Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[shockz]

The clerk issuing the paperwork, I agree, and always have. Their job is to facilitate and file the paperwork, nothing more. Any religious exemption should not apply to them. However, the official who would be performing the ceremony should have some choice, since he should not have to participate in an event that violates his faith. An official should not have to violate his faith - or lose his job - over a ruling made after he signed on.

 

A pastor at a Church? Agreed. A devout anti-gay Christan at a courthouse wedding? Too bad. Your acting on behalf of the government.

[DoctorD]

Churches, priests and other religious figures shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples. Thats a church matter and if they feel they need protection from that, then maybe that will be a separate issue that needs to be talked about. 

This would be like a church being told to marry an orthodox jewish couple or vise versa. It just doesn't happen unless its been approved or talked about with the church or synagogue . But as someone who is Jewish, there are many things I see Christians do that don't follow my religion, but I don't try to tell them what to do through laws. 

I agree with this, no religious figure should be forced to do anything... However when you get married you don't get a marriage license from your priest, rabbi, other religious figure, you get it at the town/county/city clerks office(elected official)  After getting your license then one can be married by a judge(elected official), justice of the piece(elected official) , or any ordained person with notary power.

[Stoffel]

The clerk issuing the paperwork, I agree, and always have. Their job is to facilitate and file the paperwork, nothing more. Any religious exemption should not apply to them. However, the official who would be performing the ceremony should have some choice, since he should not have to participate in an event that violates his faith. An official should not have to violate his faith - or lose his job - over a ruling made after he signed on.

 

But for this opt out to be fair/legal, there must be alternatives. There have to be some officials willing to do so, otherwise the ability to opt out would constitute a denial of service. My concern here is not a desire to block gay marriage but the protection of freedom of religion. If officials are allowed to opt out, then there must be alternatives available. For particular officials to opt out, they can't be the only game in town.

 

Reread my posts - I've always focused on the performing of the ceremony. Opting out of the ceremony is not denying the service - the couple still has the license and can contract any official willing to do it.

 

Yes, now that gay marriage is legal the couple has a right to get the license and be married. But does that right supercede a minister's/priest's/justice of the peace's right to follow their religion? Should they be obligated to conduct a ceremony that is against their faith? My view is that such a requirement is a violation of separation of church & state/freedom of religion.

 

If it is a part of your job to perform wedding ceremonies and you refuse to do some of them because of your religious beliefs, yu are not fit to perform your job and should be fired. Simple as that.

[Stoffel]

Super Easy solution that I think has been suggested earlier. The only recognized and legal marriage is performed by a civil servant and religious ceremonies do not have any legal weight. If you want to get married, you get to the city hall. If you want to do a religious ceremony at the church, the temple, the synagogue; the mosque and have a party between the family, you can but this is accessory

 

I'm surprised to hear this isn't the case yet.

That's how it's done in Europe, or at least in Belgium.

You get married for the state and then if you wish you can organize a ceremony in a church of your liking.

If not, religion stays out of your marriage completely

[PGHammer]

This shows how na

[DConnell Member]

If it is a part of your job to perform wedding ceremonies and you refuse to do some of them because of your religious beliefs, yu are not fit to perform your job and should be fired. Simple as that.

 

Very nice tolerant viewpoint there. It's wonderful to see my attempts at compromise so welcomed. /s It's better that people lose their jobs to prove a point than find some kind of reasonable solution.

 

How is firing someone for their religious views not a violation of Constitutional rights? One group's rights should not supercede another's.

[ATLien_0]

Very nice tolerant viewpoint there. It's wonderful to see my attempts at compromise so welcomed. /s It's better that people lose their jobs to prove a point than find some kind of reasonable solution. Punish those who won't fall into line with your viewpoint! 

 

Thus, the separation of church and state ensures that private citizens, when acting in the role of some government official, cannot have any aspect of their private religious beliefs imposed upon others. School teachers cannot promote their religion to other people

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I'm surprised to hear this isn't the case yet.

That's how it's done in Europe, or at least in Belgium.

You get married for the state and then if you wish you can organize a ceremony in a church of your liking.

If not, religion stays out of your marriage completely

It is the case.

In order for whatever service you want to be considered legally binding, you need to get a marriage license itself.

Without it your ceremony is just that, a ceremony. You absolutely must have a license in order to be legally married.

[DConnell Member]

 

[ramesees]

Very nice tolerant viewpoint there. It's wonderful to see my attempts at compromise so welcomed. /s It's better that people lose their jobs to prove a point than find some kind of reasonable solution.

 

How is firing someone for their religious views not a violation of Constitutional rights? One group's rights should not supercede another's.

 

Your right to believe whatever you wish stops at the point that belief interferes with the lives of others or interferes with your ability to do your job as a public official.

 

And they wouldn't be fired for their private religious views, they would be fired for not carrying out their jobs in accordance with their contract of employment.

[Stoffel]

Very nice tolerant viewpoint there. It's wonderful to see my attempts at compromise so welcomed. /s It's better that people lose their jobs to prove a point than find some kind of reasonable solution.

 

How is firing someone for their religious views not a violation of Constitutional rights? One group's rights should not supercede another's.

 

Your religious views should not impact the job you do. If that's the case you are not suitable for that job. It's as simple as that if you want a government job.

So yes, I believe you should leave your religious beliefs at the door the moment you start your job.

 

What you want to do in your private time, away from your job, has no interest to me at all. Be as religious as you want, but in your own time

[ATLien_0]

How is that tied to my statement? How is wishing to opt out of participating in a ceremony imposing one's beliefs on others? In my earlier post, which Stoffel was replying to, I clearly stated that for an official to opt out, there must be a reasonable alternative available.

 

"Local officials cannot require certain religious beliefs on the part of government employees. Government leaders cannot make members of other religions feel like they are unwanted or are second-class citizens by using their position to promote particular religious beliefs."

 

But apparently it is acceptable to require no religious beliefs, or at least a suspension of those beliefs on the part of government employees? Requiring that employees check their beliefs at the door - beliefs that people try to live their lives by - is a clear violation of the right to free exercise of religion. The very statement you quoted backs up my assertion - that the government cannot demand that its employees act against their own conscience and beliefs. How is forcing one to officiate a ceremony that is against one's religion, or as Stoffel suggests, firing them for their religion not making the adherents of that religion second class citizens?

 

Gays are gaining the rights they've fought for, and are on the way to not being "second class citizens" if not necessarily all the way there yet. But does that require adherents of religion to become second class citizens? Must they gain rights by stepping on the rights of others?

 

I'm asserting that we need to find a compromise that allows both sides their protected freedoms. Without people losing their jobs or going to unreasonable lengths to have their wedding.

 

I can agree on a compromise, but why hasn't there been more attention to this before. I am sure there have been officials that don't want to marry people because of interfaith, interracial reasons. Or how about those officials that believe in true traditional marriage where the couple has never been married or never had sex. Thats the thing where do you draw the line

[DConnell Member]

Your religious views should not impact the job you do. If that's the case you are not suitable for that job. It's as simple as that if you want a government job.

So yes, I believe you should leave your religious beliefs at the door the moment you start your job.

 

So you're one of those who believe that religion should be left in the church. Fair enough.

 

Ignore the religious aspect for a moment. Do your conscience and beliefs guide your actions? What would you do if suddenly placed in a position at work where your job now went against your beliefs? If you were suddenly told you HAD to do something you strongly believed was wrong? Would you just go along with it? Do you check your values at the door when you go to work, or do you follow them in most/all situations? For a religious person, our faith isn't just an hour a day - it's the basis of our values. If you wouldn't compromise your values in a similar situation, then you have no right to expect the religious to do so. The source of those values should not matter.

 

If you would have trouble in that situation, then why are you so inflexible about others in that situation, just because religion is part of the equation? Marrying gay couples was not part of the job description when these officials started, so you have no right to call them unsuitable for the job.

[DocM]

A pastor at a Church? Agreed. A devout anti-gay Christan at a courthouse wedding? Too bad. Your acting on behalf of the government.

A Judge, Magistrate or Court Clerk does courthouse weddings. City Hall weddings are done by personnel in the City Clerks office. In many cases there are multiple people qualified so objectors don't have to participate.

At out institutuon, a public hospital, this was also the procedure for Catholic or otherwise pro-life nurses who didn't wish to participate in abortions. It's also fairly common for those pro-life pharmacists who don't want to issue morning-after pills.

[Emn1ty]

Your premise of marriage being a state level issue is wrong, this is a civil rights issue and as with all civil rights issue: it is decided at the federal level.

 

This is the following case: two gay men are married in California, one of them is critically injured and rushed to the hospital, the doctor must ask the family for a decision regarding medical choice. In California where their marriage is recognized, the partner will have to be consulted. In Texas for example, where the marriage would not be recognized, the partner cannot say anything. .

The man injured dies, in California, the partner inherits. In Texas, he gets nothing.

 

Yet, they both got married to shoulder the hardness of life together.

 

Marriage is not civil rights (well it wasn't until now). If this was about them having power in medical decisions then the federal government should have voted on a more specific case: ie. any contractual union by a state grants powers in a medical emergency (regardless of the sex between those two).

 

But that's not what was ruled here. This issues was a scapegoat to fast track federally approved gay marriage. This is about far bigger things than one legal loophole. This is the very first time marriage rights have been defined at a federal level (Loving vs. Virginia is not one of them since it wasn't about marriage but an in-equal application of the law that favored White Supremacy).

 

This should have been a state level issue. We've converted almost all the United States to same sex marriage in under 15 years. 37 out of 50 states before the SCOTUS ruling and more were following. People want to say that it was taking to long, but what's fast enough in regards to legislation? A year, five years? Decade? Several decades? This is certainly one of the fastest civil rights battles of our history. Racial equality took hundreds of years, equality for women took decades (both of which are still actively fought for perhaps even to overcompensation). And the pro gay marriage community thinks that we're not moving fast enough and we've not even hit a decade and a half, so much so we need to effectively mandate it?

 

But I suppose because it's a topic people approve of, underhanded methods are perfectly fine. Cause the ends justify the means, right?

[Taliseian]

The job of a government official, regardless if it's the County Clerk giving a marriage license or the Fish and Game Clerk giving a Fishing Licence, is to follow the law.

 

Today, the law says that same sex couples can get a marriage licence.

 

If you have a problem doing your job today, then you really have no choice but to find another job, unless you want to break the law and deny a citizen their licence.

 

Checking your morals at the door is a requirement to work in the government.  Your personal beliefs have no effect on what is currently the law and what is currently your job.

 

As for being a "state level issue", let me give you a quick review of the facts of this case and show you why it had to be done at the Federal level....

 

(Note - cut and paste from a discussion I responded to on FaceBook this weekend.  It covers the details of this case as well as the Constitutional principles surrounding it....to the best of my understanding)

 

 

Actually, what the SCOTUS did is exactly what they are supposed to do. 

 

When there is a question about the legality or constitutionality of a law, regardless of it being written at a local, state, or Federal level, it is the job of the SCOTUS to use legal precedent to determine a final ruling.

 

Now, the heart of the ruling, as I think I understand it, is really very simple.

 

The plaintiffs were legally married in a state that allows for SSM, and then went back home to their state that didn't recognize it. One spouse was hospitalized and later died and the other spouse was denied hospital visits as should be allowed a family member, death benefits, and even the right to have his name listed as the deceased spouse on the death certificate.

 

This was all about granting SSM the same rights and protections as marriage. The SCOTUS looked at the case and found that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause covered this.

 

Civil Unions in some states did not meet the Equal Protection clause. They were found to be "separate, but equal", which has long been considered unconstitutional.

 

Also, since people are not forced to stay within one state, it was also seen as a violation of the Commerce Clause for a state to deny the rights granted by one state within the boundaries of another.

 

The ruling did NOT grant any legality to polygamy, paedofilia, bestiality, or necrofilia - which has long been a scare tactic of the extreme right. This ruling only affected same sex consenting adults of legal age. Since marriage is much more a legal contract, and at its heart it always has been since even the original Code of Laws written in the days of Hammurabi even have sections concerning marriage (this predates your bible by a few *thousand* years), none of the parties mentioned can legally enter into such agreement, therefore this decision makes no changes in those conditions.

 

And as an aside, the use of any religious argument would be in violation of the First Amendment, because in order to become married you not only need to find a willing pastor/church (if you wanted to be involved in a religious marriage ceremony - never a requirement for marriage) but you *must* get a license by the local government. If the court used a religious background for their ruling, it would of been a case of a government institution recognizing a specific religion over any other, which is against our Freedom of Religion Amendment. Several state level bans were using biblical foundations for their denial of SSM. This was ruled a violation of the First Amendment.

 

 

T

[Stoffel]

So you're one of those who believe that religion should be left in the church. Fair enough.

 

Ignore the religious aspect for a moment. Do your conscience and beliefs guide your actions? What would you do if suddenly placed in a position at work where your job now went against your beliefs? If you were suddenly told you HAD to do something you strongly believed was wrong? Would you just go along with it? Do you check your values at the door when you go to work, or do you follow them in most/all situations? For a religious person, our faith isn't just an hour a day - it's the basis of our values. If you wouldn't compromise your values in a similar situation, then you have no right to expect the religious to do so. The source of those values should not matter.

 

If you would have trouble in that situation, then why are you so inflexible about others in that situation, just because religion is part of the equation? Marrying gay couples was not part of the job description when these officials started, so you have no right to call them unsuitable for the job.

 

I can't imagine something I wouldn't do if it was part of my job description, unless it would go against the law or human decency.

 

I don't know if you have ever been to a government wedding, but it isn't much of a deal. You say a couple of words, 4 people sign some documents and everybody applauds, oh and there is a kiss

 

Is it so hard to wish those 2 people well? Even if you are religious? You are not marring them in front of God but for the government you work for. I just don't see the big deal

[theyarecomingforyou]

Very nice tolerant viewpoint there. It's wonderful to see my attempts at compromise so welcomed. /s It's better that people lose their jobs to prove a point than find some kind of reasonable solution.

 

How is firing someone for their religious views not a violation of Constitutional rights? One group's rights should not supercede another's.

They're NOT being fired because of their religion but their inability to perform the job. If my religious beliefs prevented me from handling money I wouldn't be much good as a cashier yet according to your logic an employer shouldn't be allowed to fire me because of it.

[Emn1ty]

They're NOT being fired because of their religion but their inability to perform the job. If my religious beliefs prevented me from handling money I wouldn't be much good as a cashier yet according to your logic an employer shouldn't be allowed to fire me because of it.

 

Well, this is a bit of a different situation since what they do hasn't changed but the requirements of what they do have. A change of policy is not grounds to fire people when they were hired under different requirements. That's not fair, nor a good precedent to set.

[Stoffel]

Well, this is a bit of a different situation since what they do hasn't changed but the requirements of what they do have. A change of policy is not grounds to fire people when they were hired under different requirements. That's not fair, nor a good precedent to set.

 

It's a stretch to say the job description changed. You are still performing the exact same task, just with different people in front of you.

[Emn1ty]

It's a stretch to say the job description changed. You are still performing the exact same task, just with different people in front of you.

 

So if you were hired to clean up a department store, then suddenly the policy changed and you were outsourced to start cleaning jail cells.  If you refused to do it is that grounds to fire you because you feel that such a position might be dangerous and it wasn't what you were originally hired to do? You could certainly leave the company but I don't think a business has a right to force you to cooperate by threatening to fire you. That's called a hostile work environment which is generally not legal. And I doubt most unions would be very keen on this practice, either.

[Stoffel]

So if you were hired to clean up a department store, then suddenly the policy changed and you were outsourced to start cleaning jail cells.  If you refused to do it is that grounds to fire you because you feel that such a position might be dangerous and it wasn't what you were originally hired to do? You could certainly leave the company but I don't think a business has a right to force you to cooperate by threatening to fire you. That's called a hostile work environment which is generally not legal. And I doubt most unions would be very keen on this practice, either.

 

Somehow I feel you changed a lot more of the variables than I did. Or are you saying gay couples are known to attack the person marring them?

Like I said before, you are not marring them in the eyes of your God. You are overseeing a contractual obligation between two people, it shouldn't matter if they are from the same sex or not.

[ATLien_0]

Guys we can nit pick the situation all we want. Fact is, these government officials can't opt in or opt out of which laws they want to enforce, they were sworn to uphold the laws of the constitution. 

There are already probably a lot of religious issues these guys have encountered other than gay marriage like I said above, what about inter faith, inter racial, people that have married before, had sex before marriage etc. Some of those also go against the bible. 

[TMYW]

I can't imagine something I wouldn't do if it was part of my job description, unless it would go against the law or human decency.

 

I don't know if you have ever been to a government wedding, but it isn't much of a deal. You say a couple of words, 4 people sign some documents and everybody applauds, oh and there is a kiss

 

Is it so hard to wish those 2 people well? Even if you are religious? You are not marring them in front of God but for the government you work for. I just don't see the big deal

This religious objection crap is such a joke. These jack-offs refusing to uphold the law are using their religion as a passive-aggressive way to say "Hey, homo, I don't like that you're having gay buttsex!" Passing out marriage license forms to a same-sex couple and then processing it is no more an endorsement of the "gay lifestyle" than is simply refraining from throwing them off the roof of a building.

 

Whoa! Refusing to process marriage license forms! You're really doing god's work there, buddy! I hope you didn't break a nail in the process.

[Emn1ty]

Somehow I feel you changed a lot more of the variables than I did. Or are you saying gay couples are known to attack the person marring them?

Like I said before, you are not marring them in the eyes of your God. You are overseeing a contractual obligation between two people, it shouldn't matter if they are from the same sex or not.

 

What you do often matters. If you kill someone, just because you don't believe in killing people doesn't mean you didn't kill that person. Actions are important in many religious groups and it's not always so easy to just "follow orders", something many people tear into the military for doing. It seems to me people want automatons to serve the government, people who lack any and all moral fiber because it shouldn't be about morals but getting the job done.

 

So what are they to claim when standing before God? "I was just doing what I was told." ? Has that ever been a valid excuse for someone to make when they've done something wrong (be it by the laws of their religion or the laws of the land)?