carried out in the US in order to encourage Jews to become Christian?

            Your garbled understanding of the First Amendment has now crossed over from uninformed into unintentionally hilarious. I’m glad this conversation ended on a funny note. K, thnks, bai!

          • Ganymede425

            “I pray God’s will be done in your life. ”

            Why not douse me in gasoline and light the match yourself?

          • Tyler Bryant

            Since you misunderstood, God(the Father)’s Will is for you to accept His Son as your Lord and Savior and dwell with them in Eternity. When you do accept Christ, God the Holy Spirit dwells within you from then on and will always be there to help you follow God’s will if your willing to listen.

          • Blaylock

            your opinion only

          • Tyler Bryant

            Wrong, FACT by Scripture! Refusing to believe it doesn’t make it untrue. Case closed.

        • C Fowler

          Amen!

      • Nidalap

        Nope! It’s actually pretty accurate! Ah! I guess these days I really must narrow it down. When reading my comments, assume the definition of “Christian denomination” to be one that holds to the teachings of The Holy Bible as law, with no need of redefining or adding to/taking away from of any kind. That should put the focus where it needs to be for you! (^_^)

        • Ganymede425

          Someone else tried this argument. It fell flat then and it is falling flat now. To save time, I’ll just copy-past my response here.

          “You are free to argue that those Christians which support same-sex marriage are apostates, but it doesn’t actually help your argument.

          Whether they are “real” Christians or Christian apostates, the fact that not all Christians condemn same-sex marriage is the death knell for any argument positing that this is an anti-Christian witch hunt”

          • DNelson

            In other words, if they agree with him they are “real” Christians and if they don’t, they aren’t. Of course, that is what every Christian believes, so who knows who the “real” ones.

          • Angel Jabbins

            No, real Christians aren’t the ones agreeing with Nidalap (as much as we may like him 🙂 ) or with any other Christian. Only God and He alone, gets to define what a Christian really is…according to His Word, the Bible…those who have repented of their sins, trusted in Christ, turned from what He says is sinful behavior and obey what Jesus taught. He will say to many who claimed to be Christians on Judgment Day…’Depart from Me, I never knew you’. If He is going to say that,(as Scripture predicts) then there will be many false Christians. He said, “MANY will say unto Me in that Day”: ‘But Lord, Lord…we knew you’. He will say to them, ‘No, I never knew you’ and then He will send them into eternal darkness. That is what the Bible says. True and false believers…the bible talks a lot about how to identify the difference between the two. This is no mystery. Read 1 John to find out what a real Christian is. Far cry from what we are seeing in many apostate Christian churches today.

          • Bruce Morrow

            Hi Troll see you are back to harass Christians on a CHRISTIAN website.

          • Mary Lyons

            Yep, you got that right Bruce, Ganymede425 is a TROLL, this is what they do best, is get on sites and drone on and on with nothing to say, but only wanting to argue about nothing to prove exactly how ignorant they are. The sad thing is many posters get drawn into the circus.

          • Nidalap

            You can try to believe that all you want, it still won’t stop it from being 100% accurate. If it helps you to say they’re only going after those who persist in following the Bible, then feel free! The patrons of this particular site will still know exactly what is meant! (^_^)

          • Ganymede425

            That is not a cogent response to anything in the previous comment. Reread and try once more.

          • Nidalap

            Nope! Kinda stands on its own, you know? Especially here, on the Christian news site! You might find that yours would be more, ah, widely received on some atheist sites! (^_^)

          • Ganymede425

            Well it does stand on its own, though it doesn’t really add anything to support your argument.

            Ironically, your viewpoint doesn’t even square with the editorial philosophy of this website.
            “With no ties to any specific Christian denomination or any political party, we are independent of the bias that is often commonplace from other news sources. The only bias we do hold is one of Scriptural authority, and while there is a spectrum of theological differences, Christian News Network aims to fairly represent both positions on a given issue.”

          • Nidalap

            That’s why I put the “When reading my comments…” part in my post there! 🙂

          • Ganymede425

            You could do that, or you could instead just point out that your objection isn’t with people being persecuted for being Christian, but for opposing same-sex marriage.

            That avoids the necessity of a long follow-up paragraph.

          • Nidalap

            Well, those two universe intersect quite nicely! Can’t you almost envision the Venn Diagram now? (^_^)

          • Ganymede425

            Yes, I’m familiar with how you believe your brand of Christianity is correct and how every other brand of Christianity is nothing more than apostasy.

            EVERY Christian denomination believes the exact same thing: each adherent is another’s apostate. That’s why there was so much bloodshed and anguish in North Ireland.

          • Nidalap

            Yep! So you’d better watch yourself, bub, or you might just find yourself with a Christian tract being offered to you! Some of the edgier ones might even invite you to a function involving (Hide your eyes, kids!) a covered dish of some kind! (^_^)

          • Josey

            hehe 🙂

          • C Fowler

            To call yourself a Christian and support homosexuality and Gay marriage makes you not a Christian but a fake…

          • Ganymede425

            What is your point?

            All you are saying here is “My religion is true and everyone else’s religion is fake,” something said by every person of every faith since the dawn of time.

          • Bruce Morrow

            No atheist websites for you to haunt?

          • Ganymede425

            This website, in its “About Us” section, is specifically nondenominational. There is no specific branch or denomination of Christianity that is hailed as superior here. We’re all welcome to post and comment here, not merely people of your particular Christian sect.

          • Spectrum

            “…Did God really say….” ? Guess who said that….

      • C Fowler

        I would never believe this, maybe you have it wrong, they are supportive of the person but not of their sin….

        • Ganymede425

          “I would never believe this”

          I think this is possibly the problem. The idea of a Christian being welcoming and accepting of a gay or lesbian couple is so alien to you as to be unbelievable.

          Google “List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality” and you’ll find a comprehensive tally of every denomination that blesses same-sex marriages.

      • Spectrum

        Only the apostate churches support same-sex “marriage”. And if you can’t see that this is just the early stages of a more extensive persecution of REAL Christians, then you’re very naive and gullible.

        • Ganymede425

          For those reading, this is an excellent example of the type of red herring arguments I was alluding to before.

          For those requiring more illustration, simply repeat the previous comment while replacing the word “support” with “oppose.” Notice how it can be used by Christians on either side of the issue?

    • Michael Cohan

      This has nothing to do with removing Christians from office. It has to do with a Judge who refuses to do his job because thinks his own religious biases take priority over enforcing the law. If he doesn’t like the law because it conflicts with his religious biases, the appropriate thing to do is for him to resign, because he can no longer do his job of fairly enforcing the law. He doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws he will follow, any more than Obama should be able to issue lawless executive orders on immigration that conflict with the law. I wonder, would you say the same thing about a (pacifist) Quaker government clerk who refuses to issue gun licenses because they conflict with his religion, or a Muslim employee of the DMV who refuses to issue women driver’s licenses?

      • Danfire

        And, what part of ‘In Oregon, judges aren’t required to officiate marriage ceremonies at all’ do you not understand? He’s not refusing to do his job! I think you’re twisting the truth!

        • Michael Cohan

          Here’s the problem with that argument: Judges must, at all times, maintain strict impartiality and enforce the law without regard to their personal prejudices. This is a fundamental due process requirement. That’s why the standard for recusal is low; it’s not proof of actual bias, it’s any situation in which the judge’s impartiality can be reasonably be questioned. Here, the issue is not that this Judge is refusing to do marriages at all, which is allowed. It’s that his express reason for declining is based both on personal bias (as a Christian, he will not enforce the law in favor of gays) and on a direct statement that his religious preferences take priority, for him, over neutral enforcement of the law. And he cannot exercise his discretion, even where that discretion is allowed, for an improper (here, unconstitutional, whether we like it or not) reason. Therefore, his refusal to perform all marriages is invalid, even though he has discretion. The legal term for this is “abuse of discretion”. Furthermore, a reasonable person in his courtroom who is gay, or not of the same religion as the judge, could reasonably question whether this Judge will enforce the law fairly in that person’s case. After all, this Judge has already said that to him, his personal religious preferences take priority over the law. This destroys his very fitness as a Judge. That’s why he should be impeached.

          • http://stpaulsmeadville.org Rev. David P. McAfee

            OK, following your argument that judges must be impartial, apply that to the five justices of the Supreme Court who clearly did not base their majority opinion of one aspect of Constitutional law.

          • Michael Cohan

            As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (when the founders were still alive and in charge), “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 137 (1803).

            Marbury’s rule of law is absolutely fundamental and is literally the first thing taught in Constitutional Law 1 in law school (I speak from experience). Whether or not you and I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court (and in fact I completely agree that the ruling is wrong) is irrelevant. The Court has spoken, and their ruling is now the law unless overruled by a constitutional amendment. There are a lot of rulings that reasonable people disagree on, and if lower court judges are free to disregard the rulings of higher courts simply because they don’t like what the higher court did, then we have no rule of law at all; we have anarchy.

            By the way, your argument is identical to those who opposed allowing black children to attend schools next to white children in the 1950’s as per Brown vs. Board of Education. When George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to block a little black girl from entering, would you have supported his right to do so for the same reason you think it’s OK for this judge to disregard the Supreme Court in favor of his own personal prejudices?

          • Ganymede425

            That decision was based, primarily, on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

            Yes, the amendments do go past ten.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            The 14th Amendment doesn’t mention sexual behavior or marriage. In fact, neither are mentioned in the Constitution at all.

            Try again.

          • Ganymede425

            While you are correct in that the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention marriage or sexual behavior, such is beside the point as those two points aren’t at issue.

            The constitutional problem was that state laws that barred same-sex couples from getting married amounted to sex discrimination. See, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment entitles all people to be treated equally under the law, and, generally speaking, treating men and women differently is not permitted. In this specific instance, the state government is telling you, “You’re a man, so you’re only allowed to marry women; we will not let you marry men.” In other words, they are discriminating on your choice of spouse on the basis of sex.

            That is, unambiguously, the sex discrimination version of “You’re white, so you’re only allowed to marry whites; we will not allow you to marry non-whites.” As we all know, race discrimination is not permitted under the 14th amendment, and neither is sex discrimination.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            The constitutional problem was that state laws that barred same-sex couples from getting married amounted to sex discrimination.

            Nonsense. The only “sex” we are talking about is sexual behavior, not sex as a gender.

          • Ganymede425

            Laws barring same-sex marriage don’t restrict your choice of spouse based on any sort of sexual behavior, the restrict your choice of spouse based on their sex.

            The law is literally saying that you can marry men but not women, or vice versa. This was the exact same thing anti miscegenation laws did: you can marry a white person but not a not-white person, or vice versa.

            Feel free to elaborate on your own position, ideally with examples, facts, and reasoning.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I am still trying to figure out yours. It lacks coherence. What are you saying, exactly?

          • Ganymede425

            “I am still trying to figure out yours. It lacks coherence. What are you saying, exactly?”

            Really? You had trouble understanding this?

            “Laws barring same-sex marriage don’t restrict your choice of spouse based on any sort of sexual behavior, they restrict your choice of spouse based on their sex.”

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Do you have trouble understanding the meaning of the word “coherence?” Because saying the same thing twice doesn’t make things more coherent, they just make you more stupid.

          • Ganymede425

            It is telling that you chose to respond with a two-sentence insult instead of addressing the topic at hand. Are you no longer interested in defending your original assertion, or did you realize it is indefensible?

          • Spectrum

            I repeat ; Chief Justice Roberts said that the decision had “nothing to do with the constitution”. I’d venture to say the Chief Justice knows what he’s talking about. You, on the other hand…..

          • Ganymede425

            “I’d venture to say the Chief Justice knows what he’s talking about. You, on the other hand…..”

            I assume you say this because the Chief Justice is a learned legal expert and judge, and I am not.

            The problem with your reasoning here is that the Supreme Court is composed of nine learned legal experts and judges, and most of them disagreed with the Chief Justice.

          • DNelson

            “It’s that his express reason for declining is based both on personal bias (as a Christian, he will not enforce the law in favor of gays) and on a direct statement that his religious preferences take priority, for him, over neutral enforcement of the law.”

            I think that is quite a leap. For example, when Ms. Davis appealed to the SCOTUS for relief, there were no justices who indicated they would support such relief, despite 4 of the justices writing dissenting opinions in Obergefell. Judges are not impeached based upon what MIGHT happen.

            “After all, this Judge has already said that to him, his personal religious preferences take priority over the law.”

            In what way has he said that?

          • Michael Cohan

            Actually, once they express that they will not follow the law, they certainly can be impeached based on the logical assumption that they will do exactly that in future cases.

            And where did he say that his personal religious preferences take priority over the law? Did you read the article on which we are commenting? It’s right there. ““He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs,” spokesman Patrick Korten told The Guardian.”

          • DNelson

            Please cite the Oregon law that says that judges are required to perform marriage ceremonies.

          • Michael Cohan

            I already explained this, so please read. Let’s do this one more time: even where a Judge has discretion to do or not do something, that discretion cannot be exercised for an improper reason (“abuse of discretion”). Here, the Judge has expressed bias as his reason for exercising his discretion not to perform marriages. Yes, he’s not doing them at all, but his specific reason is bias against homosexuals. It is no different than if a judge said, I don’t think blacks and whites should get married, so I’m going to exercise my discretion not to marry anyone so that I can affect interracial marriage. It’s plainly improper.

          • DNelson

            So you can’t cite an Oregon law that requires judges to perform marriage ceremonies. Therefore, there is no law that he is not following. Got it. Thanks.

            “for an improper reason”

            His religious beliefs are an “improper” reason? What would be a “proper” reason? In what way is he “abusing” his discretion?

            “Yes, he’s not doing them at all, but his specific reason is bias against homosexuals.”

            No his bias is not against homosexuals. It is against same-gender marriage. He has shown no legal bias against homosexuals as individuals, nor bias against their right to get married. He has simply stated that he does not want to participate in such ceremonies, and thus, in accordance with NOT showing bias, has chosen not to participate in ANY marriage ceremonies. Now, if he decided to continue to officiate at opposite-gender ceremonies, but not same-gender ceremonies – that would be bias.

            “so that I can affect interracial marriage.”

            How would his refusal to perform such ceremonies “affect” interracial marriage?

            “It’s plainly improper.”

            On what basis?

          • Michael Cohan

            You know, really, I’ve already answered your questions. There’s no point in answering again. Suffice it to say that legally, this is a no brainer.

          • DNelson

            “You know, really, I’ve already answered your questions. ”

            Really? Let’s review, shall we?

            You said: “After all, this Judge has already said that to him, his personal religious preferences take priority over the law.”

            I asked: “In what way has he said that?”

            You did not answer.

            I asked you to cite a law in Oregon that requires judges to officiate wedding ceremonies.

            You cited none.

            I asked you: What would be a “proper” reason?

            You cited none.

            I asked you: In what way is he “abusing” his discretion?

            You provided no answer.

            I asked you: How would his refusal to perform such ceremonies “affect” interracial marriage?

            You provided no answer.

            You said: “it’s plainly improper”

            I asked you: On what basis?

            You provided no answer.

            So, which questions of mine did you answer?

            “Suffice it to say that legally, this is a no brainer.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but without a basis for your opinion, it is an uneducated one. Your suggestion that his choice to not officiate at same-gender marriages somehow creates a fait accompli that he will be unable to rule without bias on any case that involves gay people and thus he deserves to be impeached on a “might happen” is simply without merit or legal precedence.

          • LeAnda Carver Latstetter

            Thank you.

          • DNelson

            My pleasure.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Judge Day refusing to perform any marriages to avoid violating his faith in no guarantees or says he wishes to prevent marriages he doesn’t approve of from happening, only that he won’t perform them. His choice doesn’t affect anything since many other judges and such are available besides him. Thats pure speculation on your part.

          • Michael Cohan

            “I won’t follow the law because you can go to a different judge who will follow it”…. ummmmm, let’s see…. nope. This is getting to the point of not even being worth responding to, it’s so far afield of actual law.

          • Tyler Bryant

            Thats just it, Judge day IS following the law. Moron.

          • DNelson

            “”I won’t follow the law”

            You keep saying he “won’t follow the law” but you are unable to cite a law that says he is required to perform marriage ceremonies. What law is he not following?

          • Tyler Bryant

            Wrong, this Judge has said that he will not violate his faith in the performance of his duties. He didn’t say he wouldn’t enforce the law when it comes to such things as his recusal and giving coupes referrals to other judges IS legal. On matters where his faith won’t be threaten with violation, such as a crime committed against a gay person, Judge Day has indicated in NO way he would handle the case any different than he would for a straight person.

          • DNelson

            “Wrong, this Judge has said that he will not violate his faith in the performance of his duties.”

            Where did he say that? He has no “duty” to perform wedding ceremonies. He is allowed to – but is not required to. It is not a “duty”.

            “He didn’t say he wouldn’t enforce the law when it comes to such things as his recusal”

            Where did he say that?

            “On matters where his faith won’t be threaten with violation, such as a crime committed against a gay person, Judge Day has indicated in NO way he would handle the case any different than he would for a straight person.”

            When and where did Judge Day give any indication of how he would conduct hearings regarding a case where a crime was committed against a gay person?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            For example, when Ms. Davis appealed to the SCOTUS for relief, there were no justices who indicated they would support such relief, despite 4 of the justices writing dissenting opinions in Obergefell.

            The application was actually given to Kagan, and I do not think it was an accident it wound up in her hands.

          • Blaylock

            any proof or just more conjecture?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            of what?

          • DNelson

            “The application was actually given to Kagan, and I do not think it was an accident it wound up in her hands.”

            You’re right, Matthew. It was not an accident. The Justices of the Supreme Court are assigned to different districts pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42. In that, each Justice hears applications from the districts to which they are assigned. Those assignments were last made in 2010.

            When an appeal is presented, the Justice assigned to that district can issue a ruling on his/her own, or refer the appeal to the full court. In this instance, Kagan referred the appeal to the entire court. Not a single justice indicated that they would grant the appeal. All sided against Davis.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Citation.

          • DNelson

            For which part? That SCOUTS justices are assigned to districts or that Kagan referred to issue to the entire court?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            All of it. Stop playing games, doofus.

          • DNelson

            How is asking for clarification on what you are asking for a citation on “playing games”? Why do you feel it reasonable to include derogatory words in your post?

            Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the DC Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the 4th Circuit (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia).

            Two Associate Justices are each assigned two circuits, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.

            ALLOTMENT ORDER

            It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2010.

            For the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice,
            For the First Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice,
            For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice,
            For the Third Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,
            For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice,
            For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice,
            For the Sixth Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
            For the Seventh Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
            For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,
            For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice,
            For the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
            For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
            For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

            (ORDER LIST: 576 U.S.)

            MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2015

            ORDER IN PENDING CASE
            15A250 DAVIS, KIM V. MILLER, APRIL, ET AL.

            The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by
            her referred to the Court is denied.

          • Donna Sims Howell

            Given your argument about impartiality, then Justices, Ginsburg, Kagan and Scalia should all have recused themselves from the marriage equality vote. Both Ginsburg and Kagan has performed gay weddings and spoken openly about their own prejudice, as well did Justice Scalia. There is no way to enter a case without personal opinion and even prejudice. In his own way Judge Day is recusing himself from the business of marriage in its entirety and admits to a prejudice. His prejudice is no more or less that the those on the supreme court who by the way did NOT recuse themselves. You can’t have it both ways. Either we are free to make these decisions or we are not.

          • Michael Cohan

            If he can’t set aside his prejudices and follow the law as it is, then he has no business being a judge.

          • LeAnda Carver Latstetter

            There is no law in Oregon that he has to perform any marriage ceremonies. He stopped a year ago. It isn’t a recent decision. Get over it.

          • Blaylock

            Have any of the other judges performed hetero weddings? if so they should have recused themselves by your thinking

          • Donna Sims Howell

            It is also not the job of the Supreme Court to “write law.” It is the job of Congress. As far as many are concerned, there is not a law concerning marriage equality, just a Supreme Court opinion.

          • Michael Cohan

            The Constitution IS law.

          • Spectrum

            Not when activist judges interpret it according to their own personal belief systems, and not on proper legal definitions.

          • Spectrum

            Exactly, Donna. You beat me to it. You’re right up to speed on this. This sham “marriage” ruling was IMPOSED on us. It’s a form of judicial tyranny.

          • Josey

            Tell that story to Judge Bunning who discriminates against Christians.

    • Blaylock

      stop with the histrionics

      • Nidalap

        Nope! I never even listened to the ‘Hooked on Histrionics’ tapes or anything! So I’m not acting and you’ll learn soon enough I’m not exaggerating either! (^_^)

    • Josey

      yep, started with the military and the sick train is moving right along

  • Jeanette Victoria

    This is what the degenerates want to send all Christians to the ghetto of unemployment

    • Dave_L

      “But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:19)

    • Blaylock

      nope. just need people to do their jobs

  • FoJC_Forever

    The Homosexual Agenda, a branch of Feminism, is showing its face again. In a place where judges aren’t required to perform them, they want to oust someone who chose to stop performing legal “marriage” ceremonies altogether. This is simply an attack on the First Amendment right to religious freedom, so the growing pervasive doctrine of sinful acceptance can be forwarded.

    It will not stop here. Once the government has been thoroughly saturated with this demonic agenda, individual citizens who reject the wretchedness of homosexuality will be targeted. The individual’s Right to Freedom of Speech will be curtailed and increased threats of imprisonment, loss of jobs, loss of property, and more will continue.

    Those who know Jesus (the) Christ will continue to follow Him in the Eternal Kingdom of God, despite the losses we have to endure in this life. The End of this world is near and the Beginning of the New Heavens and New Earth are at hand. Jesus is LORD, and His Kingdom approaches.

    • Dave_L

      So far all of the trouble has centered on those who are entangled with the State. Either through owning a business (where Christian ethics are subject to the State) or working for the State. Paul tells us not to do this.

      “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14–15)

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Paranoid much? All minority groups share a common agenda — equal protection under law. It’s not that complicated.

      Everyone is familiar with Jim Crow. However, people forget that there was a time in this country when many jobs were forbidden to Catholics and Jews. That, too, was a religious objection. Things like “restricted” public accommodations and deed covenants were predicated on religious and racial discrimination by the white Protestant majority.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You have no clue what I’m talking about on this comment board. You’re stuck in politics and the natural world. You are blown along by winds of doctrine (ideas) as the slightest cunning and trickery of the Devil and those he uses to promote his agendas in the earth.

        You live in Darkness and are trying to explain the qualities of Light even though you’ve never seen the Light.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    It’s a valid line of inquiry that permits the issue to be settled. Having said that, based upon what I know (which is limited to this article), I would think that the judge has not violated the ethical standards of his office.

    Yet it remains a personal struggle for me. I ask myself if I would feel the same way if the judge stopped performing weddings because of religious objections to interracial marriages or interfaith marriages. Intellectual honesty introduces at least some uncertainty.

    Those who view this simplistically as a controversy engendered by the Homosexual Agenda™ to oppress ever-persecuted Christians are denying themselves the opportunity to fully understand the issue.

    • Ganymede425

      “Having said that, based upon what I know (which is limited to this article), I would think that the judge has not violated the ethical standards of his office.”

      It all depends…

      Refusing to officiate all weddings would not be a potential violation. On the other hand, this judge went through a six month period where he refused to officiate only the weddings of same-sex couples based upon his religious objections. That could very well be a violation of the constitution’s establishment clause.

      • Danfire

        Oh, but, wait… there was a ban on same sex marriages so he probably wasn’t asked to perform them. It states he stopped performing ALL marriages when the federal court struck down the ban. Therein lies another problem. Federal courts taking away ‘we the people’ rights at the state level.

        • DNelson

          “Federal courts taking away ‘we the people’ rights at the state level.”

          We the people are not empowered to have laws in place which violate protections provided by the federal Constitution.

          • Danfire

            Which is why we the people can’t do a damn thing about what’s going on in this country. I’m done with it. I have my passport ready.

          • DNelson

            I hope you find a place with a form of government that is more to your liking.

        • Ganymede425

          Your claim here is factually inaccurate.

          Same-sex marriage was legalized in Oregon in May, 2014. The judge in question refused to officiate any of those now-legal same-sex marriages up until around October, 2014. At that point, he refused to officiate any marriages at all.

          That left him with about a six month window in which he refused to officiate legal same-sex marriages but still officiated opposite-sex marriages.

          (As an aside, federal courts taking away rights has absolutely nothing to do with this article. This is about a judge from Oregon being investigated by the Oregon state government.)

  • Ganymede425

    Why pretend this is a news article if you’re going to put the word “weddings” in quotes? If you want to write an op-ed instead of a news article, just do that.

  • Michael Cohan

    Obviously this judge would not give a homosexual litigant in his courtroom equal treatment under the law. Although it’s not at issue here, it’s also fair to ask if he’d be biased against those of other religions as well, such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Since he thinks it’s OK to enforce his religion against those in his courtroom with regard to marriage, why wouldn’t he do that against those in his courtroom seeking legal relief? And remember, the standard for judicial bias isn’t hard proof, it’s any situation where the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (this is the standard in all states and the Federal courts). Clearly, since this Judge thinks his religious biases should be enforced against those in his Courtroom regardless of the law, this is appropriate grounds to impeach him.

    • DNelson

      “Obviously this judge would not give a homosexual litigant in his courtroom equal treatment under the law. ”

      Basis?

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    I’m not sure that judges are required to conduct weddings for all who come before them, or whether they are merely authorized to conduct weddings. If the latter is the case, then this judge would appear to be within his rights to refuse to conduct either same-sex weddings or any weddings at all. This is different from Kim Davis’ situation, where she forbade everyone in her office from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, thereby single-handedly preventing anyone from obtaining a marriage license in her county. That was clearly an abuse of her authority. If she had permitted others in her office to issue same-sex marriage licenses, then there would have been no problem.

    • Michael Cohan

      Incorrect. The Judge cannot exercise his discretion for an unconstitutional reason, even where that discretion exists under the law. It is no different than the Judge refusing to marry, say, interracial couples. If he exercises his discretion for a legally improper reason, he is not within his rights.

      • DNelson

        Why is the Judge not free to decline all marriage ceremonies?

        • Ganymede425

          Generally speaking, a refusal to decline officiating all weddings would be permissible, but this judge went through a six month period where he refused to officiate only same-sex marriage while continuing to officiate opposite-sex marriages.

          • DNelson

            “but this judge went through a six month period where he refused to officiate only same-sex marriage while continuing to officiate opposite-sex marriages.”

            I didn’t see that in the article. Did I miss it? If not in the article, where is that information available for review?

          • Ganymede425

            This article is a rehash of the original article over at the Guardian. This is the relevant portion.

            “”When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

            Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

            “He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs,” Korten said. “”

            Google “Oregon Judge Guardian” for the article as this site auto-flags web links in comments.

          • DNelson

            I’ll check it out. Thanks.

  • legaliis

    The point forgotten in all this homo. bull$hit is that just because 9 people said “it’s the law” doesn’t make it so unless the general public accept it as such. They are misnamed “supremos” when, in fact, they a normal human beings subject to mistake. Hell they don’t even do a proper job of being the third branch of government.

    • DNelson

      “The point forgotten in all this homo. bull$hit is that just because 9 people said “it’s the law” doesn’t make it so unless the general public accept it as such. ”

      Actually, it does.

      “Hell they don’t even do a proper job of being the third branch of government.”

      How so?

  • DNelson

    If officiating at weddings is not a requirement of his job, I cannot think of a reason why he should not be able to opt out of doing so.

  • Wayne McLaw

    this country was built on christianity no one should be forced to violate their religious belief america is no more a democracy its a dictatorship the pilgrims came to this nation to escape tyranny from the roman catholic church so they can have a separation of church and state revelation 13 and verse11 said that while america look like a lamb one day it would speak like a dragon the dragon represent satan read revelation12 and verse7

    • Ganymede425

      You should pray for some periods, and maybe some commas, too.

  • Jeff Adams

    “not required to perform marriages”, end of discussion, end of investigation!

    • Ganymede425

      It isn’t quite that simple.

      To draw an analogy, look to a Right to Work state. In such a state, employers are entitled to fire their employees for any reason or even for no reason. Even so, they are not entitled to fire their employees for specific exempted reasons: race, sex, religion, nationality, etc.

      There is an argument that the judge, by refusing to officiate marriages of gay couples while doing so for straight couples, was engaging in religious discrimination.

  • Usunder

    God help us, before the cock crows stop all this stupid stuff. You gave to us you can take it away. Show the power of your word and stop them dead in their tracks.

  • Chrissy Vee

    Evil men and their evil supporters… blind fools.
    Investigating him. Good grief. Let the scoffers scoff, their day is coming.

  • Karen

    They change the law when ever they want to. So how can a judge or anyone else keep doing their job. A line has to be draw. With this so called President you don’t know the hell is coming next and everyone is following suit. So I don’t blame anyone for covering their assets. And if you were in these poeple shoes. Where would you draw the line or will you just follow suit???

  • LeAnda Carver Latstetter

    He stopped performing ALL marriage ceremonies a year ago. A Judge does not have to perform marriage ceremonies in Oregon and he isn’t impeding anyone from getting married. Stop discriminating against him because he is a Christian.

    • Ganymede425

      While it is true that he stopped performing all marriage ceremonies last October (aside from one in March), that isn’t the whole story. Between May and October of 2014, he continued to perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples but refused to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

  • Reason2012

    Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    It doesn’t work anymore to call any who do not agree with the attempts of activists to legally re-define morals as having a phobia or being a bigot – people are realizing those are the only hateful actions here.

    We need to get back to the truth of God.

    May God / Jesus Christ be glorified.

  • Josh Janson

    Honestly, as long as he isn’t officiating weddings for ANYONE, you can’t really claim that he’s discriminating. And like the article says, no judge is required to officiate weddings. I’ll wager that nothing will come of this.

    • Ganymede425

      I think the main issue is that there was a half-year where this judge was only officiating the marriages of straight couples and refused to officiate the marriages of gay couples.

  • R34lly

    If the State of Oregon does not require any judge to officiate over weddings of any sort, then I reckon it will be a short-lived investigation and absolutely nothing will happen to him. However, it is not a defence of his 1st Amendment rights but his right under Oregon law not to officiate weddings, if he so wishes. If there is no compulsion on judges issuing marriage certificates and that is done by other bureaucrats, then he also has nothing to fear. However, if only judges can issue such certificates, then that is another matter altogether, as he would be guilty of acting in a discriminatory way while holding public office.

    There is far too much hyperbole being thrown about by Christians with extremist views about being persecuted like the Jews were by the Nazis and so on when the comparison is ridiculous and offensive. All it is doing is getting that arm of Christianity a bad name amongst mainstream Christians and non-Christians alike, not that it ha ever had a good reputation. Maybe that is part of the problem, ie not worrying about reputation or credibility.

  • Becky

    Fortunately, Judge Day knew what he was doing and did it accordingly. They’ll find nothing against him, at least nothing within the confines of the law/codes.

    These homosexual activist groups don’t care that he’s no longer performing any/all nuptials…that’s not their issue. Their issue is that he (and all Christians) isn’t submitting his heart and mind to their perverted ways. That’s what they’re after. They want a nation that is fully indoctrinated into their homosexual propaganda…a daily life filled with all manner of sexual immorality, perverseness, lewdness, indecency, lies and every detestable thing that is against our heavenly Father.

  • Spectrum

    We need a million more Vance Days. Fight the good fight, judge. Decent people are with you all the way.

  • Spectrum

    Whenever there is a conflict between man made secular law and God’s law, we as Christians, must ALWAYS follow God’s. “…We ought to obey God rather than men….” Acts 5;29

    The context of the above passage is clear ( and relevant to what’s happening today ) ; there was a conflict between
    what the Sanhedrin ( the judges in authority ) were ordering* ( * that
    Peter and the apostles were not to preach the gospel in the temple ) –
    and their God given right to do so. In other words, they were
    attempting to deny Peter and his fellow apostles the right to freedom of
    conscience and expression*.

    *Does that ring a bell, homo supporters ? Kim Davis…. ( ring ring )