In Manitoba, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, things are getting a little bit hectic:
I emailed the Manitoba Vital Statistics office, and they confirmed to me that we are speaking of government agents, not of clergy who are empowered to perform marriages.
Once a jurisdiction has legal same-sex marriage, is it religious discrimination to require a government agent to register same-sex marriages despite their beliefs regarding such unions?
I would say no; once there is legal same-sex marriage, registering the marriages becomes part of a marriage commissioner’s legitimate duties, and a government worker who cannot fulfil his or her legitimate duties should not be working in that position, much as an Orthodox Jewish supermarket worker does not get to claim religious discrimination because her job may require her to handle pork products.
Moreover, I think it would set a dangerous precedent for a government worker to be allowed to pick and choose which citizens to whom to offer services in defiance of their office’s guidelines and according to their private beliefs.
I think your stance is basically correct and sound. My only thought would be that, since this change - and it’s a fundamental one - has been made since they were employed, a grace period might be applied during which they could apply for redeployment within the government, if that is feasible. During that period their colleagues would simply cover for them in those SSM cases.
I would say it’s no different than it was to require govt. officials here in the USA to treat blacks like human beings–including marrying them … to white people, in some cases. Gasp! And many people of that era (and some today) did and do cite religious grounds for their racism.
I couldn’t agree with you more. If a person’s legitimate and reasonable duties suddenly go against their personal morals the person has two options: 1) go to their boss and work out a compromise, 2) quit.
It’s a ridiculous claim. They are not asking to wear a turbin to work, they wish to withhold government services based on their “religion”.
BTW matt_mcl, Manitobans seem free and easy about giving out personal info. A search on the named complaintant gave a phone list of all rural marriage commisioners in MB. Maybe you could conduct a little phone survey?
I don’t believe government employees should be ordered to resign based on their beliefs.
However I do believe that if you actually refuse to perform a government sanctioned service than you should be ordered to resign.
A small point maybe but I am very uncomfortable with government intruding on people’s thoughts with consequences as much as I am with discrimination.
I don’t think we can yet claim that the Manitoba government has ordered anyone to resign based on their beliefs.
I’d like to see the text of that letter the Vital Statistics office sent, rather than just CBC’s description of it. If the letter was worded in the way that the CBC article implies…that is, if the letter said “return your certificates if you have a problem with performing same-sex marriages”, for example…then yes, you have a point. But if the letter said “return your certificates if you are not going to perform same-sex marriages”, or “return your certificates if you are not going to be able to perform same-sex marriages”, than that’s a different kettle of fish. In the latter cases, the goverment of Manitoba is telling it’s employess to quit if they cannot or will not do their jobs, which the government is entitled to do.
If they’re agents of the government then they either have to enforce government policy or quit. To carry it to an extreme, what if a postal worker decided he didn’t want to deliver mail to Jews or a DMV drone decided that it was wrong to allow Muslims to drive? If you don’t want to enforce public policy then don’t be a public servant. It’s simple. This is like taking a job as a bouncer at a titty bar and then complaining that you don’t want to look at titties.
While I completely agree with your conclusion, I think the analogies you offered are flawed. A better one would be to ask if a Muslim DMV worker should be required to give women driver licenses if his relgion teaches him that women should not drive.
Anyway, a government official who refused to perform his duty needs to resign or be fired.
If I understand the article correctly, that’s more or less what’s happening. No one is being ordered to resign, they’re being told, “If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job, we’ll find someone else to do it for you.”
More specifically, I think they’re being offered the chance to resign now to forestall them getting fired later.
Well, I don’t wish to tell the Canadian government how to do their jobs… but were a similar situation to arise here, I see no problem in telling the recalcitrant officials to quit or do their jobs properly.
I heard this exact criticism of SSM policy the day the recent Saskatchewan decision on this matter was handed down. The Sask Party’s justice critic was quoted on the radio as having said that this would result in discrimination against government officials who would object to performing such marriages on religious grounds.
It didn’t strike me as being a valid point then, either. Is it discrimination to require that govt officials who are Catholic perform marriages for divorcees? Of course not. Heck, why is it a problem to perform these marriages anyways, even if you disapprove of them on religious grounds. I would think that a Catholic official might well be fine with marrying divorcees, since the marriage being enacted isn’t a Catholic one.
The other thing is, I’m not certain if this means that they lose their jobs. All I know is that they lose their certification to perform marriages, not whether they can continue with other duties, or if they actually are waged employees of the government to begin with (as opposed to some random person who gets the certification to do it as a sideline).
If they refused to marry inter-racial couples, is that any different?
Law is the law. If it is your job to follow and enforce the law, and you disagree with the law and refuse to do your job, you should probably look for another job, not whine about being discriminated against.
Just curious… since there is wide-spread agreement here that the law should be followed, and the government officials here subject to firing if they do not…
…where was this consensus of opinion when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was breaking the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?
I would think that government officials should be expected to fulfill the obligations of their jobs. If they feel that they cannot in good conscience do so, however, then they should refuse to fulfill those obligations, and then accept the consequences of that refusal. I do believe this is a pretty standard take on the issue of civil disobedience, etc. You may denounce the government policy you’re disobeying, but you can’t bitch about suffering the consequences of violating the policy.
However, whether government officials should fulfill the obligations entailed by their jobs is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether it is, generally speaking, discriminatory on the part of the govt to fire officials who do not fulfill their obligations, and in particular, whether it is discriminatory to fire (or more properly decertify) people who refuse to perform same sex marriages. This question really has nothing to do with whether these officials could be justified in so refusing. I submit that they might be, if it is their sincere belief that performing the marriages would be morally wrong, although I would also think that in that case they are at best ignorant. However, that’s not germane to the matter at hand. The question is, can someone refusing to perform the marrriages claim to have been unfairly discriminated against, and that’s the question which has been unanimously answered negatively.
This has absolutely no implications whatsoever for assessing whether Mr. Newscom acted appropriately, except insofar as it entails that he shouldn’t whine if he, personally, is ultimately bitchslapped by the courts. On the other hand, if said bitchslapping is aimed not at him, but at gay couples, then he’s free to denounce the courts. Or at least, that’s my take on it.
Exactly! If he annouced a policy that interracial/cohabitating/interfaith couples couldn’t get marriage licences then he’d be denying people their rights. One of the reasons we have civil marriage is so people can get married as long as they are legally able to even if their church/temple finds their relationship immoral. If a government hires people to perform marriages it has every right to expect it’s employees to marry every couple who applies and fills out all the necessary forms. Imagine what would happen if an elections official refused to process voter registrations from women because his religion taught that women must stay out of public life. Or a family court judge that refused to grant divorces because her religion says marriages can’t be dissolved.
I think we agreed Mayor Newsom was engaging in civil disobedience, which was clarified to be illegal.
Of course, I believe Mayor Newsom’s actions to be ethically right, and the actions of a marriage commissioner who would refuse to marry a same-sex couple to be ethically wrong.
