• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Town clerk: I will not issue marraige licenses

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
I'm sorry, but any time some (legal) aspect of your job is troubling you and your method of dealing with it is to just stop performing that duty, you're making a statement. If she felt issuing licenses to same sex couples was wrong, she could easily have done so anyways while campaigning to get the law changed. Or she could have quit her job and taken one where her beliefs weren't directly opposed by her duties. But she didn't. Instead, she decided that her personal beliefs could define her job, which sends a message even if that wasn't exactly what she was trying to do.
If she had campaigned for change, that would be drawing lots of attention and much more akin to "preaching." Letting her subordinate do the licensing is a much less preachy approach. Just refusing to do the licensing is a much less preachy approach than what you are suggesting.

Also, I am sure when she first took up the job she did not envision the day where she would be marrying same-sex couples; she did not take the job with this particular dilemma in mind. The job duties changed around her.

At any rate, if they choose to fire her, they would be in their right to do so as she is not fulfilling her job duties. However, she is also within her right to stay there until they do so, just like any other job.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Again, how does her personal belief preventing her from performing her task? She delegated the task, which is normal part of every day business. Issuing marriage license is not the only thing she does, how her chose to handle certain job and delegate other is totally within her right.
I suppose that's a matter for the legal authorities whether it's her right or not. Most jobs limit the amount of delegation you do in terms of frequency and specific duties. No job in the world allows you to arbitrarily decide what duties you will and won't perform and just delegate them to someone else...typically it has to be something you're allowed to delegate.
This is no different than me having a conference call at 6PM with my oversea team, but I am commit to my family to have dinner with them and delegate the task to my team lead who is 100% capable of handling the task.

She is only being attack because 1) it's religious belief, and 2) anything remotely anti-homosexual is politically incorrect these day.

Let's be honest, if this does not involve religion and doesn't involve gay activist, no one will care when a town clerk delegate one of her many task to her deputy.
You REALLY think her motivation shouldn't make a difference here? We're not talking about delegation of duties because she's too busy, or missing a meeting to be with her family. We're talking about her refusing to issue marriage licenses because she doesn't like gay couples getting them. People can believe whatever they want, but it's stupid to expect them to be able to DO whatever they want without anyone objecting.

Let's be honest, if this was just some religious person who held anti-homosexual beliefs, nobody would really care. It's that she's taking action that extends this beyond just a "beliefs" issue.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
If she had campaigned for change, that would be drawing lots of attention and much more akin to "preaching." Letting her subordinate do the licensing is a much less preachy approach. Just refusing to do the licensing is a much less preachy approach than what you are suggesting.

Also, I am sure when she first took up the job she did not envision the day where she would be marrying same-sex couples; she did not take the job with this particular dilemma in mind. The job duties changed around her.

At any rate, if they choose to fire her, they would be in their right to do so as she is not fulfilling her job duties. However, she is also within her right to stay there until they do so, just like any other job.
I think it makes a difference in that she's making a statement using her official position to do so. Private citizens protesting something is much less objectionable, IMO, than a non-political government employees using their official position to do the same.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
I think it makes a difference in that she's making a statement using her official position to do so. Private citizens protesting something is much less objectionable, IMO, than a non-political government employees using their official position to do the same.
I agree it would be best that she just not say anything and quietly refuse to do what she finds morally objectionable, unless questioned explicitly.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Of what relevance is that? Show me heterosexual couples who only have a "holy marriage".
I could flip that around and read it much like the libertarian argument for having government do only civil unions. Let any couple have a legal marriage, while those who violently oppose gay marriage would be free to get "holy married" in a church that refuses gay marriage. Same thing from a government standpoint. So I'm not at all sure that Lithium meant to deny anything to gays, but rather merely to say it's possible to satisfy both sides as long as the anti-gay marriage crowd will be satisfied with preserving their special heterosexual holy marriage outside of government's domain.

I suppose that's a matter for the legal authorities whether it's her right or not. Most jobs limit the amount of delegation you do in terms of frequency and specific duties. No job in the world allows you to arbitrarily decide what duties you will and won't perform and just delegate them to someone else...typically it has to be something you're allowed to delegate.

You REALLY think her motivation shouldn't make a difference here? We're not talking about delegation of duties because she's too busy, or missing a meeting to be with her family. We're talking about her refusing to issue marriage licenses because she doesn't like gay couples getting them. People can believe whatever they want, but it's stupid to expect them to be able to DO whatever they want without anyone objecting.

Let's be honest, if this was just some religious person who held anti-homosexual beliefs, nobody would really care. It's that she's taking action that extends this beyond just a "beliefs" issue.
I greatly dislike people announcing they are not going to do part of their job, for whatever reason, but I don't really care about her motivation. To me the issues are two - first, can she legally delegate this responsibility? And if so, what happens when there is no one else there to carry out this responsibility? Forcing a gay couple to come back later so that she will not have to do something she finds morally repugnant is not acceptable, any more so than allowing a communist to not issue business licenses or a racist or bigot to not issue building permits to minorities. The law is what it is, and if one cannot carry out one's duties for moral duties, one should resign and find a job one can do morally, regardless of the moral justification.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
If I lived in her county, and was either a gay male or a Lesbian female, seeking to marry within my own sex, the actions of that twit of a clerk would not deter me a bit. I would simple hop in my car, or take a bus, recording my expenses, and obtain my marriage license in the next county over. That would be equally legal Statewide and maybe even nationwide.

And then seek out others in my boat, and get a class action law suit seeking to recover my travel expenses from that twit of a town clerk. Why sue the county that elected her when its better to recover from her personally. Even without a class action law suit, a few hundred law suits filed and documented against her will cost her a huge bundle of time and money to defend.

She has gone down on record on being an idiot, and being an idiot should not be cost free.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
I could flip that around and read it much like the libertarian argument for having government do only civil unions. Let any couple have a legal marriage, while those who violently oppose gay marriage would be free to get "holy married" in a church that refuses gay marriage. Same thing from a government standpoint. So I'm not at all sure that Lithium meant to deny anything to gays, but rather merely to say it's possible to satisfy both sides as long as the anti-gay marriage crowd will be satisfied with preserving their special heterosexual holy marriage outside of government's domain.
Well, that's essentially what they have already in the states that have gay marriage... and we clearly saw the other side fighting tooth-and-nail to try to prevent it. Government recognition is all that happens in those states; churches and other religious establishments do not have to perform or sanction gay marriages.

The only difference is that a "holy marriage" doesn't on its own carry any government recognition.

Due in no small part to their actions opposing gay marriage, I'm entirely cynical enough about those people to be completely convinced they wouldn't go along with what you propose. They want government policy to reflect their moral opinion at the expense of others' equal status under the law too much to accept any compromises.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Well, that's essentially what they have already in the states that have gay marriage... and we clearly saw the other side fighting tooth-and-nail to try to prevent it. Government recognition is all that happens in those states; churches and other religious establishments do not have to perform or sanction gay marriages.

The only difference is that a "holy marriage" doesn't on its own carry any government recognition.

Due in no small part to their actions opposing gay marriage, I'm entirely cynical enough about those people to be completely convinced they wouldn't go along with what you propose. They want government policy to reflect their moral opinion at the expense of others' equal status under the law too much to accept any compromises.
I agree, on both parts. Those opposing gay marriage will never be satisfied with "holy marriage" as a church but not government function. They will eventually have to change though; that's where society is heading.

I was raised in a rural East Tennessee county where in high school the very worst insult that could be applied was a gay slur. I didn't even know there was such a thing as homosexuality until eighth grade, when a teacher explained it (and we didn't really believe he wasn't pulling our legs even then.) The only homosexuality we experienced was two guys in the VAP (vocational training for the retarded) in high school. My son attended the same high school and had friends who were gay and/or bisexual; my youngest grandchild's godmother (which is a big deal in the Catholic Church) is an openly gay woman, my daughter-in-law's best friend since elementary school. (Admittedly this last is in the "big city" of Chattanooga, and the Catholic Church's reaction to a lesbian couple as godparents was, um, poor.) Things are changing. Those of us who once suspected that gay people might suddenly split their skins and be revealed as aliens or demons have accepted that you guys aren't fundamentally so different after all.

The generation being born now will grow up with the same difficulty understanding that gays were once prohibited from marrying as we have understanding that blacks were once prohibited from using the same water fountains or attending the same schools.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
I agree, on both parts. Those opposing gay marriage will never be satisfied with "holy marriage" as a church but not government function. They will eventually have to change though; that's where society is heading.

I was raised in a rural East Tennessee county where in high school the very worst insult that could be applied was a gay slur. I didn't even know there was such a thing as homosexuality until eighth grade, when a teacher explained it (and we didn't really believe he wasn't pulling our legs even then.) The only homosexuality we experienced was two guys in the VAP (vocational training for the retarded) in high school. My son attended the same high school and had friends who were gay and/or bisexual; my youngest grandchild's godmother (which is a big deal in the Catholic Church) is an openly gay woman, my daughter-in-law's best friend since elementary school. (Admittedly this last is in the "big city" of Chattanooga, and the Catholic Church's reaction to a lesbian couple as godparents was, um, poor.) Things are changing. Those of us who once suspected that gay people might suddenly split their skins and be revealed as aliens or demons have accepted that you guys aren't fundamentally so different after all.

The generation being born now will grow up with the same difficulty understanding that gays were once prohibited from marrying as we have understanding that blacks were once prohibited from using the same water fountains or attending the same schools.
Indeed.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I am sorry but where does it say you cannot hold a public office if you are religious?

She 1) isn't forcing her belief on anyone, 2) still get task done by delegation to her deputy.

So how does her belief affected her office and her duty? Are you saying any religious people shouldn't work in the public office because they don't share the same view point of entire American population?
d'uh its the new left litmus test.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Good for the clerk. This clerk is exactly why the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. If two people want to get married then let them since they aren't hurting anyone or using force. The Churches wouldn't be forced to recognize them and there are some Churches which do recognize them and they have the right to do it.

When government gets involved in marriage it can force views onto them and ban/restrict gay marriage.

Get the government out of marriage.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
55,436
3,849
126
I don't blame her. NO ONE should have to issue "marraige licenses," BUT, it IS her job to issue marriage licenses...

:p
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
I don't blame her. NO ONE should have to issue "marraige licenses," BUT, it IS her job to issue marriage licenses...

:p
Good for the clerk. This clerk is exactly why the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. If two people want to get married then let them since they aren't hurting anyone or using force. The Churches wouldn't be forced to recognize them and there are some Churches which do recognize them and they have the right to do it.

When government gets involved in marriage it can force views onto them and ban/restrict gay marriage.

Get the government out of marriage.
While the government is involved with marriage (Laws, benefits taxes, etc) those that represent the government have a job to do even if it conflicts with their beliefs.

If you are unable to perform your prescribed duties; resign your position.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I agree, on both parts. Those opposing gay marriage will never be satisfied with "holy marriage" as a church but not government function. They will eventually have to change though; that's where society is heading.
The opposite can be said of those supporting gay marriage: They will never be satisfied with marriage as a just a government function. All who oppose their views must be crushed:

*cough* Washington Florist *cough*

While the government is involved with marriage (Laws, benefits taxes, etc) those that represent the government have a job to do even if it conflicts with their beliefs.

If you are unable to perform your prescribed duties; resign your position.
Agreed.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,863
8,348
136
without reading the whole thread the answer is "I guess I'll have to hire someone who can fulfill their job description"
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
While the government is involved with marriage (Laws, benefits taxes, etc) those that represent the government have a job to do even if it conflicts with their beliefs.

If you are unable to perform your prescribed duties; resign your position.
You know when Obama didn't carry out his oath to uphold the Constitution I said the same thing.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
813
0
71
I don't blame her. NO ONE should have to issue "marraige licenses," BUT, it IS her job to issue marriage licenses...
It is a responsibility of the office. I still don't believe that it is her job to personally issue the license. I fail to believe that the City Clerk of New York personally issues every marriage license. How many marriages are performed each day in NYC? In fact, the Clerk's office has an entire bureau (with five offices, I believe) dedicated to marriages.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
The problem is, the letter of the law requires the Clerk, not a subordinate of the clerk, to witness the signing of the marriage certificate. Legally, the validity of all marriage licenses performed by the deputy could be called in to question.
How does this work?
If the Clerk calls out sick due to flu, goes on maternity leave, or uses her 3 week vacation, then that also means the validity of all marriage licenses performed by the deputy could be called into question.
 

Annisman*

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2010
1,827
63
91
If you're not putting God before everything, include your own job, you are doing true christianity wrong. Its amazing so many want to call her a bigot, when, if anything, she is the exact opposite.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Heh it's more like the gay activists are out to get anyone who doesn't agree with their view, like getting this women fired in this case.

1) She didn't stop anyone from getting married, she just delegated the task to her deputy.

2) Her job as town clerk is not just to issue marriage license, she has her other duty. By not issuing marriage license, she maybe doing more of other duties. Whether she is doing her job as town clerk over all is for her supervisor or people who elected her to the office to decide. And the task of issuing marriage duty is not impacted by her decision.

3) She is not "preaching" her personal belief, it's the activist that's making the huge deal out of this.

In short, she is not doing anything that violated gay right. It's her opinion that gay right people don't like and for that, they are after her. How pathetic.
I agree, if she was "preaching" then everyone would have heard of this long before, instead these activists are trying to "out" everyone they feel is doing them wrong...

As for this person, she is delegating the responsibility, something millions of managers do on a daily basis....

Funny, are we now to say that no one can hold a government job unless they agree with every government policy/law/or whatever....libs are funny in that they are into "tolerance and acceptance" only when it is with ideas they agree with.

If the woman was purposely getting in the way of SS couples getting licenses then that would be a problem, but her delegating this responsibility to someone else because she personally doesn't feel it is right to me is a bit of a non issue.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
While the government is involved with marriage (Laws, benefits taxes, etc) those that represent the government have a job to do even if it conflicts with their beliefs.

If you are unable to perform your prescribed duties; resign your position.
But these weren't her responsibilities previously (a presumption on my part as I am too lazy to check)..what does one do when the rules change and now they aren't in lockstep with your beliefs? are you to quit or get fired?

Fire her.
In reading she was elected so they must vote her out....but again see above
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY