Fundy county clerk ordered to issue marriage licenses (moral, best, society)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Viz, You are fine for her resignation. Where do you stand if she carries her actions to the ultimate degree? This could be quite costly for her, on a personal and professional level.
What is your opinion of her continuing to disobey the Court? How far would you go? Is there another solution to her actions?
I think she should follow the law, and issue the licenses. There are taxpayers in her county that want to get married and the law allows them to be married. I think she should leave her faith at the door of her office and be a woman who recognizes she serves every person in the county.
She can pray for forgiveness on the ride home.
Viz, You are fine for her resignation. Where do you stand if she carries her actions to the ultimate degree? This could be quite costly for her, on a personal and professional level.
What is your opinion of her continuing to disobey the Court? How far would you go? Is there another solution to her actions?
I think she should follow the law, and issue the licenses. There are taxpayers in her county that want to get married and the law allows them to be married. I think she should leave her faith at the door of her office and be a woman who recognizes she serves every person in the county.
She can pray for forgiveness on the ride home.
Never put it past a fundamentalist to praise OTHER people standing up for "rights" but which the fundamentalist would never find himself in need of standing up for---personally, that is.
It's sort of like jumping up and down and having a fit over sins OTHER people commit, but which a fundy would never find themselves caught up in.
As a fundy, you must make your praises and your condemnations of others carefully enough so that you yourself are never found in violation of the condemnations, nor in a position of self-sacrifice when it is Moderator cut: Deleted
Last edited by june 7th; 08-15-2015 at 07:36 PM..
Reason: Insulting comment.
Except that this is a new form of marriage that has never been done previously in our country. The clerk would be willing to give a marriage license to someone regardless of their sexual preferences, but she just doesn't feel she can give one to 2 people of the same gender.
You've already agreed that her recourse is to quit her job if she doesn't want to do it.
I have never suggested that she is justified in doing so. But I am saying that regardless of how the "system works" in theory, in practice, elected officials DO ignore the laws daily, opting to pick and choose. I want to know why you seem to think that she should be forced to give out marriage licenses to 2 people of the same gender, when many other elected officials are not held to the standard?
For instance, prior to SSM being legalized, I recall the mayor of San Francisco allowing for SSM in San Francisco. There was no law allowing for it, but he decided to just do it. Why the double standard? Why is HE allowed to formulate his own law regarding SSM, but not this clerk?
Do you believe that he was wrong for doing this? Or was he, in your mind, just courageous?
By a particular religious code, sure. But the marriage license being issued by the clerk is not a religious document, but a civil one. And under civil law a marriage can be dissolved.
Don't confuse the numerous definitions of marriage that different religions use - the only one that matters here is the legal, civil definition.
I don't believe that, no. But our country has accepted the notion that our elected officials can pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce. This elected official is merely doing that.
The elected official can emphasize certain laws over others, but if they are enforcing a particular law then they need to abide by what is Constitutional. It isn't illegal for a governor to de-emphasize speeding tickets in his or her state, but it is illegal for them to only issue speeding tickets to black people. It isn't illegal for the clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely, but it is illegal for them to not issue them to mixed race couples.
In this case, the clerk is acting against the constitutional rights of certain Americans because they belong to a class that she doesn't personally like, and that is illegal and unethical.
The elected official can emphasize certain laws over others, but if they are enforcing a particular law then they need to abide by what is Constitutional. It isn't illegal for a governor to de-emphasize speeding tickets in his or her state, but it is illegal for them to only issue speeding tickets to black people. It isn't illegal for the clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely, but it is illegal for them to not issue them to mixed race couples.
In this case, the clerk is acting against the constitutional rights of certain Americans because they belong to a class that she doesn't personally like, and that is illegal and unethical.
The government should have never classified people by sexual orientation in the first place especially since there are orientations that even gay people believe are morally wrong.
The government should have never classified people by sexual orientation in the first place especially since there are orientations that even gay people believe are morally wrong.
The government never has classified people by sexual orientation. All it has done is legally allowed for SSM marriages. This means that two men/two women/one man one woman who are legally married get spousal benefits.
Some of us feel that it is tyranny to force people to do something against their will.
Yet no one is doing any such thing. They are being asked to do their job. Nothing more. They are perfectly welcome to ask for a transfer or leave the job. But being asked to do your job is not "forcing" you to do anything and you are making a mockery of anyone in the world who actually has been forced to do something against their will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
This is a person who already had an established job and because the courts ruled for immorality, they are being asked to perform a duty against their religious convictions.
They ruled on something YOU have deemed immoral but have never once argue as being immoral. That is different from "rules for immorality". And no, they are not being asked to do any such thing. They are being asked to perform activities within the purview of the job description they accepted when they took the position. If they can not do it, they do not deserve the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
No it is not even remotely in any way comparable to that in any small way whatsoever. Yours is a ridiculous comparison and entirely nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No tryanny is being forced to do something against your will or be punished. That's what the clerk is facing. Violate her religious beliefs or be punished in the form of losing her job.
Being asked to perform the job you accepted is not tyranny and not force. It is normal and happens every day. Religious beliefs are a private matter. They have nothing to do with your job. If you can not perform your job because of some personal hobby you have in your own time.... then you lose your job. Deal with it.
Call it tyranny all you like, but you are merely misusing language willfully to feed an agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If my boss suddenly came in and gave me a NEW job duty that violated my morals, you betcha I would protest.
If your job, the one you accepted, was to issue secular government licenses.... then being asked to issue a new one is not a change in your job description. You know in advance the quantity and types of licenses is going to change over time. THAT is your job in that case.
So if you refuse to issue one particular license that has been added to the stock because of your personal hobby at home.... then you are refusing to do the job you accepted in good faith from the outset. You deserve to be fired in such a situation. And no amount of whinging about morality ethics or tyranny is going to change this fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
