I support gay marriage equality 100% (since I am gay and married here in Canada) and I celebrated the SCOTUS decision of last Friday in support of my American brothers and sisters.
And predictably, we are witnessing the same phenomenon as other countries with marriage equality: conservative religious believers whose conscience will not allow them to issue licences, or in any way condone same-sex marriage. Several cases of this kind emerged when Canada legalized ssm in 2005. First reports are that some counties in Texas are getting push-back from their employees, and I predict thre will be more cases in other states before long.
I have too much respect for for EVERYONE’S human rights to simply say: “Tell the bastards to do their job or hit the road.”
Because this matter concerns a lot more than just gay marriage rights, what we need is an overall rule that applies everywhere and that respects religious liberty.
Just to get the discussion started, here are some points to ponder:
If a registry office is ready and able to issue whatever is required for a same-sex marriage, does it really matter if not every emeployee in that office is ready to do the work?
What would we say to a conservative Catholic employee who will not issue a marriage licence to a divorced Catholic? Or an orthodox Jew who refuses to issue a licence for a Jew-Gentile marriage? What about a member of the Church of the Aryan Nations who will not issue a licence to an interracial couple? What about a Quaker who refuses to sign the purchase order for a lethal injection for purposes of capital punishment?
Is there are distinction to be made between an employee who was hired before SSM became legal in all 50 States, and one who is hired at a marriage registry office AFTER June 26, 2015?
Does the government office have a responsibility to find the protesting employee another government job?
Each of these officials took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law, not anything else. There is nothing to resolve. They can each obey their oaths or resign. Yes, it’s that simple.
Not really much more to add other than what I posted in the other thread, starting here. But to answer the specific question in the OP:
In a time of transition, such as now, I don’ think so. Long-term, yes. Where long-term is measured in months, not years.
I’d say they knew they would have to do that when they took the job.
See my posts in the other threads, but “a qualified yes”. By “qualified” I mean, I personally would want to make some accommodation, but would not say that I am objectively right and others who disagree are objectively wrong. See also “graciousness”, a quality to aspire to even if we don’t always achieve it.
There’s a human right to get paid for not doing your job?
Look, if you receive a lawful order from your superior, and say no, then you’re choosing “hit the road” over “do your job”; it’s not a human-rights violation, it’s what a job is.
I’d wager that the fact that Catholic clerks have been issuing marriage licenses to divorced Catholics for quite some time is a serious foot in the door for saying that people who refuse to issue marriage license to gay people need to get over themselves, and the organizations they work for need to decide where they stand on the issue.
“Sorry, this police officer or fireman doesn’t like gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Good luck on your rape/arson problem while you wait for one that is ok with it.”
Frankly, there’s no room for reconciliation. Just immature judgy folks stomping their feet and claim bigotry in the name of religion.
There are people who want to refuse a direct order from their bosses and still keep their jobs in other situations too, and I have never understood it. If you don’'t want do what a job requires it seems to me you have only two choices, do the job or go someplace else.
The supervisor can gracefully call the bigot into the office and gracefully ask the bigot if she/he is willing to gracefully serve all the customers she/he is legally required to serve. If said bigot is unable to comply with said graceful request, the supervisor should gracefully suggest that said bigot visit payroll to pickup her/his last paycheck.
Marriage offered by government is not the same as marriage offered by religions.
Marriage as offered by religion acknowledges a bringing together of two (or more) persons and sets specific rights and obligations that they have to each other. These obligations are static throughout the religion and are independent on what civil authority the married people reside in.
Marriage as offered by government is the recognition of two persons coming together to create a family unit and an outlining of the rights and responsibilities that those people have to each other. These rights change from government to government and are independent of what religion the participants belong to.
It is unfortunate that the same word is used for both only in that it allows for equivocation between the two. Personally I think the biggest mistake that contributes to this is the fact that clergy are empowered to act as representatives of the state in solemnizing the union.
Given that the two senses of marriage are clearly separate from each other I don’t feel that there is anything to reconcile and that persons should perform their duties as directed without thought for their religious feelings. I mean, would it be considered allowable for a Catholic government employee to refuse a marriage certificate to a Hindi couple as they are not following the tenets of the Catholic religions idea of marriage?
It has nothing to do with being white. I was simply pointing out that your argument has already been addressed as a matter of law. Let me repeat: We often make exceptions to our important principles when there is a serious threat to public safety.
And a follow-up (to the poster who has posted almost as much since his self-announced departure as before): Is gay marriage a serious threat to public safety? Or in any way something that urgently requires prevention for some reason? Because, if not, then that was not a relevant or useful objection, yanno.
That is not the operative word or phrase. “Public safety” is. A clerk not issuing a marriage license is not a threat to public safety in the same way a cop declining to break up a gay-bashing spree is.
So, a gay bashing spree needs to be broken up. Fine.
What about a robbery that happened two minutes ago? The robber is down the street. The robbery is over, so no current “serious threat” right?
This is why drawing a line anywhere becomes capricious and ridiculous. As I said in another thread:
I want to know why it’s “deeply held religious beliefs”. Why does religion suddenly become that important. I have deeply held beliefs but am not religious, so do my beliefs do not count?
What if your deeply held religious beliefs were suddenly changed. Like you are a member of the Episcopal Church and were against gay marriage, but then they changed their mind (in 2012) and are now for it? Can you no longer hold the belief since your religion changed?
Because that poster was not talking about preventing SSM. Rather, he was suggesting that if we let clerks [temporariily] opt out, do we also let cops/firefighters opt out. In case you missed it:
Public safety, by necessity, overrides person beliefs in this case.