Same-Sex Marriage

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Entropy

It's fair to bring up if your goal is to simply illustrate another change in marriage laws that someone may or may not agree with while working for the state...I think what Blue was concerned about is assuming that if you're homophobic then it follows logically that you're also racist.

From this article we have no idea whether she is or isn't. It would be interesting to find examples from the past where someone had to deal with a change in marital laws regarding race. I'm sure it read very similar.

You're right: it is good to bring up racial analogies today, because there is no reason every minority should have to fight the same struggle for civil rights. But that's not to say that all homophobes are racists.

[biosc1]

Originally Posted by Blue

I get it and I agree with your position (as it's my feeling as well, even as a Christian). However, I do think that belittles her stance by tossing in the "well, she's obviously racist too" which I don't agree with either (Queue someone saying she's a bigot and it doesn't matter if her position is belittled...).

Nah, I was only trying to bring up something else that many didn't believe was "morally right" many years ago, but now we don't (or I hope we don't) bat an eye at.

I just failed at explaining it

[MagGnome]

This is a really touching article about a gay solider from Minnesota who was recently killed in Afghanistan. I cried through pretty much the entire thing.

Every opponent of same-sex marriage should be ashamed, especially those like Bachmann who pretend that they believe in the "land of the free".

[Hotcod]

That had me fighting back tears in the office. Very good article. The sad, base thing that it highlights is that that man an intelligent brave person who wanted to do little more than do the right thing would, if given people had there way, have to hide who he was. He wouldn't have been allowed to serve, he wouldn't have any rights and yet there is boundless proof that he was as valuable as a person as any of the straight people he served with. The army was better for having him and yet people still some how think he is basically an evil croupting presence

[VerseD]

I admire everything about that story, but especially this: "Regardless of orientation, I beseech all of you who are parenting now, or do so in the future, to give them all the love you can muster. At times it feels like you are bailing the ocean, but do not stop loving your children." What a love! And what a soldier! And how unjust are the limitations we place on our patriotic gratitude!

I also heard an interesting article over the weekend about white-collar homosexuals, about half of whom hide their orientation in the office, considering it a barrier to success: how can they network without water-cooler stories about a girlfriend? Moreover, in twenty-nine states it is lawful to fire someone for being openly gay or lesbian; in twenty-nine states, sexual orientation is more important than courage or ability, than "the content of their character."

Nothing to do with marriage, but marriage, as a right that should be equal, is part of dispelling the illusion that this minority is a separate, lesser class.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by VerseD

how can they network without water-cooler stories about a girlfriend

This doesn't seem to effect the IT world that much

(this thread needed a little levity)

[National Kato]

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has written a brief two-page order saying the "don't ask, don't tell" policy must be lifted now that the Obama administration has concluded it's unconstitutional to treat gay Americans differently under the law.

Dan Woods, the lawyer representing Log Cabin Republicans, said that unless the administration appeals the order to the U.S. Supreme Court, "don't ask, don't tell is over."

[MagGnome]

Thank goodness. I hope DOMA is next, followed by all of the state-specific same-sex marriage bans.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

Employees that work for the government are not allowed to express their respect for any religion in regards to their duties.

That's not true at all. There are lots and lots of examples of religious accommodation for government employees. The most obvious example is that pacifist draftees are not required to bear arms (although they can be compelled to perform non-violent duties like being medical orderlies).

Originally Posted by VerseD

Moreover, in twenty-nine states it is lawful to fire someone for being openly gay or lesbian; in twenty-nine states, sexual orientation is more important than courage or ability, than "the content of their character."

It's also legal to fire someone for being cowardly or incompetent, so it's more fair to say that sexual orientation is equally important as courage or ability in 29 states, and in the rest of the states sexual orientation is more important. Courage and ability have no legal protection.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Ox

That's not true at all. There are lots and lots of examples of religious accommodation for government employees. The most obvious example is that pacifist draftees are not required to bear arms (although they can be compelled to perform non-violent duties like being medical orderlies).

Other than that one example can you cite another? And more importantly can you cite an example where the person continues to perform their same function at work and is allowed to selectively ignore or dismiss rules and laws depending on their religion?

It's one thing to be a conscientious objector...in that case you're either allowed to defer from the draft or assume a non-combative role. But in this case we're talking about someone keeping their job and refusing to perform it because of personal reasons.

[Shieldmaiden]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Other than that one example can you cite another? And more importantly can you cite an example where the person continues to perform their same function at work and is allowed to selectively ignore or dismiss rules and laws depending on their religion?

It's one thing to be a conscientious objector...in that case you're either allowed to defer from the draft or assume a non-combative role. But in this case we're talking about someone keeping their job and refusing to perform it because of personal reasons.

Not trying to be snarky here, but I'd like to point out that you were talking about someone keeping their job while refusing to do it properly, I was talking about them being made redundant as opposed to them being forced to quit.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Other than that one example can you cite another? And more importantly can you cite an example where the person continues to perform their same function at work and is allowed to selectively ignore or dismiss rules and laws depending on their religion?

Judges are permitted, and indeed encouraged, to recuse themselves from cases in which they do not think they can issue their judgments on the basis of the law. The classic example is Catholic judges recusing themselves from death-penalty cases.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Ox

It's also legal to fire someone for being cowardly or incompetent, so it's more fair to say that sexual orientation is equally important as courage or ability in 29 states, and in the rest of the states sexual orientation is more important. Courage and ability have no legal protection.

A fair correction -- I should take more care with my words.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Ox

Judges are permitted, and indeed encouraged, to recuse themselves from cases in which they do not think they can issue their judgments on the basis of the law. The classic example is Catholic judges recusing themselves from death-penalty cases.

That's an interesting example...judges by their very name pass judgment...this is based off of their knowledge of the law and more importantly their interpretation of it...biased no doubt.

The woman in this article is simply performing clerical work. Her job isn't to interpret things...it's to simply ensure that steps 1-N were followed...she could be doing this for the DMV, Social Security or the Post Office. There's very little room or need for interpretation let alone judgment when doing that kind of work.

Not to say your example is wrong but it simply illustrates that in unique and rare circumstances some governmental functions require special exceptions. In this case I don't think it's fair to have workers excuse themselves from performing clerical work because of their personal beliefs. Otherwise both state and federal agencies will need to staff themselves for every possible scenario.

I suppose that would solve the unemployment problem.

[Ox]

I'm not saying the government has to accommodate this woman. I'm simply saying the government may accommodate this woman without running afoul of the First Amendment. And by "accommodation," I simply mean she would be recused from handling gay marriage licenses, not that she would be permitted to simply throw them away (which I'm not clear is what she was asking permission to do anyway).

As a practical matter, the governments in the United States employ a lot of people. Very few of them do precisely one thing all day, every day. A lot of them are going to have reasons why sometimes they have a philosophical objection to performing a certain task. Quite often, it's possible to assign that task to a colleague without unduly burdening anyone. Where possible, many government managers are not complete assholes and try to say, "If you're willing to take on an equivalent amount of work from Shirley, who has no problem with this task, I'm not going to make a big fuss about which one of you does which one of these tasks." I suppose you can get into a high dudgeon about how government employees should never be permitted to reach mutually satisfactory arrangements in which the work still gets done and nobody has to feel like she's compromising her principles. I'm not totally sure what such a high dudgeon would accomplish except to make some people unhappy without any material benefit to anybody.

EDIT: In this case, it sounds like this clerk is the only clerk in town. Right now, it doesn't sound like there are any pending gay marriage licenses in town, so it's a purely hypothetical issue and I have the lawyer's preference for not deciding how to deal with a hypothetical problem until you know it's an actual problem. If a gay couple in town wishes to get married, it might be possible under the law for her to have the marriage processed in the next town over or for her to appoint a temporary replacement for the afternoon. I'd be perfectly happy with that arraignment if possible. Then again, I'm not one of these people who seems to look for any opportunity to rub a bigot's face in the fact that he lost. We won, we can afford to be magnanimous in victory.

[MagGnome]

Magnanimous, you say?

[Entropy]

Magnominous

[MagGnome]

Very cute, wanna get gay married?

Just don't tell my other husbands...

[muddi900]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Marriage doesn't require the existence of a government or a regulatory body. The contract is between those that are getting married. The reason the government gets involved is because we've associated certain rights, tax implications, etc.

You're not suggesting that devoid of a government a marriage has no meaning?

I do not know how to respond to this without being a condescending jerk. I mean are you serious?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by muddi900

I do not know how to respond to this without being a condescending jerk. I mean are you serious?

Well you could respond with a well thought out counter argument illustrating that in the absence of a government the concept of marriage has no meaning...which is interesting because historically speaking humans have been getting married since the beginning of recorded history (and most likely earlier) and only recently has it been associated with the sort of tax and legal benefits that we see in modern societies.

But if you prefer to be a condescending jerk instead of providing actual substance to this thread (which you just did) then go right ahead since it doesn't change history one way or the other or the fact that marriage has typically been simply a contract between two people or two people and god. Whether a government is in place to recognize the marriage isn't mandatory considering the language and purpose of that contract. In fact I actually encourage you to pursue this route and argue against history since the potential for LULZ will be quite epic.

Are you serious is a better question?

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Very cute, wanna get gay married?

Just don't tell my other husbands...

Are you proposing?

(blushing)