You be the judge.
The prosecution wishes to present three pieces of evidence for your consideration, Your Honor. Exhibit A is the judicial oath of office prescribed by the Ohio Revised Code for all judges in the state.
It reads in pertinent part, "I, (insert name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Ohio, will administer justice without respect to persons, and will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (insert office) according to the best of my ability and understanding."
Insert "C. Allen McConnell" and "Toledo Municipal Court Judge" and you have the oath our dear jurist took before being seated on the bench.
Yet he decided that he had the right to pick and choose among couples seeking to be married in Toledo Municipal Court when he declined to marry Carolyn Wilson and her partner on a recent Monday in July. A bailiff quoted the Judge as declining to perform those "types of marriages," one of the duties of muni court judges. And now devout Catholic Judge Tim Kuhlman has also indicated he is anxious to see if he can opt out of such duties.
Those types of marriages? We ask you, does this sound like administering justice without respect to persons, or impartially performing all duties? Begs the question, Your Honor, what else does he think about "those types of people" when they come into his court?
As to solemnly swearing to support the US Constitution, we ask for your consideration of Exhibit B. The 14th Amendment to said august document includes the following passage, which we edited slightly for clarity. "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Just what does that "equal protection" have to do with the right of couples to marry? Sounds like an issue of interpretation. Of course you are well aware that the task of interpreting the import of the Constitution is laid at the feet of the US Supreme Court.
We are in luck, Your Honor, for the Court has recently clarified the issue of the 14th Amendment and the right to marry! Not two weeks before Judge McConnell decided he could refuse to treat those types of marriages equally with all other types, the Court asked the rhetorical question, does the Constitution, and particularly the 14th Amendment, protect the right of same-sex couples to marry?
The opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges was clear. The Constitution, said the majority, "grants them that right."
Not in Judge McConnell's courtroom, though, and potentially not in Judge Kuhlman's, either. Rather than support the Constitution, Judge M instead followed what he describes as his "personal and Christian beliefs." Your Honor, we ask you, is there anything in the oath of office about supporting your Christian beliefs or performing all duties so long as it is your personal opinion that you should do so? Doesn't sound very impartial to us.
We don't doubt that there's a verse somewhere in Judge M and Judge K's Bible that calls a man lying with another man an "abomination," and demands that said miscreants be stoned at the village gates. It's probably right near the admonition against cutting the corners of your beard and the one against wearing clothing woven of two types of materials. Odd, since both Judge M and Judge K are usually clean shaven, and we bet there's some cotton-poly blends in their judicial closets. So to speak.
Folks who want to substitute religious laws for the secular? That is what we are fighting over in Afghanistan. And there was a time when the Christian Church was the law of the land in Europe. We call those times the Dark Ages. The eventual substitution of reason for blind faith is called the Enlightenment. It happened over four centuries ago.
In summation, Your Honor, we ask you. Shall we expect our jurists, notably Judges McConnell and Kuhlman, to do what they solemnly swore to do? We argue in the affirmative. If they can't, we suggest they resign.
One last thing, Your Honor, then the prosecution rests. We forgot the parenthetical at the end of the prescribed judicial oath of office. The judge may affirm that they undertake their solemn oath as they "shall answer unto God." Ironic, that.
To Judges McConnell and Kuhlman, we admonish you with the words of Matthew, Chapter 7, Verse 1. Judge not. Judge not the folks who come before you, in whatever matter, including two consenting adults seeking to marry. Or, judge not. Resign.
Don't be a municipal court judge at all.
