# Decertifying government workers who refuse to marry same-sex couples: discrimination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2004, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547 "2004-11-13T07:32:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/21 "2004-11-14T15:37:45Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. Thanks, you saved me some typing. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/22 "2004-11-14T16:03:07Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? This whole thing confuses me. The Christian ideas of marriage are only applicable to wedding services carried out according to the appropriate Christian form, no churches consider any form of civil marriage to be something that they should be concerned with. A registraar registering a union that the state has chosen to sanction between two people of the same sex is in no greater conflict with their beliefs than when registering a union between 2 people of the opposite sex that have not been married in a church. In which case they are probably in the wrong job… ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/23 "2004-11-14T16:13:26Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > no churches consider any form of civil marriage to be something that they should be concerned with Well, I certainly agree that this _should_ be the case. However, given the hue and cry over same-sex marriage from religious conservatives, it seems quite obvious that there are in fact many churches concerned with what form civil marriages take. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/24 "2004-11-14T16:18:57Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Well, I certainly agree that this _should_ be the case. However, given the hue and cry over same-sex marriage from religious conservatives, it seems quite obvious that there are in fact many churches concerned with what form civil marriages take. Tough toenails. Whatever many churches feel does not dictate policy in this country. At least, in theory… in practice, it turns out that democracy works in their way in most places. Makes you just juittery with anticipation for elections in Iraq, where there is an even stronger religious movement. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/25 "2004-11-14T16:24:20Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Well, I certainly agree that this _should_ be the case. However, given the hue and cry over same-sex marriage from religious conservatives, it seems quite obvious that there are in fact many churches concerned with what form civil marriages take. Right, that doesn’t make it a _religious belief_ though. I mean churches might be concerned about the gap between the rich and poor in society, but that doesn’t mean revenue employees could cite religious beliefs for refusing to implement a tax rise for lower earners. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/26 "2004-11-14T17:03:05Z")
One big issue that most posters have ignored is that this is a change in policy. It’s one thing to say that if marrying same sex couples are part of job, then nobody who objects to performing these marriages should take the job. Fair enough. But it’s different to say that somebody who’s already been working this job should now be required to assume a new duty that they may find morally objectionable. This person could reasonably argue that they are still willing to do the job they were hired for. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/27 "2004-11-14T17:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > One big issue that most posters have ignored is that this is a change in policy I don’t see that that makes a difference. The job that they applied for was to administrate civil marriages as defined and legislated by the state, and that is still their job. The implication would be that any change in any government policy could lead to a government employee claiming that it conflicted with their moral beliefs and that they were being discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/28 "2004-11-14T17:20:00Z")
Knowing that public policy is subject to change is also part of the job. Democracies are not static in their policy, any public servant already knows that when they take the job. They are not agreeing to enforce public policy only as it is _right now_, they are agreeing to enforce any changes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/29 "2004-11-14T17:22:44Z")
Just to draw an analogy, a police officer cannot argue that he should only have to enforce the laws that were on the books when he enlisted in the force. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/30 "2004-11-14T17:45:04Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Tough toenails. Whatever many churches feel does not dictate policy in this country. Or this one, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/31 "2004-11-14T18:13:52Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Just to draw an analogy, a police officer cannot argue that he should only have to enforce the laws that were on the books when he enlisted in the force. Well to play the ethics card, what if you were a cop in a state with sodomy laws which were suddenly required to be enforced ? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/32 "2004-11-14T18:21:48Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > Well to play the ethics card, what if you were a cop in a state with sodomy laws which were suddenly required to be enforced ? Then I would wonder how I would catch people in the act without a warrant to see them having sex O\_o ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/33 "2004-11-14T18:29:54Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > Well to play the ethics card, what if you were a cop in a state with sodomy laws which were suddenly required to be enforced ? Either quit or ignore the infractions and accept any penalization that occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/34 "2004-11-14T18:30:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Just to draw an analogy, a police officer cannot argue that he should only have to enforce the laws that were on the books when he enlisted in the force. But a police officer CAN argue he’s disobeying the law if it’s to further the cause of granting more civil rights to people. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/35 "2004-11-14T19:20:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But a police officer CAN argue he’s disobeying the law if it’s to further the cause of granting more civil rights to people. > > Right? Wrong. A police officer can argue that he’s engaging in civil disobedience by disobeying the law in order to grant civil rights/refuse to infringe on civil rights. In so doing he is behaving morally. He should not expect to do so without consequences, naturally, and it would not be discrimination on the part of the government to discipline him - notwithstanding the fact that it _would_ be discrimination on the part of the government to continue refusing to grant civil rights/infringing upon civil rights. Similarly, a government agent in Manitoba may engage in civil disobedience by refusing to enact same-sex marriages. In so doing, the agent is behaving appropriately insofar as his own view of morality dictates, but we may provide soundly reasoned arguments demonstrating that any view of morality that dictates that the government may not legitimately recognize same-sex marriages is seriously flawed. So, from a purely internal viewpoint, the actions are quite similar, and we should judge the actions as similar so long as we’re judging merely the actions and not the internal viewpoints themselves. However, there’s clearly a case to be made that one of the viewpoints is commendable, and one that is not. Moreover, and this is the point of this thread, the government is not engaging in unfair discrimination by decertifying agents who refuse to enact same-sex marriages. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/36 "2004-11-15T05:06:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? Newsom was breaking the law. (Well, I’m not sure if he was breaking the law, or just issuing marriage licenses that didn’t have any legal meaning.) The marriage licenses were not valid. I believe his stance was MORAL, and it’s admirable that he took it. But it was ILLEGAL, and what is moral is not always legal. Civil disobedience carries with it consequences - thats kind of the point of civil disobedience, as Gandhi would have pointed out, though many people seem to have forgotten that.The point of civil disobedience is that you break the law to show the law is unjust, not that you pretend the law doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/37 "2004-11-15T15:05:42Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Newsom was breaking the law. (Well, I’m not sure if he was breaking the law, or just issuing marriage licenses that didn’t have any legal meaning.) The marriage licenses were not valid. > > I believe his stance was MORAL, and it’s admirable that he took it. But it was ILLEGAL. Right. And another detail: Newsom’s _ultra vires_ actions did not have the effect of depriving anyone of an _already recognized_ right to receive a public service. The agents of the City of San Francisco were not witholding performance of their legal duties (except maybe that the flood of gay applicants may have caused serious delays to other people seeking their valid certificates), but performing one that was outside their scope of authority. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547/38 "2004-11-15T15:14:11Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Moreover, and this is the point of this thread, the government is not engaging in unfair discrimination by decertifying agents who refuse to enact same-sex marriages. I believe you will find near-unanimous agreement on this point in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decertifying-government-workers-who-refuse-to-marry-same-sex-couples-discrimination/274547.md?page=1)