Skip to main content

View Diary: MD County Clerk reassigns deputies so they won't have to marry gay couples (258 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's keep in mind, though, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, LeftofArizona, skrekk, madhaus

    that we're talking about a Court - a place that is supposed to fairly and equitably administer the law.  I think it's abhorrent that a procedure has been put in place that allows some employees to circumvent that purpose.

    •  The purpose? (4+ / 0-)

      The PURPOSE is to allow same-sex couples to get married.  THAT is the purpose.  That purpose is being fufilled.

      The purpose isn't to get people fired.   The purpose isn't to shove it in their face 'til they choke.  The purpose it get allow same-sex couples to get married.

      Don't let your sense of schendenfreuden overcome the fact that we won.

      With every marriage, the outrage fades.  With every marriage, the next one becomes easier.  Time is the healer here (cf. Loving v Virginia).  Actually, really do read-read the history of Loving v Virginia.  The last anti-miscegenation laws were removed in 2000 (they weren't enforced, but they were on the books).  Let time move things in the right direction.  Everyone doesn't have to be happy, but why force them to be as unhappy as possible when it is unnecessary for the purpose?

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:44:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It isn't about happiness/unhappiness. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, skrekk, madhaus

        In a Court of law, it's about administering the law fairly.  When it is your duty to enforce the laws, you can't pick and choose.  New York made it a misdemeanor to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples, a reflection of their seriousness of purpose to administer the law equitably.  I hear what you are saying with regard to patience and the fact that, in this instance, marriage is still being made logistically possible.  Perhaps the reason I find this situation so offensive is that I do work in the field of law and it seems to me a perversion of what officers of the Court are obligated to do, which reflects poorly on the entire profession.

      •  Sure, you will be able to get married as long (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob

        as you are willing to go on a waiting list and wait a few months or so for the one or two clerks willing to do marriages under those conditions.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:03:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do you know there will be a waiting list now? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ConfusedSkyes, coffeetalk

          Do you have a link?

          •  No link, but since it is a rural area what (0+ / 0-)

            do you think will happen when they only have one or two people who can do marriages in that county?  They will probably have to relent on their "all marriages or no marriages" policy just to clear the backlog.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:52:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If that were to happen, that would NOT be (0+ / 0-)

              a "reasonable accommodation." "Reasonable accommodation" means that the changes can be made with minimal disruption, if any, to the workplace -- and if you can't adequately serve the people you are supposed to serve, that would be significant, impermissible disruption.  

              There's no indication in the story -- none, zero -- that, after these employees were reassigned to tasks where they do not perform ANY marriages, that there are now insufficient numbers of employees to perform marriages.  Presumably, those employees who will perform marriages will spend more time doing that, and those who won't perform marriages will pick up some of their other duties.  

              •  You keep repeating that over and over (0+ / 0-)

                This about about the 7th time you've said this.  There's also no indication that the employees were all 100% efficiently reassigned.  That's just your wish based on no evidence.

      •  I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, madhaus

        It's really quite simple. The law allows same-sex couples to marry. If you are a state government employee, and you can't carry out that law then fuck you--you can get another job. If a clerk is "unhappy" administering the law, then again, fuck them. They can either seethe and live in bitterness, or they can get a job at a church. I don't really care. Couldn't care less, in fact. It shouldn't be up to me or anybody else to see to it that state-paid clerks are "happy" carrying out the law.

        Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

        by Chrislove on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:34:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also, I was raised fundamentalist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob

        And I have yet to hear of a biblical commandment not to hand out marriage licenses. When the clerks are forced to put on clergy robes and perform religious marriage ceremonies, then we can talk.

        Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

        by Chrislove on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:43:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site