Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

[DoubtingStephen]

Ann Barnett , the Clerk of Kern County in California has announced that, effective 3 days before gay marriages become legal in California, she will no longer perform wedding ceremonies (http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/464269.html). It's a very, very widespread custom.

While County Clerks are legally entitled to perform marriages, they are under no obligation to do so. A County Clerk is required by job description to issue marriage licenses to couples who qualify under the law, but it is merely customary that such clerks perform ceremonies.

In a certain tipoff as to the carefully not-stated reason for this decision, a news article indicates that she has been receiving legal counsel from the Alliance Defense Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defense_Fund), a Fundamentalist legal organization that specializes in the legal harassment of gay and lesbian citizens.

23 heterosexual couples had marriages scheduled that have now fallen victim to this act of religious fervor.

It seems that Ms Barnett's first wish was to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, arguably based on her use of idiotic religious delusions to justify her bigotry. But legal officials in the county advised that this would certainly produce litigation, as well it should.

Kern County, it's not just for driving through with the car windows tightly sealed, it can be a source of entertainment too.

Nelson Muntz to you, Ann.

[Dancing David]

Stupid bigots.

[Darat]

See that's 23 marriages destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages, and people said same-sex marriage wouldn't damage real marriage!

[wahrheit]

See that's 23 marriages destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages, and people said same-sex marriage wouldn't damage real marriage!

Don't give them ideas! Though I wouldn't be surprised if one of them already thought of that 'argument'.

[DoubtingStephen]

None of the news stories I've seen about this nice lady have mentioned what I think is a very salient point.

Ms Barnett has not stated in public what her real reason is for stopping these ceremonies, that is because she is hiding her bigotry in the closet where it belongs.

Meanwhile gay and lesbian couples who show up at County Clerk offices around the state starting in ten more days will be hiding nothing when they fill in the names of Person A and Person B on the application forms.

It seems quite appropriate that bigots should be in the closets formerly reserved for homosexuals.

<shameless_self_promotion>

God Hates Equal Rights (http://godhatesequalrights.com/)

</shameless_self_promotion>

[ddt]

I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?

[DoubtingStephen]

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?

I think that you might find that there have been no ballot initiatives sponsored by gay Americans that would have restricted the civil rights of Christians.

I think you might find that 100% of the anti-gay ballot measures in each and every state where they have appeared have been sponsored primarily or exclusively by Christian organizations.

I am prepared to stop defending myself against attacks by Christians just as soon as Christians stop attacking me.

[WildCat]

I am prepared to stop defending myself against attacks by Christians just as soon as Christians stop attacking me.
Not enough lions these days.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?

What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?

[Dancing David]

I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?

That is not the idea of the bigots in the US. They are trying to outlaw it, just like birth control.

I can be peaceful with them when they keep thier religous bigotry at home.

[Dancing David]

Not enough lions these days.

yep, they can't take those high fat diets anymore.

[ddt]

What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?

The Dutch civil code said since 1810 or so that a marriage is open to two people of different gender without any restriction on race or religion or anything like that. A couple of years ago it was changed to include marriages between two people of the same gender (yes, it literally says now that a marriage is open to two people of different or same gender).

Marriage officials who had done that job for years on end were confronted with a change in the law. Changes of laws always include measures for dealing with pre-existing situations under the changed circumstances. Why throw away the experience you've got in-house when it is unneeded?

I guess that if civil law had previously stated that inter-religious marriages were forbidden, or inter-ethnic marriages, I would have had the same pragmatic view. But those kind of marriages are as old as the world, so to say, whereas gay marriage has only been an item of public discussion since twenty years or so.

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems that Ms Barnett's first wish was to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, arguably based on her use of idiotic religious delusions to justify her bigotry. But legal officials in the county advised that this would certainly produce litigation, as well it should.


Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.

Isaiah 5:20 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/5/20#20)

[DoubtingStephen]

Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.


Exactly how many of the 50 US States have seen ballot measures proposed by gay and lesbian citizens that would restrict the rights of Christians?

How many, Bob?

[jj]

Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.


In other words, because a myth told you so, you wish to justify your bigotry, while at the same time falsely accusing innocents of "bigoted' simply because they refuse to accept your bigotry.

It is now encumbent upon you to substantiate your claim that those who support gay/lesbian marriages have somehow tried to restrict the marriage rights of heterosexuals.

Produce your evidence.

[Fiona]

*stares at the log in Mr Blaylock's eye*

[Kopji]

Good riddance. I don't think the government should be in the marriage ceremony business anyway. And I agree with the comment in the linked article, why would you want to be married by someone who hated you?

The license is the important thing, and you would still be married if a rowboat captain married you instead of a clerk or minister as long as you have the license.

I disagree with the entire argument that Kern Co would be losing $50,000 income a year. The clerk could be paid less because they are doing less, two rooms would be freed up for business work, and there would be an easy income opportunity for churches or private business to pick up the ceremony.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.

Isaiah 5:20 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/5/20#20)


Let's see. Bigotry:



1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Now why would people call Christians discriminating against gay/lesbian marriages that. One just wonders. :rolleyes:

[Earthborn]

What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?Couples have a right to marry, and they have a right to be treated equally under the law when they are married. There is no right enumerated anywhere to be married by any specific officer regardless of what that officer thinks. If an officer for whatever reason is uncomfortable with performing a few percent of ceremonies and has to ask another to do it, then I don't see that as necessarily a problem.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Most people do not get married by the county clerk anyway, and she cannot withhold the licenses.

Conclusion: She's a bigot, but it's an empty gesture.

[rjh01]

I can see a problem here. If there are 6 people performing marriages and 5 of them refuse to do a certain type then the 6th one must do the lot, which means he specializes in doing that type of marriage. He may not do many of other sorts.

[ddt]

I can see a problem here. If there are 6 people performing marriages and 5 of them refuse to do a certain type then the 6th one must do the lot, which means he specializes in doing that type of marriage. He may not do many of other sorts.

That depends entirely on the numbers. If that type of marriage only occurs in 8% of the cases (which is about the estimate of the number of gay people in general), then that 6th person will still officiate only in 50% of the cases a gay marriage and in 50% of the cases a hetero marriage.

Moreover, what's really different about it that it requires "specializing"? I haven't been to a gay marriage in Holland, but I can't envisage it being any different than a hetero marriage. The official makes a nice speech about both partners, how they met, how they fit together, and then they sign the marriage contract.

And finally, those 5 that refuse to do a gay marriage will retire, and will then be replaced by new officials who are not allowed to refuse that.

[TragicMonkey]

Couples have a right to marry, and they have a right to be treated equally under the law when they are married. There is no right enumerated anywhere to be married by any specific officer regardless of what that officer thinks. If an officer for whatever reason is uncomfortable with performing a few percent of ceremonies and has to ask another to do it, then I don't see that as necessarily a problem.

And if all of the officers happen to have personal feelings against such marriages, none will occur. If 2% of them are willing, it means 98% are not, and are being paid to refuse to do their job. You shift the burden to the public, who must find officials willing to do their duty--include the necessity for bribing the officials and you're back in the Third World.

What if a cop decided not to do his duty in certain situations? What if a soldier decided not to? A doctor? Dereliction of duty is unethical. If you won't do the work you shouldn't have the job.

We have a similar problem in some places in the US, where pharmacists are making personal belief choices to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. The public suffers because of the personal whims of someone who picks and chooses which parts of their duty they wish to fulfill.

A right that exists on paper, but cannot be enforced, is not a right at all.

[Earthborn]

And if all of the officers happen to have personal feelings against such marriages, none will occur.That's not true. Every city hall must carry them out. If all the officers there refuse to (which is a preposterously unlikely occurance) someone would have to be brought in to do it for them.

If 2% of them are willing, it means 98% are not, and are being paid to refuse to do their job.The percentages are far more likely to be the other way around. And just because someone doesn't marry a gay couple doesn't mean they are not doing their job; most of the time there are other couples to marry.

You shift the burden to the public, who must find officials willing to do their dutyWho are not in short supply.

What if a cop decided not to do his duty in certain situations? What if a soldier decided not to? A doctor?A crook doesn't have a right to choose which cop is going to arrest him. An enemy doesn't have a right to choose which soldier is going to shoot him. And when you are brought in a hospital for an emergency, you have at most limited choice of which doctor is going to treat you.

We have a similar problem in some places in the US, where pharmacists are making personal belief choices to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.If this pharmacist does not want to fill prescriptions for birth control and therefore asks another pharmacist working in the same pharmacy to do it for him, I don't think there is a serious problem.

A right that exists on paper, but cannot be enforced, is not a right at all.In this case it is a right to marry, which is enforced. No one is refused marriage. All that happens is the tasks the officials have to carry out are scheduled with their religious sensibilities in mind.

[ddt]

And if all of the officers happen to have personal feelings against such marriages, none will occur. If 2% of them are willing, it means 98% are not, and are being paid to refuse to do their job. You shift the burden to the public, who must find officials willing to do their duty--include the necessity for bribing the officials and you're back in the Third World.
No, the persons who want to get married go to town hall. Town hall has to provide an official to perform the ceremony. If they don't, the community council hasn't done its job and the persons involved can go to court to enforce it.

I don't know about the specifics in the US - please inform us - but in Holland this has worked out and there hasn't been such a case. There was one case where a gay couple tried to go to court to enforce that one specific official married them - someone whom they knew to be against gay marriages. I think that's over the top. You don't want to be married by an official who does not have his/her heart in the matter anyway, as was also mentioned in the OP's article.


What if a cop decided not to do his duty in certain situations? What if a soldier decided not to? A doctor? Dereliction of duty is unethical. If you won't do the work you shouldn't have the job.
We're speaking here of a change in the job description. I think you should be pragmatic about such situations. In the beginning 80s, Holland still had draft, and began to be active in UN peacekeeping operations. Draftees got the choice whether they wanted to do that or not.


We have a similar problem in some places in the US, where pharmacists are making personal belief choices to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. The public suffers because of the personal whims of someone who picks and chooses which parts of their duty they wish to fulfill.
And some GPs don't want to perform euthanasia. Attitudes change over time. Thirty years ago, the first Dutch abortion clinic was shut down by the then Minister of Justice. Now, the government subsidizes an abortion boat which visits places like Ireland and Poland :D.


A right that exists on paper, but cannot be enforced, is not a right at all.
The right to gay marriage in the way Earthborn and I described the Dutch situation very well can be enforced - haven't heard of any problems with it except for the above anecdote.

[Paulhoff]

Good riddance. I don't think the government should be in the marriage ceremony business anyway.
Really, the church does not marry people only the state and/or government does. Marriage is a legal contract between two people and marriage should be allowed between any two people that are of age and not already married, a parent, an aunt or uncle, a legal parent or a sibling, period.

Paul

:) :) :)

[TragicMonkey]

A crook doesn't have a right to choose which cop is going to arrest him. An enemy doesn't have a right to choose which soldier is going to shoot him. And when you are brought in a hospital for an emergency, you have at most limited choice of which doctor is going to treat you.

But the cop can't decide not to pursue a criminal because he doesn't like the victim's race. The soldier can't decide not to fire on the enemy because they are the same religion. The doctor can't decide not to treat the patient because he doesn't like the patient's lifestyle.

If this pharmacist does not want to fill prescriptions for birth control and therefore asks another pharmacist working in the same pharmacy to do it for him, I don't think there is a serious problem.

And if the pharmacist doesn't ask another pharmacist to do it? Because that's collaborating in the sin? And confiscates the prescription without filling it, and doesn't return it? That is a serious problem.

In this case it is a right to marry, which is enforced. No one is refused marriage. All that happens is the tasks the officials have to carry out are scheduled with their religious sensibilities in mind.

You are letting people justify dereliction of duty because of their personal whims. "Oh, I don't like fat people, so you have to go stand in the other line at the DMV." "Sorry, I don't investigate black-on-black crime." "I can't fire on that submarine, those people are Greek Orthodox, same as me." "A Catholic marrying a Jew? Not on my watch!"

If you can't do the job, you shouldn't have it. Period. What sort of crazy country do you live in where you pay people regardless of whether they're willing to do the work?

[TragicMonkey]

The right to gay marriage in the way Earthborn and I described the Dutch situation very well can be enforced - haven't heard of any problems with it except for the above anecdote.

It's very strange to hear people argue that there's no need for principles because things seem to be working out okay...so far as you know...at the moment.

Law is like programming. You code for all possible situations, not just the ones you think you might have at the time. You don't decide "well, that's not very likely" or "I just can't imagine that happening!"

[Paulhoff]

If it isn't against any law, it is legal, that is why government laws have so many pages, if it isn't covered "IT IS LEGAL".

Paul

:) :) :)

[Earthborn]

But the cop can't decide not to pursue a criminal because he doesn't like the victim's race. The soldier can't decide not to fire on the enemy because they are the same religion. The doctor can't decide not to treat the patient because he doesn't like the patient's lifestyle.A police department, military unit or hospital can however take individual qualities, weaknesses and sensibilities into account when assigning tasks. And that's all we are talking about here.

And if the pharmacist doesn't ask another pharmacist to do it? Because that's collaborating in the sin? And confiscates the prescription without filling it, and doesn't return it? That is a serious problem.That would be a serious problem, and therefore it is illegal. Just as it is illegal for someone working in city hall to prevent couples from getting married who are otherwise legal to marry.

You are letting people justify dereliction of duty because of their personal whims.To a very limited degree, and only if it can be guaranteed that no one's rights are violated, or even has to notice it.

Period. What sort of crazy country do you live in where you pay people regardless of whether they're willing to do the work?Just because they don't marry gay couples doesn't mean they don't work while a gay marriage is happening. More likely they're marrying a straight couple or doing some paperwork. And that happens in the sort of crazy country that values equal rights as much as religious freedom, and isn't afraid to implement solutions that make everybody happy.

[ddt]

It's very strange to hear people argue that there's no need for principles because things seem to be working out okay...so far as you know...at the moment.

Law is like programming. You code for all possible situations, not just the ones you think you might have at the time. You don't decide "well, that's not very likely" or "I just can't imagine that happening!"

The programming analogy is an apt one. Say, you make a new version of your program which uses a new kind of file format, you still have to build in provisions for reading the old file format - the files in the old format don't disappear overnight.

Likewise, laws have transitory regulations - what to do with the analomies that get into being because of a change in the law.

As to the "at the moment": it was already explained three times that each community must provide an officer to officiate whatever marriage. And that communities may not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. So I don't see where in the future a problem may arise.

My bet is that there sooner will be no more officers in Holland who refuse to officiate gay marriages than that there will be no more Word95 documents current.

[TragicMonkey]

A police department, military unit or hospital can however take individual qualities, weaknesses and sensibilities into account when assigning tasks. And that's all we are talking about here.

We're not talking about "Amy has carpal tunnel and can't type too much" here, we're talking about "Mary hates the gays and won't dirty herself marrying them". People who refuse to do their job because of personal whims should not have that job. Especially if the job is government. The point is to serve the public. All of the public, not the bits of the public you happen to like.


To a very limited degree, and only if it can be guaranteed that no one's rights are violated, or even has to notice it.

What a sloppy way to run things. You're devoting extra effort to working around flaws and hoping they won't be seen instead of just fixing them. It's sweeping dust under the sofa on the gamble that nobody's going to need to move that sofa.

Just because they don't marry gay couples doesn't mean they don't work while a gay marriage is happening. More likely they're marrying a straight couple or doing some paperwork.

I'm a teacher, but I refuse to teach black students. Just give me the white ones, and let somebody else take the rest. Does that sound like a good compromise?

And that happens in the sort of crazy country that values equal rights as much as religious freedom, and isn't afraid to implement solutions that make everybody happy.

Indeed? "Equal rights" means "we'll let you get married, but we will in no way interfere if the person whose job it is to marry you refuses because she hates you and all your kind. We wouldn't want to upset her sensibilities." That makes everybody happy? Ignoring principle? Tolerating dereliction of duty? Encouraging government employees to do what they feel like and let others pick up the slack --if they feel like it?

[Earthborn]

It's very strange to hear people argue that there's no need for principles because things seem to be working out okay...so far as you know...at the moment.Maybe it sounds strange to people who aren't Dutch, but if you live in a country where every political decision is necessarily a compromise between people with vastly different principles, that purposefully codifies hypocracy into law and calls it "policies of tolerance", then it really doesn't sound that strange at all. It is working out okay... so far as we know while keeping a close eye on it... at the moment.

Law is like programming. You code for all possible situations, not just the ones you think you might have at the time. You don't decide "well, that's not very likely" or "I just can't imagine that happening!"You don't code for meteors dropping on your computer, and you don't code for the Y100K problem. Likewise there is no reason to make laws that can stand every preposterous eventuality that might happen in some nebulous hypothetical future. You make laws in an attempt to solve the problems of today, of the conceiveable future and when in the future the unintented consequences become too great, you change them.

[TragicMonkey]

The programming analogy is an apt one. Say, you make a new version of your program which uses a new kind of file format, you still have to build in provisions for reading the old file format - the files in the old format don't disappear overnight.

More like updating a web address. The old one is no longer valid, and will not work. It's the new one or nothing.


As to the "at the moment": it was already explained three times that each community must provide an officer to officiate whatever marriage. And that communities may not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. So I don't see where in the future a problem may arise.

Except in the present if all the current officers refuse to marry gays. I guess the gays can just wait til someone changes jobs?

My bet is that there sooner will be no more officers in Holland who refuse to officiate gay marriages than that there will be no more Word95 documents current.

If you just enforced things, you wouldn't have to bet on it.

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe it sounds strange to people who aren't Dutch, but if you live in a country where every political decision is necessarily a compromise between people with vastly different principles, that purposefully codifies hypocracy into law and calls it "policies of tolerance", then it really doesn't sound that strange at all. It is working out okay... so far as we know while keeping a close eye on it... at the moment.

It seems a terribly tentative sort of way to run things. It's much more secure to get things on paper.


You don't code for meteors dropping on your computer, and you don't code for the Y100K problem. Likewise there is no reason to make laws that can stand every preposterous eventuality that might happen in some nebulous hypothetical future. You make laws in an attempt to solve the problems of today, of the conceiveable future and when in the future the unintented consequences become too great, you change them.

But why leave in obvious flaws from the start? If you can see the problem now, why not fix it before it gets serious?

[ddt]

You are letting people justify dereliction of duty because of their personal whims. "Oh, I don't like fat people, so you have to go stand in the other line at the DMV." "Sorry, I don't investigate black-on-black crime." "I can't fire on that submarine, those people are Greek Orthodox, same as me." "A Catholic marrying a Jew? Not on my watch!"
I'll mention again: transitory measure. The law has changed, the duty has changed. A much more apt example is: soldier at Abu Ghraib says: "I don't want to torture, it's against my conscience". Torture wasn't on the duties of a soldier when he enlisted. Now it is - apparently. Should that soldier be fired? The fact that we both may think "gay marriage good" and "torture bad" (well, I hope so) is immaterial to the answer; the fact that the duties have changed in the meantime is.


If you can't do the job, you shouldn't have it. Period. What sort of crazy country do you live in where you pay people regardless of whether they're willing to do the work?
Pay doesn't come into it. In Holland, marriage officials are civil servants working in all parts of town hall who do marriages as only a part of their job because they like doing it. People who get married want the day to be great. Should you throw away the experience of these officials when a pragmatic solution is available?

[TragicMonkey]

I'll mention again: transitory measure. The law has changed, the duty has changed. A much more apt example is: soldier at Abu Ghraib says: "I don't want to torture, it's against my conscience". Torture wasn't on the duties of a soldier when he enlisted. Now it is - apparently. Should that soldier be fired? The fact that we both may think "gay marriage good" and "torture bad" (well, I hope so) is immaterial to the answer; the fact that the duties have changed in the meantime is.

Actually, yes, that soldier should be fired. In that situation the ethical thing to do is to refuse, but accept the consequences which in this case would be losing the job. You can't compromise and choose your conscience AND be shielded from the fallout. It's have the cake or eat it, not both. A job is to do the work. If you don't want to do the work, give up the job. That someone allows you to keep the job and not do the work, well, that's slackness, inefficiency, and corruption. I'd fire the supervisor for allowing that.

Should you throw away the experience of these officials when a pragmatic solution is available?

Sometimes you have to choose between pragmatism and principles.

[Earthborn]

Except in the present if all the current officers refuse to marry gays.So has that happened? No, it hasn't. Was it ever likely to happen? No, it wasn't.

Civil servants are roughly representative of all Dutch people. If all of them would have been against gay marriage, there wouldn't have been enough support for legalising it, and it wouldn't have been legalised. The fact that it was legalised means that it was supported enough that your hypothetical couldn't have happened anyway.

Hypotheticals that start with "if everyone did that..." are never very good arguments. "If everyone was gay humanity would go extinct!" is not a good argument against allowing a few percent of humanity to be gay.It seems a terribly tentative sort of way to run things.It's the Dutch way. It is pragmatic. It works.

It's much more secure to get things on paper.Let's hear how that works out for you in the USofA...

But why leave in obvious flaws from the start? If you can see the problem now, why not fix it before it gets serious?I see no obvious flaws from the start. I don't see a problem now.

[ddt]

More like updating a web address. The old one is no longer valid, and will not work. It's the new one or nothing.
Then you're not doing your job as web developer. You should take care the old address still works - e.g., redirects to the new address. People bookmark your pages.


Except in the present if all the current officers refuse to marry gays. I guess the gays can just wait til someone changes jobs?
I don't think my brother and his friend, living in Amsterdam, would have any problem getting married if they'd want to. I'm afraid gays living in Staphorst will have bigger day-to-day problems than getting married.


If you just enforced things, you wouldn't have to bet on it.
It is enforced; not on the individual officer level, but on the level that a community must have an officer who officiates a gay marriage.

We're not talking about "Amy has carpal tunnel and can't type too much" here, we're talking about "Mary hates the gays and won't dirty herself marrying them". People who refuse to do their job because of personal whims should not have that job. Especially if the job is government. The point is to serve the public. All of the public, not the bits of the public you happen to like.

"Mary doesn't want to marry gays" does not imply "Mary hates gays". There are many shades of grey in between. In fact, the current political soap is the debate within the Christen Unie party - the smallest coalition partner - about gays running for office. They have gay members - also gay members who want to be active for the party. The official party line is against gay marriage; but in the party report on their policy towards gay members, they haven't categorically said that gays can't run for office for their party, and haven't even said that married gays can't run for office. Neither have they said gays can run for office irrespective.

So you see, ideas shift. It costs time though. You can't just change people overnight. And if you can find a solution that as much keeps peace, do it. Let things run their course - pressure from inside, as here the gays inside this Christian party, is much more effective than outside pressure.

[Earthborn]

We're not talking about "Amy has carpal tunnel and can't type too much" here, we're talking about "Mary hates the gays and won't dirty herself marrying them".I know it is hard to fathom, but -- in a country where fundamentalist religious organisations and gay rights organisations often organise conferences and committees together to respectfully discuss eachother's ideas and needs and do often find mutual agreements and respect, even consensus -- someone who is against gay marriage does not necessarily "hate the gays".

I'm a teacher, but I refuse to teach black students. Just give me the white ones, and let somebody else take the rest. Does that sound like a good compromise?No, because classes are mixed and forming mono-racial class specifically for your purpose requires discrimination in assigning students to classes.

Ignoring principle?No, the opposite of ignoring it: harmonising principles that would otherwise conflict.

[TragicMonkey]

No, the opposite of ignoring it: harmonising principles that would otherwise conflict.

Refusing confrontation does not mean there is no conflict. It just means the conflict remains unresolved.

[Beerina]

See that's 23 marriages destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages, and people said same-sex marriage wouldn't damage real marriage!

Seriously though, when you remember it's really religion driving all this, this is even more bizarre. State marriages are not valid for a religion anyway. Hence these "county clerk" marriages wouldn't be real for any religious person that cared about gay marriages.

The gay marriages by clerks wouldn't be valid from their viewpoint anyway, so I don't even see why religious folks care. The whole world's sinning, so who cares if a state employee "marries" gay people outside of religion. Or even if some wayward "religious" clergy marry some gay people -- those clergy are part of the hellbound, deceived train, too.


I wonder why this logic has escaped their usual rationality?

[ponderingturtle]

But the cop can't decide not to pursue a criminal because he doesn't like the victim's race. The soldier can't decide not to fire on the enemy because they are the same religion. The doctor can't decide not to treat the patient because he doesn't like the patient's lifestyle.

Not all jobs come with a duty to act. The plumber is likely to be able to tell you he will not fix your toilet becuase you are a homosexual.

So it really depends on is this the duty of the county clerk, and it seems to be that they do not have a duty to perform marriages in california, but they can not be discriminatory in who they perform them for.

As for the holland situation it seems that they have a duty to provide someone to marry the couple but are not allowed to force people to perform a different job than they where hired to perform.

[ponderingturtle]

We're not talking about "Amy has carpal tunnel and can't type too much" here, we're talking about "Mary hates the gays and won't dirty herself marrying them". People who refuse to do their job because of personal whims should not have that job. Especially if the job is government. The point is to serve the public. All of the public, not the bits of the public you happen to like.

It is a workers rights issue. There is an act that many people object to strongly, you did not have to perform it to have your job when you where hired but would now. So do you have to perform this act?

This is not an easy question to answer, and preventing people from redefineing jobs so freely is something that I can see having some benefits.

[DoubtingStephen]

Seriously though, when you remember it's really religion driving all this, this is even more bizarre. State marriages are not valid for a religion anyway. Hence these "county clerk" marriages wouldn't be real for any religious person that cared about gay marriages.

The gay marriages by clerks wouldn't be valid from their viewpoint anyway, so I don't even see why religious folks care. The whole world's sinning, so who cares if a state employee "marries" gay people outside of religion. Or even if some wayward "religious" clergy marry some gay people -- those clergy are part of the hellbound, deceived train, too.


I wonder why this logic has escaped their usual rationality?

Nominated!

[Darat]

...snip...


I wonder why this logic has escaped their usual rationality?

I think the word I've made red is the explanation... ;)

[DoubtingStephen]

Beerina brings up an interesting point, about civil marriages being civil matters, thus inherently outside the realm of religion.

I was reminded of an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox) I read this morning on the Guardian Unlimited (a/k/a theGroniad) the gist of which is that certain personality types preach a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality.
The study, which may or may not have great scientific merit, has been used to describe Our Glorious Christian Leader. It also says This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes,

There is a certain mentality that seems quite common among persons who cling desperately to outmoded prejudices and malicious stereotypes.

And to address Beerina's point more directly, Fundamentalist Christians frequently claim that marriage is an invention of Christianity, then proceed to use this possibly tenuous claim to justify imposing their religious slant on marriage onto all persons, whether or not they are afflicted with religious delusions.

[articulett]

*stares at the log in Mr Blaylock's eye*

*stands besides Fiona-- agog at how he manages to see anything with such a monstrosity*

[ponderingturtle]

Sometimes you have to choose between pragmatism and principles.

And when principles collide?

[TragicMonkey]

And when principles collide?

Then you assess their merits, weigh the impact, and choose which is more important.

[articulett]

When it's against the "pharmacist's principles" to dispense birth control, it's time for the pharmacist to get a new job... it's not time for the job to make special considerations for his/her moral opinions.

I want no part of the the faith delusion... it's inflicted on me every day... on my money... in my pledge... in my expected deference to peoples assorted faith based inanities. It's against my "principles" regarding honesty and the like-- what choices do I have?

If the clerks principles didn't allow her to marry interracial couples, I think this would be a moot point.

Separate rights are inherently unequal.

The clerk should find a job that suits her principles and not the other way around. Or better yet, she can take the advice she probably gives atheists... "if you don't like it, you can move to another country" (where you are not bound by "equal protection".) No one is forcing her to have a gay marriage... clerks don't get to decide who should or should not be married.

[pgwenthold]

It is a workers rights issue. There is an act that many people object to strongly, you did not have to perform it to have your job when you where hired but would now. So do you have to perform this act?

This is not an easy question to answer, and preventing people from redefineing jobs so freely is something that I can see having some benefits.

If we replaced "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage," would anyone ask this question?

[Loss Leader]

Ann Barnett , the Clerk of Kern County in California has announced that, effective 3 days before gay marriages become legal in California, she will no longer perform wedding ceremonies (http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/464269.html). It's a very, very widespread custom.


So long as she'll issue the marriage licenses, I don't care as much. But, still, she is hardly a good example of a public servant.

[DoubtingStephen]

When it's against the "pharmacist's principles" to dispense birth control, it's time for the pharmacist to get a new job... it's not time for the job to make special considerations for his/her moral opinions.


The California Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-doctor29-2008may29,0,592068.story) that pits Jesus-brand bigotry against a perfectly innocent lesbian couple who sought fertility care at a medical clinic in San Diego County.

There are some principles under California law that would hand this case to the lesbian couple plaintiffs, if found to apply. For example it is illegal in California to discriminate against a person based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation in matters of employment or housing, and these laws do not feature any "but I'm a bigot" escape clause. These laws were especially designed and created to force the compliance of bigots.

For reasons that are fairly obvious, I have a personal preference for laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

During the arguments before the court in May 2008 Justice Carol. A Corrigan mentioned that the doctors who used their religious delusions to justify their wanton bigotry could go into some other line of work. It is interesting to note that Justice Corrigan was one of the minority dissenters in the recently famous gay marriage ruling. It may be reasonable to expect that the court will find against the Jesus-brand bigots in this case.

Of course the doctors in this case wish to play the Christian martyr card. It seems that whenever a specific instance of Fundamentalist bigotry is not upheld by the normal people, Fundamentalists tend to run home crying about how much they are being abused.

In arguments before the court, attorney for the plaintiffs Jennifer Pizer
argued that exempting doctors from providing equal treatment violated existing case law and constitutional protections.

Doctors have the right to shape their practices according to their religious beliefs, Pizer argued, but they cannot deny treatment on a case-by-case basis. While doctors are allowed under the law not to offer in vitro fertilization as part of their practice, Pizer said, they cannot offer the service to some patients and deny it to others based on their evaluation of the patient's lifestyle. (link (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3028))

Jesus-brand bigotry does not seem to be having a good year in California. I predict great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[articulett]

So long as she'll issue the marriage licenses, I don't care as much. But, still, she is hardly a good example of a public servant.

I agree... I'm sure there will be no shortage of people willing to perform marriage ceremonies of all those who have a license. Who cares who says the magic mumbo jumbo that makes it official? I just don't want to see my public servants deciding who gets serviced how based on the servants' personal moral principles.

[articulett]

The California Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-doctor29-2008may29,0,592068.story) that pits Jesus-brand bigotry against a perfectly innocent lesbian couple who sought fertility care at a medical clinic in San Diego County.

There are some principles under California law that would hand this case to the lesbian couple plaintiffs, if found to apply. For example it is illegal in California to discriminate against a person based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation in matters of employment or housing, and these laws do not feature any "but I'm a bigot" escape clause. These laws were especially designed and created to force the compliance of bigots.

For reasons that are fairly obvious, I have a personal preference for laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

During the arguments before the court in May 2008 Justice Carol. A Corrigan mentioned that the doctors who used their religious delusions to justify their wanton bigotry could go into some other line of work. It is interesting to note that Justice Corrigan was one of the minority dissenters in the recently famous gay marriage ruling. It may be reasonable to expect that the court will find against the Jesus-brand bigots in this case.

Of course the doctors in this case wish to play the Christian martyr card. It seems that whenever a specific instance of Fundamentalist bigotry is not upheld by the normal people, Fundamentalists tend to run home crying about how much they are being abused.

In arguments before the court, attorney for the plaintiffs Jennifer Pizer
(link (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3028))

Jesus-brand bigotry does not seem to be having a good year in California. I predict great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I admire California... I suspect they are leading the way toward our nations social progress and civil rights as they have in prior years.

[ponderingturtle]

Then you assess their merits, weigh the impact, and choose which is more important.

So you don't ever compromise then.

[ponderingturtle]

If we replaced "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage," would anyone ask this question?

Sure why not? The issue is one of how much can you change a job and force people to abide by the new job.

[TragicMonkey]

So you don't ever compromise then.

I didn't say that. Do you have anything specific in mind, or are you just bantering generalities?

[shadron]

Good riddance. I don't think the government should be in the marriage ceremony business anyway. And I agree with the comment in the linked article, why would you want to be married by someone who hated you?

The license is the important thing, and you would still be married if a rowboat captain married you instead of a clerk or minister as long as you have the license.

I disagree with the entire argument that Kern Co would be losing $50,000 income a year. The clerk could be paid less because they are doing less, two rooms would be freed up for business work, and there would be an easy income opportunity for churches or private business to pick up the ceremony.

Indeed. Traditionally, and also by definition, people marry each other - the official, religious or civil, doesn't do the deed. Marriage is a contract between two people making promises to each other for the benefit of themselves and their issue. The official is simply a witness that the contract has been offered and accepted mutually and according to the processes that they are officials for, and therefore it has force of the applicable legal and religious institutions.

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't say that. Do you have anything specific in mind, or are you just bantering generalities?

You where having such fun talking in absolutes that there was no room for compramise.

[TragicMonkey]

You where having such fun talking in absolutes that there was no room for compramise.

Compromise is not necessarily always a good thing, anyway.

[Loss Leader]

Kern Couty is, mostly, Bakersfield. It's 100 miles north of LA.

Write to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors of Kern County to register your displeasure:

CAO Ronald Errea can be found here: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/cao/general/caostaff.asp

The Board of Supervisors: board@co.kern.ca.us (javascript:emaillink('xx1010'))

Chair of the County Board of Supervisors Michael Rubio: district5@co.kern.ca.us (district5@co.kern.ca.us)

And the other Supervisors: Jon McQuiston (http://www.co.kern.ca.us/bos/dist1/contact.asp)District 1Don Maben (http://www.co.kern.ca.us/bos/dist2/)District 2Mike Maggard (http://www.co.kern.ca.us/bos/dist3/contact.asp)District 3Ray Watson (http://www.co.kern.ca.us/bos/dist4/)

You can't email Clerk Barnett but you can call her: (661) 868-3588

Use this info responsibly.

[Loss Leader]

The email I sent to Chairman Michael Rubio:

As a frequent visitor to California, I have always been impressed with Bakersfield and the surrounding area of Kern County. I have found it a pleasant and amiable alternative to Los Angeles. This is why I was so displeased with County Clerk Barnett's recent announcement that she would not be celebrating marriages any longer.

Ms. Barnett's reasoning, expressed on the County website, is stated as follows: "We will not have the staff or space to deal with an increase in both licenses and ceremonies. Because of long-term administrative plans, budgetary reasons, and the need to increase security for elections, the Clerk’s office will cease solemnizing weddings ..." This will take place three days before homosexuals are allowed to marry in California.

It strains the bounds of credulity to think that Kern will be so overrun with committed homosexuals that the County Clerk's staff and space will be significantly challenged. Nor does it seem at all likely that Kern's budget would buckle under the stress. As regards elections, Kern has been having those without incident for quite some time.

Obviously, the only reason for the County Clerk's change in policy is that she is personally opposed to equality for gay men and women. While it is her right to hold such views, her responsibilities as an officer of the government should take precedence. If she cannot do the job because of her conscience, she should not be doing the job at all.

Of course, county clerks have the choice of whether to solemnize weddings. However, the choice she has made is reflecting poorly on her post, on your government and on your county. It says to the whole world that homosexuals will not be treated fairly in your otherwise fair county.

And I will be interested to see the choice she makes if homosexual marriages are eventually rejected by the voters.

I am sure there are many government officials in Bakersfield and Kern who will solemnize homosexual unions. However, the distaste for your County Clerk will not fade from my memory. I will not be visiting you again so long as Ms. Barnett's ugly and discriminatory policy persists.

Yours,



Feel free to change, copy and then change the copies.

[articulett]

Very Nice.

[G-K-4]

Am I correct in believing that, in the U.S., a couple must first get a license, and then they have to be officially wed at a (conceptually) separate event. Why are there two steps?

When they are approved to get a license, why does the couple then have to go through another procedure to conclude the process? Is it just custom? Aren't the two signatures on (what is now) the license enough for the government to recognize their new legal status?

[Loss Leader]

Am I correct in believing that, in the U.S., a couple must first get a license, and then they have to be officially wed at a (conceptually) separate event.[QUOTE]


Yes. Although some states have a waiting period after you get the license and some states don't. In New York, it is 24 hours; In Nevada, it is none.

[QUOTE]Why are there two steps? When they are approved to get a license, why does the couple then have to go through another procedure to conclude the process? Is it just custom? Aren't the two signatures on (what is now) the license enough for the government to recognize their new legal status?


Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.

As far as the civil government it concerned, the reason for a wedding celebration is to formally impress upon the bride and groom the gravity of the commitment they are making. In fact, that is the only requirement. There are no particularly required words to say or rituals to perform. Any "sufficiently serious" ceremony is acceptable.

Merely signing a piece of paper is not considered by the government to be sufficient evidence that one understands and consents to entering into the status of matrimony.

Perhaps you find this illogical. Perhaps you think there is no reason for the law to operate this way. That does not change the fact that the law exists, that this is the reasoning behind it and that it will never, ever change.

[G-K-4]

Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.
Ha. Clever.

Any "sufficiently serious" ceremony is acceptable.
Well, you did mention Nevada. I guess there are some places with very low standards of seriousness, like those places in Las Vegas with Elvis impersonators. If that counts, I see no reason why I can't just sign some paperwork in the wedding palace, shake hands before a judge to seal the deal, and then place a bouquet at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. It should take ten minutes if you don't count the ferry ride.

Merely signing a piece of paper is not considered by the government to be sufficient evidence that one understands and consents to entering into the status of matrimony.
After all of the changes that marriage in the U.S. has gone through in the last hundred years, I guess that "seriousness" may be the last shred of gravitas it has.

Perhaps you find this illogical. Perhaps you think there is no reason for the law to operate this way. That does not change the fact that the law exists, that this is the reasoning behind it and that it will never, ever change.1.) Yes. 2.) Yes. 3.) Why not? Are people in the U.S. too sentimental?

Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies? Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?

[Fiona]

Just for information: does this clerk take a cut in wages because of this decision?

[DoubtingStephen]

Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies? Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?

In the case of forming a corporation, it may be necessary to wait while a search is made to determine whether the proposed name of the new corporation is already in use, this is not at all like the waiting period for marriages.

I believe the reason why some states have a waiting period is to create a cooling off period in case the decision to marry was made in the heat of passion. This is not so often the case with creating a corporation. Men, for example, seldom get the impulse to incorporate in response to a powerful erection.

Many states also require that Partner A and Partner B have blood tests to determine if either partner has any of certain communicable diseases.

[Loss Leader]

I see no reason why I can't just sign some paperwork in the wedding palace, shake hands before a judge to seal the deal, and then place a bouquet at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

Shaking hands before a judge would probably be sufficient. So, you can do this if you want to. You'll still have to: a) make an appointment ahead of time with the judge; b) be in a state without a waiting period; and c) get the judge to agree that this is a sufficient ceremony so she signs the marriage license. The reason why is because that's the way the world works.


Why not? Are people in the U.S. too sentimental?


Sure. Also, the current requirement isn't really bothering anybody, so there's nothing to overcome the inertia of the status quo.


Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies?


Incorporation does. It requires the consent of the Secretary of State, the filing of Articles of Incorporation, written evidence of yearly stockholders meetings and yearly meetings of the Board of Directors. Many of these documents must be notarized, in which a notary asks if you swear to the contents of the document and you say, "I do."


Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?


Technically, incorporation and partnerships aren't "statuses" at all. Marriage is. However, assuming the lay meaning of status, the answer is yes. They are vastly different regarding law, taxation and property.

[articulett]

And insurance and default estate distribution and hospital visitation and rights of children--

Most, but not all of these things can be accomplished via other means. Marriage has a kit and kaboodle or "rights" that come with it for some folks... In the past, it was the only way for a woman to have status as an adult on many levels.

But someone other than the parties involved must witness and "notarize" or otherwise officiate the event. Even in Las Vegas, our Elvis Impersonators must be reverends of recognized churches or justices of the peace or to make the document an "official" marriage with all the rights and privileges that come with it. Nevada, unlike California won't expect marriages by ULC ministers who can be ordained by clicking a button on line.

Michael Shermer is just such a minister-- (so am I, but who isn't)?-- but he can officiate legal ceremonies. I imagine other Enterprising Kern County folk will be able to do the same since Ms. Holier-than-thou's principles make her unable to participate. I don't know if there needs to be some sort of notary signature or something on top of the ULC license.


ordain me (http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain)

legalities (ttp://www.ficotw.org/faq.html)

I think I could officiate a wedding as well as any Elvis Impersonator, and I'd be glad for the job if my State allowed my online ordination to count. :)

[articulett]

From my second link--

I got ordained so I could perform marriages. What do I need to do to legally perform marriages?

You just need to check with your local County Clerk's Office and get details on things like filing the marriage license, ages of consent, blood test requirements, etc. They'll be happy to give you all the details and necessary forms. While you're there, ask them to show you how to fill out the license, so you can be sure you do everything correctly. Other things to check on are whether you need to file a copy of your ordination credentials before doing weddings, whether you need a license from the state or county to do weddings, how many days before you must return the marriage license to the county, which office to file the license with, and are there any other requirements before you can perform weddings. Again, you're advised against trying to register using only your e-mail letter of ordination. Be prepared to show your Certificate of Ordination, or, at the very least, the Letter of Ordination on Church Letterhead, both available on our catalog page at http://www.ficotw.org/catalog.htm.

Finally, Nevada, Oregon, and New York City all have laws that may require you to have a formally recognized church with a congregation before being allowed to do weddings. This may require you to incorporate your ministry in Oregon and Nevada.

We also have a great many members and ministers located in Canada, and that country has particularly restrictive laws regarding who may register to perform marriages. But even in Canada your ordination is acceptable for all other regular duties of any member of the clergy.

[Darat]

...snip...


Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.

...snip...

A slight aside: I disagree, from what I've read historically someone wishing to get married has needed the permission of someone else to actually get married so I'd argue the concept of a "licence" is as old as marriage itself.

[Paulhoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Paul

:) :) :)

[Loss Leader]

A slight aside: I disagree, from what I've read historically someone wishing to get married has needed the permission of someone else to actually get married so I'd argue the concept of a "licence" is as old as marriage itself.


I guess it depends on whether you mean "license" to be an actual piece of paper evincing a license and not the concept of license itself.

[pgwenthold]

Michael Shermer is just such a minister-- (so am I, but who isn't)?-- but he can officiate legal ceremonies. I imagine other Enterprising Kern County folk will be able to do the same since Ms. Holier-than-thou's principles make her unable to participate.


I think I read in the LA Times article that Unitarian ministers will be waiting outside on the courthouse steps to marry any couple that wants them to.

[articulett]

I think I read in the LA Times article that Unitarian ministers will be waiting outside on the courthouse steps to marry any couple that wants them to.

That's great... I hope more people click and become ordained. :D

Those of you in the area-- now is the time and place to show your support, get ordained, and earn a bit of extra income.

[RadioactiveMan]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people
The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships. I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...

[DoubtingStephen]

I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...

Well, the recent California Supreme Court decision was not so much about gay and lesbian couples being allowed to have any particular ceremonies, it was about the legal rights of gay and lesbian couples to equal treatment under the law when dealing with their government. Screw the churches, each and every one.

You may consider marriage to be a religious matter, but since this matter was decided in a court of law your opinion does not seem to align very well with the facts at hand.

I could care less which couples this or that religious organization chooses to solemnize with their mumbo jumbo, I just want to have the same legal rights as any other citizen. And now I do.

I'm not so sure I agree that marriage has always been a religious matter, it is about property rights, inheritance rights, and in our modern times details like hospital visitation rights.

I wonder if you can provide historical references to validate your assertion that religious marriage ceremonies predate the first human governments, but whether you can or you can't, this struggle is about legal rights. The involvement of religion in performing or not performing marriages today is completely inconsequential to the boxes I check when filling out a tax return.

Besides, if it is really true that religion existed before laws, how did anyone survive?

[Worm]

Having had a little think about this, I'm not so sure that the Clerk in question didn't do the right thing. As I understand it, County Clerks are not required to perform marriage ceremonys, they choose to ... is this correct?

First of all, let's be clear that we are assuming that she objects to same-sex marriage. I think it's a fair assumption, but it's not completely certain. Anyway, with that assumption noted...

She has an objection to same-sex marriage and so instead of refusing to marry same-sex couples (which would be discrimination) she decides to no longer perform marriages ceremonys at all - she treats everybody the same way.

Let me be clear, I don't think she's right in her oppostion to same-sex marriages, I think that she's dead wrong, but she's entitled to be wrong and keep working as long as she doesn't discriminate. Surely what she has done isn't descriminatory? It's may be pretty stupid and petty, but she's not treated same-sex couples any differently than mixed-sex couples. Her reasons for doing so may be objectionable, but that's a different argument.

[DoubtingStephen]

Having had a little think about this, I'm not so sure that the Clerk in question didn't do the right thing.

I'll concede that she stayed within the bounds of her legal rights, in fact she sought legal counsel in advance of taking action.

But this woman is an elected official being paid by the citizens of Kern County. By refusing to continue providing a service which the county traditionally has provided, she is not doing a very good job of serving the citizens.

It is also noteworthy that, although some may claim that she is acting on the basis of her convictions, she lacks the courage to name those convictions in public. The stated reason for discontinuing civil ceremonies is obviously not her actual reason, as most people concerned about office space do not consult right wing Fundamentalist legal organizations that exist primarily to harass gay and lesbian citizens.

When a person lacks honesty, and demonstrates this in public, then their motives and intentions become suspect.

If this lady has so much internalized bigotry that it interferes with her ability to serve the citizens of Kern County, perhaps the honorable thing to do would be to seek employment elsewhere. But then perhaps it is unreasonable to expect a person acting for reasons based on religious delusions to be honorable or even honest.

[Worm]

I think it's a good point about her stated reasons for actions. As a local government employee, I am constantly facing the culture of not really saying what you think for fear of what the public's reaction will be. The 'political' curse as I think of it. It's really just dishonesty.

She may actually have shot herself in the foot a little, as her excuses of lack of space and staff may well turn out to be completely misplaced.

I also note from the article in the OP that she "tried to resign her elected position as county clerk — while keeping her positions as auditor-controller and elections boss". I'm not quite clear what that means, but it does sound a bit like she was trying to do the right thing in some way.

[ponderingturtle]

The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships.

So should we not let people you marry have any right to sue for wrongful death or what? Only blood relatives.

There needs to be some method of legal recognition of a relationship, as you can not sue for the wrongful death of a roommate, but can for a spouce.

That is currentlty marriage.

[DoubtingStephen]

Here is one example of what can happen if a couple is married, versus the same couple not being married. The context is California law, as that relates to this thread.

If one spouse in a marriage dies and the couple jointly owned real estate, a very common situation, under California law the transfer of ownership of the real estate from the couple to the surviving spouse is not considered a sale for purposes of taxation.

If two people co-own property but are neither legally married nor registered domestic partners, then the death of one co-owner does not create a tax-free transfer of property.

The implications are huge, because under existing California law the county is not permitted to revaluate a property for tax purposes unless some major change, like a sale or transfer of ownership, has taken place. So if the couple has lived in the home for 20 years, when a surviving partner inherits the property they might see their annual tax rate quadruple or more, possibly at a time in life when their income is very low (old age).

This is just one of the many civil rights that gays and lesbians have access to when their government treats them as having equal rights under the law.

There is no number so small that I could not care less about who any religious organization will or will not marry, since I am fortunate enough not to suffer from religious delusions. The struggle for gay rights is a struggle for legal and financial parity with our fellow citizens. Marriage is a civil matter, this is why marriage licenses are issued by the state instead of the Rat in a Hat.

Apply unto Caesar for the documents that are Caesar's.

[shadron]

The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships. I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...

I disagree with your presumption - marriage has always been societal before it became religious in nature. Who is responsible for raising, funding and handling the misadventures before maturity of the offspring, how they inherit, how to handle the demise of the marriage (whether it is possible short of death, and what happens when it does) - all of these are legal, not religious, questions. Of course, religion has made itself pre-eminent, but the legal, state-interest in marriage cannot be adjudicated by religion, particularly when it is separate from state, as you point out.

I disagree with your desires - making marriage outside the legal is to make all the legal issues somehow just "go away", and they plainly don't. Your neighbors aren't giving you permission - they are saying that if you do it, then you need to know there is more involved than simply having sex with each other (mainly, but not exclusively as a result of said sex), and that you are bound by the consequences of your actions, as with any other legal contract you enter into. The state is so needful of making this contractual decision binding that it even decides what implicit, common-law marriage requires, and ignorance of that law is no excuse when you try to just as informally terminate the relationship.

I do agree that religion is not necessary in marriage. They simply horned into a feel-good time in the human condition where they can attempt to increase their influence. As I stated above, marriage is a contract between the husband and the wife - all others in whatever ceremony takes place are simply witnesses to the contract - no more. Even the canon law of the Catholic church makes that point - the officiating priest has no other role in the ceremony beside that of witness, and as "the channel of god's grace" to the couple, for whatever that's worth.

[shadron]

A slight aside: I disagree, from what I've read historically someone wishing to get married has needed the permission of someone else to actually get married so I'd argue the concept of a "licence" is as old as marriage itself.

I don't think so. The two castaways on The Blue Lagoon had the right of it - they are married if they freely choose to do so. This is upheld by all state law that I know of (see common-law marriage) and by the Catholic church (the only one that I know closely enough to make the statement); reference the Baltimore Catechism on the definition of marriage. Historically there are witnesses to the contract, and the local law often usurps rights to others from what we are used to in English common law (ie, the right of parents to determine the marriage partner, thus making the definition of bride and groom larger than the two individuals involved - indeed, a marriage of families is the proper way to think of that). But permission from any other person beyond the two contracting entities is not usually a necessary legal or religious requirement for marriage.

The "license" is a written form of the contract they are making - and contracts are implicit in the very first legal relationship that any two people ever had - as old as society.

[DoubtingStephen]

NEWS FLASH: Kern County police officials have rescinded their threat that they will arrest known, practicing homosexuals attempting to conduct legally licensed weddings outside the county clerk's office. I am not kidding.

The Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County, told The Chronicle on Tuesday that the police would not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there. On Wednesday, Tetzlaff said it had been a misunderstanding.

Perhaps the police misunderstood the law?

( link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MNDU117QIF.DTL) )

[Paulhoff]

The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships. I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...
First, the church does marry anyone, the state does.

Down here is Florida a notary-public can marry two people with a marriage certificate, my Grandniece was just married this way.

A marriage certificate only shows that both people are who they say they are, meet the age requirement and any other requirements the state has for two get married.

After getting a state marriage license they then can get married anywhere in that state by anyone legally allowed to marry them.

And as I said before it is a contract, it is legal and binding. I want no body but my wife and my wife wants nobody but me to make curtain decisions and the marriage certificate shows we have this right. I have many times with my wife called the shots at the hospital, and what I said went because I am her husband. You seem not to understand this importance of a marriage contract.

Paul

:) :) :)

[articulett]

I want no body but my wife and my wife wants nobody but me to make curtain decisions and the marriage certificate shows we have this right.

Bravo. I know I also have strong feelings about who makes curtain decisions in my household. Actually, I prefer vertical blinds, but they lose their slats so damn easily.

:p

[Loss Leader]

I want no body but my wife and my wife wants nobody but me to make curtain decisions


Congratulations. My wife won't let me have any say in choosing the curtains.

[Paulhoff]

Congratulations. My wife won't let me have any say in choosing the curtains.
The bible says you can beat her, go for it. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[RadioactiveMan]

So should we not let people you marry have any right to sue for wrongful death or what? Only blood relatives.
I don't recall ever saying that.

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.

[DoubtingStephen]

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.

Since marriage licenses in the USA have always been issued by the state, and marriage laws passed by the state, it is clear that marriage is a matter of civil law.

If people who are afflicted with religious delusions wish to invent a new thing, perhaps called Sanctity, they could restrict Sanctity licenses only to the sanctimonious and have Sanctity Ceremonies to celebrate their Sanctity.

Then folks could simply choose whether they wish Sanctity or Marriage.

How's that for crap spouting?

[Paulhoff]

I don't recall ever saying that.

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.
So what do you think gives you the rights that come with marriage, Joe down the street, or you just make up the laws as you see fit.

Paul

:) :) :)

[RadioactiveMan]

Since marriage licenses in the USA have always been issued by the state, and marriage laws passed by the state, it is clear that marriage is a matter of civil law.
Just like since black people in the USA were always slaves, and slavery laws were passed by the States, blacks should clearly still be slaves.

How's that for crap spouting?
Par for the course.

[DoubtingStephen]

So then you agree that marriage is a matter of civil law, that's good.

[Fiona]

Marriage confers rights and privileges which are not available to those who choose to just be in a "private, intimate interpersonal relationship" It is true that there are other ways of conferring those rights and privileges: and it is true we could abolish them if we chose.

I think there are good reasons not to abolish them. That is, of course, debateable: but for me the right to be informed and consulted about the medical treatment of an incapacitated partner is quite important, and I do not see much wrong with privilege of that sort.That is but one example, but if the state does not recognise a special relationship there then I think the situation would be worse than it is now.

In this country civil partnerships are available to same sex couples and they confer those same rights and privileges. Problem for me is that they are not available to mixed gender couples. This is because there was seen to be some need to throw a sop to the religious, some of whom are committed to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Some gay people have been annoyed by the artificial distinction, and would have preferred to have the word as well as the rest.

What I would have preferred was for the choice of civil partnership to be available to me too: and for marriage to be available to same sex couples if that is what they want. I do not want to be married because the concept carries more baggage than I am willing to accept. This means that all of the problems described by Doubting Stephen are mine. I am not so stuck as gay people were before the change in the law because there is no legal barrier to my getting married: yet still I do not see why everyone cannot choose what suits them from among the various arrangements which exist.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Just like since black people in the USA were always slaves, and slavery laws were passed by the States, blacks should clearly still be slaves.

How would you ensure the civil rights we give married couples then?

[Paulhoff]

Just like since black people in the USA were always slaves, and slavery laws were passed by the States, blacks should clearly still be slaves.
Straw-man, we are talking about marriage, not a ex-law that isn't one.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ponderingturtle]

I don't recall ever saying that.

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.

Then how do you do that?

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage confers rights and privileges which are not available to those who choose to just be in a "private, intimate interpersonal relationship" It is true that there are other ways of conferring those rights and privileges: and it is true we could abolish them if we chose.

I don't think that there are other ways of giving many of the rights of spouces have.

How do you give someone standing? Or the right not to testify against you?

[Fiona]

The civil partnership is one such way: while you might think it is a distinction without a difference I do not quite agree, for the reasons stated

[Loss Leader]

I don't know what people are arguing about in this thread.

Marriage is a social institution incorporated into both religious and civil law.

This will never, ever change. You can debate it and argue about it and bloody your fists punching each other about it but be certain of one thing: the institution of marriage will remain embedded in religious and civil law for as long as you, your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren are alive. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

[Paulhoff]

It seems that we are only arguing with one person.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DoubtingStephen]

Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett has spoken to the press (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-kern13-2008jun13,0,1393571.story) as of yesterday, but she still refuses to tell the truth about her reasons for penalizing straight and gay couples alike in canceling all wedding ceremonies.

She did blather on and on about her church, and what a central role it plays in her life. And she admits that an ultra-right wing Fundamentalist law firm run by out-of-state activist agitators is consulting with her about her actions.

Whitney Wedell, a leader in Bakersfield's small but close-knit gay community, acknowledged that gay men and lesbians face an uphill battle finding acceptance in the county. But she said that shouldn't give an elected official license to sidestep the law.

Anyway, Wedell said, Barnett's decision won't stop gay marriage in Kern County.

"She is required to hand out licenses, so she will be making these marriages happen whether she likes it nor not," said Wedell, who plans to marry her partner of two years Tuesday on a shaded patio just outside the clerk's office.

"If it really bothers her conscience, she might want to consider stepping down," Wedell said.

(link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-kern13-2008jun13,0,1393571.story))

About two dozen ministers have offered to perform free wedding ceremonies for any and all license-bearing couples, without discrimination. Yet Ms Barnett persists with her plans and continues to claim that logistics considerations are the source of her decision.

When a person does not tell the truth, others may be inclined to question their honesty.

Should public employees be honest and forthcoming about the actions they take in their official capacity? Or is deceit justified when it is done to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry?

[articulett]

Well, to me it's the former... but then I'm for honesty and, thus, against religion.

For believers it seems all lies are acceptable so long as it supports their pet delusion-- particularly the one where they see themselves as righteous and humble.

[Complexity]

So you don't ever compromise then.


Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Sir Winston Churchill (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Sir_Winston_Churchill/), Speech, 1941, Harrow School
British politician (1874 - 1965)

[articulett]

Isn't he asking you to compromise in regards to what rights other people are allowed to take from you?

Isn't that like saying, "you should be glad I just spit on you since my principles call for me to stone you"?

What exactly is the opposing side compromising? No one is asking them to have a homosexual marriage against their consent, right? No one is asking them to buy presents or give a thumbs up. Folks who wish to marry don't usually need the approval of others last I heard.

I had to put PT on ignore... too many straw men... not enough substance. My principles don't allow me to entertain straw men. :p

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't he asking you to compromise in regards to what rights other people are allowed to take from you?


You realize that this was addressing only the issue dutch officials being able to refuse to marry people. It was not about if gay marriage should be legal.

Many here are arguing for forcing people to perform gay marriages.

[bluess]

You realize that this was addressing only the issue dutch officials being able to refuse to marry people. It was not about if gay marriage should be legal.

Many here are arguing for forcing people to perform gay marriages.

I don't believe that is the case. As far as I can tell, the posters are arguing that if your job requires that you perform a service (legal, ya da da), then perform that service.

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the change in California law requires that any specific religious body therefore allow gay marriages in their sanctuary. Just that a county clerk should continue to provide the same service as before. To more people.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't believe that is the case. As far as I can tell, the posters are arguing that if your job requires that you perform a service (legal, ya da da), then perform that service.

No they are agruing that there is no room for compromise when a job has its description changed. In the US this is pretty much true, but in areas of much stronger labor laws, I can see why there would be restrictions from forcing people to quit becuase you changed the nature of their job.

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the change in California law requires that any specific religious body therefore allow gay marriages in their sanctuary. Just that a county clerk should continue to provide the same service as before. To more people.

The winston churchill comment certainly seems to invoke images of force.

[bluess]

No they are agruing that there is no room for compromise when a job has its description changed. In the US this is pretty much true, but in areas of much stronger labor laws, I can see why there would be restrictions from forcing people to quit becuase you changed the nature of their job.

The change is that she apparently doesn't want to perform a service for two people of the same gender. I'm not sure that the actual service itself has changed.

If the change in law required the employee to put on vestements of another faith or required that the service be performed after business hours, I would agree that the employee has a legitimate concern. If the change is that more people are going to request the original service, and that the increase in time allotted for providing that service has been addressed, I don't see the problem here.

Except for this one employee's concern that same-gender couples should not marry.


The winston churchill comment certainly seems to invoke images of force.

Well, yes. I'm much more a believer in not becoming a part of a group where I disagree with fundamental philosophies. Like that whole equality thing. :D

[ponderingturtle]

The change is that she apparently doesn't want to perform a service for two people of the same gender. I'm not sure that the actual service itself has changed.

If the change in law required the employee to put on vestements of another faith or required that the service be performed after business hours, I would agree that the employee has a legitimate concern. If the change is that more people are going to request the original service, and that the increase in time allotted for providing that service has been addressed, I don't see the problem here.

Except for this one employee's concern that same-gender couples should not marry.

So? It is a change in the nature of the job. If they would quit over this change than to them it is serious enough change that I could well see civil charges around it.

So in a context of sufficiently pro labor laws, I could well see this as a practical compromise. It does not restrict anyone from getting married, shouldn't put much delay in anyones getting married and avoides some potentialy expensive lawsuits.

[DoubtingStephen]

I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.

Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.

After 5PM today the requirement will be the same, but some additional couples will be entitled to obtain marriage licenses.

It is true that previously only heterosexual couples were served, but the sexual orientation of her customers is not a proper matter for her concern and it is not an issue that is described in the job description of a California County Clerk.

It remains an unfortunate fact that this lady has not been honest and forthright about her actual reasons for canceling all wedding ceremonies conducted by her department. Apparently her prejudice is so extreme that she is willing to inconvenience all couples, Christian and non-Christian, straight, lesbian, and gay, just to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry (http://sanctityofbigotry.com/).

It does seem that she has not and does not plan to violate any laws, but the whole matter smacks of deceit, duplicity, and a very insincere public servant.

I hope that she will have some sort of an epiphany and seize the opportunity before her to promote the highest ideals of our great nation, in this case equal justice under the law and our shared commitment to decency and fair play. That would be so much better for her and the county government that she serves.

[Patsy]

I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.

Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.

After 5PM today the requirement will be the same, but some additional couples will be entitled to obtain marriage licenses.

It is true that previously only heterosexual couples were served, but the sexual orientation of her customers is not a proper matter for her concern and it is not an issue that is described in the job description of a California County Clerk.

It remains an unfortunate fact that this lady has not been honest and forthright about her actual reasons for canceling all wedding ceremonies conducted by her department. Apparently her prejudice is so extreme that she is willing to inconvenience all couples, Christian and non-Christian, straight, lesbian, and gay, just to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry (http://sanctityofbigotry.com/).

It does seem that she has not and does not plan to violate any laws, but the whole matter smacks of deceit, duplicity, and a very insincere public servant.

I hope that she will have some sort of an epiphany and seize the opportunity before her to promote the highest ideals of our great nation, in this case equal justice under the law and our shared commitment to decency and fair play. That would be so much better for her and the county government that she serves.

I am not aware if this is the case everywhere, but in some areas the position of County Clerk is an elected position. I do hope this position is elected in her County, so that all couples Christian and Non, Hetero or Homosexual, who have been inconvenienced and put to extra expense by this woman's bigotry have the opportunity to promote the election of a candidate that is willing to serve all constituents in the county rather than picking and choosing those she will serve.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.

And how does a CA Supreme Court Decision matter in Holland?

Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.

That still has not changed. The county clerk was not required to marry people though.

[ponderingturtle]

I am not aware if this is the case everywhere, but in some areas the position of County Clerk is an elected position. I do hope this position is elected in her County, so that all couples Christian and Non, Hetero or Homosexual, who have been inconvenienced and put to extra expense by this woman's bigotry have the opportunity to promote the election of a candidate that is willing to serve all constituents in the county rather than picking and choosing those she will serve.

How many people actualy get married by the county clerk though?

I don't know that anyone I know as married by a county clerk. So I think that the percentage of marriages that the county clerk presides over are likely small, so it will inconvience very few people.

[DoubtingStephen]

And how does a CA Supreme Court Decision matter in Holland?


I guess that gay and lesbian couples from the Netherlands are now welcome to come to Palm Springs, CA for a friendly and welcoming wedding ceremony combined with a wonderful honeymoon in our refreshing desert climate.

I realize they could be married at home, but I've been to Holland, so I know why they might want to come here :)

[Patsy]

How many people actualy get married by the county clerk though?

I don't know that anyone I know as married by a county clerk. So I think that the percentage of marriages that the county clerk presides over are likely small, so it will inconvience very few people.

If a public service is being a public bigot, is the NUMBER of people they are inconveniencing really relevant?

[ponderingturtle]

I guess that gay and lesbian couples from the Netherlands are now welcome to come to Palm Springs, CA for a friendly and welcoming wedding ceremony combined with a wonderful honeymoon in our refreshing desert climate.

I realize they could be married at home, but I've been to Holland, so I know why they might want to come here :)

I realized that it might not have been a reaction to the debate over the appropriateness of how holland was dealing with this, but that seemed to be the main area of recent debate over job description.

[ponderingturtle]

If a public service is being a public bigot, is the NUMBER of people they are inconveniencing really relevant?

It does when you are looking at how many people will be voting against them because they messed with their wedding plans.

[Patsy]

It does when you are looking at how many people will be voting against them because they messed with their wedding plans.

I'm not sure why you think only people whose plans were messed with would vote against them. Note I said they might want to PROMOTE a different candidate. In other words, campaign for, and perhaps get organizations they belong to to campain for a public servant that will agree to actually serve the public.

For example, my wedding plans would not be messed with, but I would campaign against this person. I would likely attempt to involve any local gay and lesbian organizations like PFLAG, any freethought or atheist groups I belonged to, etc. I might contact liberal religious groups that I felt might interested, poverty groups that might see this as an undue burden placed on low income couples.

Another relevant point to me is that this person is a public servant, not a private sector employee. I would not, for example, expect that my local Baptist church be forced to accomodate same sex weddings. However, when this gal chose to feed at the public trough, she took on an obligation to serve the public, all of it, not just those she feels warm and fuzzy about. She is discontinuing this service, not because it isn't part of her job, but to avoid serving a particular segment of her constituents.

[bluess]

Well said, Patsy.

[RadioactiveMan]

Then how do you do that?
Wills, living wills, whatever.

It seems pretty simple, actually.

[ponderingturtle]

Wills, living wills, whatever.

It seems pretty simple, actually.

So we need to break all that is done in marriage apart and make them all seperate?

One letter to make someone able to have standing in a wrongful death suit, one for not testifying in court, and do on?

So what interpersonal relationships need is more lawyers and paperwork.

[RadioactiveMan]

So we need to break all that is done in marriage apart and make them all seperate?
Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their ************ for the rest of their life?

[ponderingturtle]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.]

You are increasing the amount of government interference, and certainly increasing the amount of private interference with all the additions lawyer fees for each aspect.

[ddt]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their ************ for the rest of their life?

Sorry to bring up Holland again as an example. We had lots of people in the 70s and 80s who were out of principle against marriage - there still are such people, but the pendulum has swung back a bit so now there are less of them.

These people would indeed go to a notary public to make a kind of "civil union" contract. So such contracts exist and you can arrange about anything in it. The only thing I could think of that would be a problem is inheritance, as the Civil Code describes what minimum has to go to next of kin. I'm not sure about things like medical care - a thing like pulling the plug when the partner is in coma could indeed be a problem too - but the more mundane things like visitor's rights have never been a problem.

But then, in everyday life here there's not much difference between people living together (with or without contract) or married people - you get the same tax cuts, the same rights when applying for housing, etc.

As to costs of such a contract: I'm sure it's cheaper than a full-blown wedding.

[ponderingturtle]

As to costs of such a contract: I'm sure it's cheaper than a full-blown wedding.

Weddings are not nessacarily expensive. You can get one in vegas for $50.

Having lawyers draw up a contract would be much more.

It is that people like to make weddings a big party, but that is really seperate from what it costs to get married.

[ddt]

Weddings are not nessacarily expensive. You can get one in vegas for $50.
Didn't think about that. Just looked at the prices at "my" city hall. For free on Monday morning (but that's really without any ceremony), up to EUR 536 on a Saturday.


Having lawyers draw up a contract would be much more.
Having some "standard" contract where you mainly have to tick off a couple of things and fill in some names saves a lot. This site (http://www.degoedkoopstenotaris.nl/?pagina=samenlevings&gclid=CKmDhLTe-5MCFQpPQgodGGOvzA) lists some Dutch notary publics who offer such a contract for EUR 200-250. That's cheap compared to a prenup; wiki (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huwelijkse_voorwaarden) says that costs between EUR 500-1000.


It is that people like to make weddings a big party, but that is really seperate from what it costs to get married.
When I add up the costs of a marriage (including a prenup), a marriage is more expensive even before considering the party and the dress.

ETA: Of course, in the US costs may be different. But it must be possible to find a lawyer who won't ask you an arm and a leg for a standard contract, not?

[DoubtingStephen]

This talk of replacing marriage with a self-made contract seems quite a bit simplistic.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States):
According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from single people. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars Same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.


There would be a whole lot of contracting going on to replace this rich cornucopia of privileges. It does not seem feasible.

The fact of the matter is that, in California and Massachusetts for now, the battle is over and equality has won.

In Massachusetts the last ditch effort of the Jesus industry went down in flames (https://secure.supportequality.org/DonateAmounts.cfm) when the legislature shot down the idea of putting intolerance into the Constitution. Of course this does not mean that churches will stop fanning the flames of intolerance, it really fills up the pews. But it seems clear the issue is as dead as the invisible guy they eat on Sundays.

Despite the best efforts of those so fond of their religious delusions that they feel compelled to force them on everyone, equality and justice have won out.

I was saddened to hear this morning that certain groups afflicted with especially nasty religious delusions were demonstrating outside some California county clerk offices. It seems they are finding it difficult to adjust to reality, but then their delusional lifestyle choice might suggest that reality is already a challenge for these individuals. In the long run they'll get over it, or else they won't.

[ponderingturtle]

When I add up the costs of a marriage (including a prenup), a marriage is more expensive even before considering the party and the dress.

ETA: Of course, in the US costs may be different. But it must be possible to find a lawyer who won't ask you an arm and a leg for a standard contract, not?

Wouldn't the prenup be the same for both? Or do you not get asset dividing in a contract case?

[Paulhoff]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their ************ for the rest of their life?
And who enforses the control, you, your neighbor.

Paul

:) :) :)

I think that would be the state.

[luchog]

I don't think so. The two castaways on The Blue Lagoon had the right of it - they are married if they freely choose to do so. This is upheld by all state law that I know of (see common-law marriage) and by the Catholic church (the only one that I know closely enough to make the statement); reference the Baltimore Catechism on the definition of marriage.
Correcting a potentially misleading statement.

Common-law marriage is only recognized by 9 US states: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas. There are a number of qualifications and restrictions on the nature of the relationship affecting official recognition. Co-habitation by itself is insufficient to create a recognized common-law marriage.

5 others -- Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania -- have grandfathered in common-law marriaged existing prior to a specified date, but will not recognize new ones. New Hampshire recognizes them only for the purpose of probate; and Utah only recognizes those which have been officially validated by a state agency.

There are no states in which common-law marriages are recognized for same-sex couples.

Common-law marriage is recognized throughout Canada, including same-sex common-law marriages. Although requirements for recognition vary substantially by province; there is no province which hasn't recognized at least a double-digit number of common-law same-sex marriages.

[luchog]

This talk of replacing marriage with a self-made contract seems quite a bit simplistic.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States):


There would be a whole lot of contracting going on to replace this rich cornucopia of privileges. It does not seem feasible.

Of course it does. One would simply replace the standardized "one size fits all" Federal and State license with a similarly standardized private contract. The only difference would be that each partnership could modify the contract if they saw fit; without the requirement that they must do so.

The obvious comment here would be that without lawyers reviewing it, those involved in a marriage partnership under a private contract would not necessarily understand what all was involved in the contract, what their rights and privileges are. The obvious answer is that under the existing cornucopia of Federal and State laws regarding marriages, that is already the case. Few married people truly understand what all of their legal rights and responsibilities are, simply due to the sheer volume and complexity of all the laws relating to marriage; so there wouldn't be any change there. In fact, many more legally-savvy couples already sign private pre-nuptial contracts for this very reason; and making it a private rather than a government contract could be an impetus for partners to gain a better understanding of what should be involved in such a contract. It's certain that many matters could be greatly simplified without any loss of legal protections.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course it does. One would simply replace the standardized "one size fits all" Federal and State license with a similarly standardized private contract. The only difference would be that each partnership could modify the contract if they saw fit; without the requirement that they must do so.

The obvious comment here would be that without lawyers reviewing it, those involved in a marriage partnership under a private contract would not necessarily understand what all was involved in the contract, what their rights and privileges are. The obvious answer is that under the existing cornucopia of Federal and State laws regarding marriages, that is already the case. Few married people truly understand what all of their legal rights and responsibilities are, simply due to the sheer volume and complexity of all the laws relating to marriage; so there wouldn't be any change there. In fact, many more legally-savvy couples already sign private pre-nuptial contracts for this very reason; and making it a private rather than a government contract could be an impetus for partners to gain a better understanding of what should be involved in such a contract. It's certain that many matters could be greatly simplified without any loss of legal protections.

But all kinds of changes to how other things work. For example you would be getting rid of the estate tax to a large degree. Just sign a co ownership contract similar to a what a married couple has with your children and then it never becomes an estate, it just smoothly transfers.

Being able to get the priviliges associated with marriage through basic contracts would have very far reaching effects.