Final Gasps of Amendment 2
January 1, 2015 1:10 PM Subscribe
Three Flordia counties are doing away with courthouse weddings. In response to the ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses being lifted on Tuesday we've also seen county clerks threatened by the state while the Attorney General asks the federal judge to clarify that he didn't just mean the clerk named in the case.
The amount of hatred shown by these men and women is astonishing, and heartbreaking.
posted by wintermind at 1:31 PM on January 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 1:31 PM on January 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
"Personal beliefs". Were a police officer to refuse to arrest somebody because they didn't "personally believe" in a given law, what would happen to them?
posted by Thing at 1:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Thing at 1:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
Imagine if they had decided to no longer do courthouse weddings anymore because they didn't want to do the occasional interracial marriage.
posted by Daddy-O at 1:37 PM on January 1, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Daddy-O at 1:37 PM on January 1, 2015 [20 favorites]
The whole "personal beliefs" loophole is one that I think needs to be simply eliminated. There's simply too much potential for it to be used as an excuse for discrimination. That goes for everyone, pharmacists, clerks of court, etc.
posted by wintermind at 1:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [61 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 1:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [61 favorites]
I mean it's my deeply held personal belief that unrepentant homophobes should be punched in the face, therefore facepunching bans don't apply to me, right?
posted by poffin boffin at 1:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [70 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [70 favorites]
"Personal beliefs". Were a police officer to refuse to arrest somebody because they didn't "personally believe" in a given law, what would happen to them?
Well, if the law in question were, say, a draconian racist drug law in the 21st-century US, or, say, a Nuremberg law in 1930s Germany, a police officer would be correct to refuse to enforce the law on "personal beliefs" grounds, and would be acting unethically by refusing to give their personal beliefs precedence over legal mandates. The most famous genocide trials in history basically reached this sort of conclusion, no?
I'm as disgusted as anyone else about those tasked with enforcing the law failing to do so when the law in question is designed to guarantee equal rights, but you're not making the right argument. "Legalistic" arguments, based on notions of fairness or equivalence, don't cut it because of, e.g., the counterexamples I just cited.
One has to make the more forceful argument that some laws are right, some are wrong, and it's reprehensible to fail to enforce the right ones and reprehensible to enforce the wrong ones. One has, in fact, to argue that some "personal beliefs" are ethically correct and other ones are not, and that the moral course of action is to try to have ethically defensible personal beliefs and act on them. Pluralism and tolerance are not always virtuous on their own merits. This situation nicely illustrates that: intolerance based on sexual orientation is disgusting, while intolerance of bigots, based on bigotry, is not only defensible but imperative.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [62 favorites]
Well, if the law in question were, say, a draconian racist drug law in the 21st-century US, or, say, a Nuremberg law in 1930s Germany, a police officer would be correct to refuse to enforce the law on "personal beliefs" grounds, and would be acting unethically by refusing to give their personal beliefs precedence over legal mandates. The most famous genocide trials in history basically reached this sort of conclusion, no?
I'm as disgusted as anyone else about those tasked with enforcing the law failing to do so when the law in question is designed to guarantee equal rights, but you're not making the right argument. "Legalistic" arguments, based on notions of fairness or equivalence, don't cut it because of, e.g., the counterexamples I just cited.
One has to make the more forceful argument that some laws are right, some are wrong, and it's reprehensible to fail to enforce the right ones and reprehensible to enforce the wrong ones. One has, in fact, to argue that some "personal beliefs" are ethically correct and other ones are not, and that the moral course of action is to try to have ethically defensible personal beliefs and act on them. Pluralism and tolerance are not always virtuous on their own merits. This situation nicely illustrates that: intolerance based on sexual orientation is disgusting, while intolerance of bigots, based on bigotry, is not only defensible but imperative.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [62 favorites]
I mean it's my deeply held personal belief that unrepentant homophobes should be punched in the face, therefore facepunching bans don't apply to me, right?
No, but since said face-punching is morally right and proper (metaphorically speaking), the face-punching ban is neither here nor there. Go forth and face-punch (metaphorically speaking). Your personal belief, being correct, trumps the law in this case (the law will disagree, and you might suffer legal consequences, but I'm interested in correctness, not legality, here). Those clerks' beliefs, being bullshit, do not trump the law.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:50 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
No, but since said face-punching is morally right and proper (metaphorically speaking), the face-punching ban is neither here nor there. Go forth and face-punch (metaphorically speaking). Your personal belief, being correct, trumps the law in this case (the law will disagree, and you might suffer legal consequences, but I'm interested in correctness, not legality, here). Those clerks' beliefs, being bullshit, do not trump the law.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:50 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
MetaFilter: Where We Discuss Grown Adults Proudly Having Public Diaper Baby Tantrums
posted by ArmandoAkimbo at 1:53 PM on January 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by ArmandoAkimbo at 1:53 PM on January 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
Looking at the map, not the counties I'd have expected.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:55 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:55 PM on January 1, 2015
"Personal beliefs". Were a police officer to refuse to arrest somebody because they didn't "personally believe" in a given law, what would happen to them?
Well, right now police in New York are refusing to arrest people because the mayor was really mean to them when they killed an unarmed man, so perhaps we will find out.
Again, puffin boffin's earlier statement applies.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:57 PM on January 1, 2015 [22 favorites]
Well, right now police in New York are refusing to arrest people because the mayor was really mean to them when they killed an unarmed man, so perhaps we will find out.
Again, puffin boffin's earlier statement applies.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:57 PM on January 1, 2015 [22 favorites]
If there is a reliable thing in this world, it's bigots and assholes doubling-down on their bigotry and assholery when the rest of us ask them to knock it off.
posted by maxwelton at 2:20 PM on January 1, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 2:20 PM on January 1, 2015 [14 favorites]
Do you even have to have a marriage ceremony? I mean, can't you just walk into a courthouse, get a marriage license, sign it and have your witnesses sign it, and then hand it to the clerk to be filed, and be done with it? Why are courthouses providing ceremonial services for what is primarily, for the state, a legal matter? Surely the actual ceremony is a public observance of this legal status that isn't required by law?
posted by Talez at 2:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Q: When “solemnizing the rites of matrimony,” is it acceptable for the Notary Public to complete the marriage certificate without actually performing a marriage ceremony?According to information provided by the state to Notary Publics.
A No. Completing the marriage certificate portion of the Marriage Record is not the same act as performing the marriage ceremony. Actually, the certificate is your way of certifying that you solemnized the marriage. You should not falsely certify that a ceremony was performed
when, in fact, one was not.
posted by Talez at 2:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can these bigots also be held in legal contempt?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:26 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:26 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
"It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn't be any discrimination," Fussell said. "The easiest way is to not do them at all."
This is a new low/high in mealy mouthed passive phrasing and it makes me so mad I could spit. What he means is "so that I wouldn't be forced to not discriminate".
posted by ftm at 2:27 PM on January 1, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is a new low/high in mealy mouthed passive phrasing and it makes me so mad I could spit. What he means is "so that I wouldn't be forced to not discriminate".
posted by ftm at 2:27 PM on January 1, 2015 [9 favorites]
> Were a police officer to refuse to arrest somebody because they didn't "personally believe" in a given law, what would happen to them?
Depends on if the officer shot to kill.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Depends on if the officer shot to kill.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle has now issued an "Order on the scope of the preliminary injunction":
posted by grouse at 2:34 PM on January 1, 2015 [30 favorites]
Now the Clerk has filed an emergency motion to clarify the preliminary injunction. She asks whether the injunction requires her to issue marriage licenses to all qualified same-sex applicants or only to the two unmarried plaintiffs…The gall of these people is incredible.
The preliminary injunction now in effect… does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses.
posted by grouse at 2:34 PM on January 1, 2015 [30 favorites]
I'm with busted_crayons above exactly. It's one of my biggest beefs with some who see themselves on the "liberal" side that they fefend intolerance on grounds of tolerance. It's crazy logic.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:37 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 2:37 PM on January 1, 2015
I just read Judge Hinkle's Order re the scope clarification. That is one awesome slap down.
posted by michswiss at 2:46 PM on January 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by michswiss at 2:46 PM on January 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
> some who see themselves on the "liberal" side that they defend intolerance on grounds of tolerance. It's crazy logic.
Moral Relativism is an ethical system such that every non-relativistic ethical system can find common ground in their hatred of it.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:46 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Moral Relativism is an ethical system such that every non-relativistic ethical system can find common ground in their hatred of it.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:46 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's because disorganized thinking is not a legitimate system of thought and deep down, everyone knows it.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:16 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 3:16 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
In my head, Judge Hinkle is using that voice where you.speak.painfully.slowly.and.angrily.articulate.every.fucking.syllable.do.I.need.to.explain.myself.further?
posted by bibliowench at 3:18 PM on January 1, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by bibliowench at 3:18 PM on January 1, 2015 [16 favorites]
Sometimes I forget that Mel Brooks is still alive.
posted by srboisvert at 3:43 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by srboisvert at 3:43 PM on January 1, 2015
"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism... at least it's an ethos."
posted by symbioid at 3:58 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by symbioid at 3:58 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
symbiod: I love that quote, and use it myself... But every once in awhile there will be a bit of awkwardness as I encounter someone that isn't familiar with The Big Lebowski, and no matter how much I struggle to explain the context, it is an awkward moment.
posted by el io at 4:02 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by el io at 4:02 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Can these bigots also be held in legal contempt?
Apparently not, from the first link above: "... If we're made by the law to issue a gay marriage license (we will) do that, but we are not mandated to marry couples in our courthouse."
posted by MikeMc at 4:10 PM on January 1, 2015
Apparently not, from the first link above: "... If we're made by the law to issue a gay marriage license (we will) do that, but we are not mandated to marry couples in our courthouse."
posted by MikeMc at 4:10 PM on January 1, 2015
But every once in awhile there will be a bit of awkwardness as I encounter someone that isn't familiar with The Big Lebowski, and no matter how much I struggle to explain the context, it is an awkward moment.
Yes, that moment is rather like how I imagine it to be when one goes door-to-door to explain that one is a pederast.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:12 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yes, that moment is rather like how I imagine it to be when one goes door-to-door to explain that one is a pederast.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:12 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
At one point do "personal beliefs" end? Can a public servant go through the laws and apply a check mark next to ones they intend to uphold and the ones they will avoid? And if public servants can do that, why can't I?
posted by tommasz at 4:18 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 4:18 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Can a public servant go through the laws and apply a check mark next to ones they intend to uphold and the ones they will avoid?
Since many laws are manifestly unjust or immoral, even sometimes when they are genuinely derived from the so-called "will of the people", and since there is numerous evidence indicating that even a democratically-elected legislative body can enshrine arbitrarily heinous shit in law, any public servant who doesn't privately make such a list is likely taking an ethical risk.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:24 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Since many laws are manifestly unjust or immoral, even sometimes when they are genuinely derived from the so-called "will of the people", and since there is numerous evidence indicating that even a democratically-elected legislative body can enshrine arbitrarily heinous shit in law, any public servant who doesn't privately make such a list is likely taking an ethical risk.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:24 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
(And any random citizen who doesn't have a rough idea of which laws they might end up ethically obliged to break is taking a similar risk. These decisions can get very complicated, too, even if, for most sufficiently lucky people, they end up being mainly theoretical.)
posted by busted_crayons at 4:26 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by busted_crayons at 4:26 PM on January 1, 2015
Right, ethics, morality and legality are not the same thing. And it is appropriate to attempt to align legality to morality. However, legality is also about shared agreement. Quite literally "the rule of law", and one oft-demonstrated central tenet of effective systems of law is the applicability of that law broadly and to all individuals. So, just as it is appropriate of a soldier to question orders on ethical grounds, but that doesn't mean that disobeying orders should not lead to a courts marshall proceeding. It just means that there should be room for extraordinary forgiveness of the disregard to direct orders when those orders indeed were extraordinary in their immorality.
Likewise, I support that any person in a position of authority act according to their morality rather than as an unthinking automaton when the situation arises. However, part of that moral stand is a willingness to suffer the consequences, the very act of civil disobedience. If, indeed, society determines our ethics support those individual actions there may even be room for formal forgiveness. This is the a pillar of the appropriateness of the executive pardon.
All of this is precisely why enshrining exemptions in the provision of equal access to the fruits of society under the umbrella of "personal beliefs" is so wrong. It devalues protest even as it props up inequality and discrimination.
posted by meinvt at 4:35 PM on January 1, 2015 [17 favorites]
Likewise, I support that any person in a position of authority act according to their morality rather than as an unthinking automaton when the situation arises. However, part of that moral stand is a willingness to suffer the consequences, the very act of civil disobedience. If, indeed, society determines our ethics support those individual actions there may even be room for formal forgiveness. This is the a pillar of the appropriateness of the executive pardon.
All of this is precisely why enshrining exemptions in the provision of equal access to the fruits of society under the umbrella of "personal beliefs" is so wrong. It devalues protest even as it props up inequality and discrimination.
posted by meinvt at 4:35 PM on January 1, 2015 [17 favorites]
There is a difference between acknowledging that at times any citizen may find themselves ethically justified, or even ethically compelled, to ignore or violate a law they perceive as unjust, and enshrining in law the principle that a citizen is legally empowered to ignore laws they perceive as unjust without consequence, which is ... basically anarchy, isn't it?
posted by kyrademon at 4:35 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 4:35 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
and enshrining in law the principle that a citizen is legally empowered to ignore laws they perceive as unjust without consequence
If you're referring to my comments, I certainly wasn't talking about enshrining that principle in law. My comments don't address what ought and ought not be enshrined in law at all.
("That's basically anarchy" isn't much of an argument, by the way, since, in this instance, the answer is simply "no, not according to how most serious anarchists would understand the term".)
posted by busted_crayons at 4:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you're referring to my comments, I certainly wasn't talking about enshrining that principle in law. My comments don't address what ought and ought not be enshrined in law at all.
("That's basically anarchy" isn't much of an argument, by the way, since, in this instance, the answer is simply "no, not according to how most serious anarchists would understand the term".)
posted by busted_crayons at 4:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is overthinking a plate of beans, people. Public servants are not paid to be dicks. They are there to do their goddamn job and if they object to it, they can fucking quit.
posted by SPrintF at 5:06 PM on January 1, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 5:06 PM on January 1, 2015 [32 favorites]
This all smacks of King Canute trying to stop the sea, but with added asshole for good measure. They can't win in the end, but damned if they aren't going to be extremely nasty while they lose.
posted by arcticseal at 5:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticseal at 5:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Plus the sea is actually rising now, which might make a nice object lesson for modern-day Canutes if they believed in climate change.
posted by uosuaq at 5:19 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 5:19 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wait, marrying people isn't part of their jobs? It was just something they got to choose to do voluntarily if they felt like it? It was just some kind of hobby they were allowed to do on company time?
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
In addition to ending weddings, the Clay courthouse will no longer allow residents applying for passports to take their photos there. Once a new web-based system launches, people also won't be able to purchase foreclosed properties at the courthouse.
Sounds to me that Clay County is looking to perform fewer services to begin with, and is using the issue of gay weddings as a scapegoat.
posted by xigxag at 5:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sounds to me that Clay County is looking to perform fewer services to begin with, and is using the issue of gay weddings as a scapegoat.
posted by xigxag at 5:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hey there fellow MeFites! I am a former and soon to be bourne again ( see what I did there? ) North Florida Resident. Clay county is quite a conservative county, literally brimming with Tea Party invective. Duval is a little more surprising as it's definitely far more blue. This is damned shameful. If I was back home right now, I and my friends would be rounding up these asshats and riding them out of town on a rail.
For shame!
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:27 PM on January 1, 2015
For shame!
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:27 PM on January 1, 2015
Public servants are not paid to be dicks.
Hey now, lets not get ahead of ourselves.... But there are other threads discussing the cops, so we should save discussions of public servants paid to be dicks for those threads.
posted by el io at 5:30 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hey now, lets not get ahead of ourselves.... But there are other threads discussing the cops, so we should save discussions of public servants paid to be dicks for those threads.
posted by el io at 5:30 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hey now, lets not get ahead of ourselves.... But there are other threads discussing the cops, so we should save discussions of public servants paid to be dicks for those threads.
The use of the term "dick" was ambiguous. I apologize.
posted by SPrintF at 5:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
The use of the term "dick" was ambiguous. I apologize.
posted by SPrintF at 5:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wait, marrying people isn't part of their jobs? It was just something they got to choose to do voluntarily if they felt like it? It was just some kind of hobby they were allowed to do on company time?
It appears that marriages are something the clerk's office can do but it is not something they have to do. They have to issue licenses but they do not have to perform marriage ceremonies.
posted by MikeMc at 5:46 PM on January 1, 2015
It appears that marriages are something the clerk's office can do but it is not something they have to do. They have to issue licenses but they do not have to perform marriage ceremonies.
posted by MikeMc at 5:46 PM on January 1, 2015
Why wouldn't this be similar to how the gun worshipers have forced counties to issue gun permits whether they like it or not? If you require a permit, you have to issue those permits.
Now, if they want to do away with the whole concept of needing a license from the government to get married...
posted by ctmf at 5:49 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Now, if they want to do away with the whole concept of needing a license from the government to get married...
posted by ctmf at 5:49 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
The whole "personal beliefs" loophole is one that I think needs to be simply eliminated. There's simply too much potential for it to be used as an excuse for discrimination.
Potential? The personal beliefs loophole is specifically designed to enable discrimination.
Sounds to me that Clay County is looking to perform fewer services to begin with, and is using the issue of gay weddings as a scapegoat.
No. They hate queer people. That is what is happening here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on January 1, 2015 [18 favorites]
Potential? The personal beliefs loophole is specifically designed to enable discrimination.
Sounds to me that Clay County is looking to perform fewer services to begin with, and is using the issue of gay weddings as a scapegoat.
No. They hate queer people. That is what is happening here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on January 1, 2015 [18 favorites]
It's perhaps worth remembering that the beginnings of this wave of legalization began when some Californians broke the law on grounds of personal belief and began handing marriage licenses to queer couples.
Which is a roundabout way of saying I can't favorite busted_crayons comment enough times.
posted by Peevish at 6:23 PM on January 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
Which is a roundabout way of saying I can't favorite busted_crayons comment enough times.
posted by Peevish at 6:23 PM on January 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
ctmf: "And what elements is a "ceremony" required to include?"
In the state of Washington, according to my ULC-ordained wife, each participant has to state their desire to be married and the officiant has to declare that they are married. The officiant might have to ask each participant, she doesn't recall.
She also states, in regard to this thread, "Fuck that shit, yo." Because seriously, fuck that shit.
posted by stet at 6:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
In the state of Washington, according to my ULC-ordained wife, each participant has to state their desire to be married and the officiant has to declare that they are married. The officiant might have to ask each participant, she doesn't recall.
She also states, in regard to this thread, "Fuck that shit, yo." Because seriously, fuck that shit.
posted by stet at 6:41 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
Any public employee should, indeed must, keep an eye out for job duties imposed by the state which are ethically repugnant to them, and refuse to perform those duties. That's also the moment at which they have to resign their public employment.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
One has, in fact, to argue that some "personal beliefs" are ethically correct and other ones are not, and that the moral course of action is to try to have ethically defensible personal beliefs and act on them
Likewise, an objection to some legal obligation on the grounds of "personal belief" must actually make thst argument. It's not enough to simply suggest that imagining an ethical objection in general is a sufficient objection in particular.
In other words, merely imagining that there could be ethical objections to some laws has nothing to do with any particular law. That someone somewhere might ethically refuse to follow some law has, by itself, no relevance to this particular circumstance whatsoever.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:56 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Likewise, an objection to some legal obligation on the grounds of "personal belief" must actually make thst argument. It's not enough to simply suggest that imagining an ethical objection in general is a sufficient objection in particular.
In other words, merely imagining that there could be ethical objections to some laws has nothing to do with any particular law. That someone somewhere might ethically refuse to follow some law has, by itself, no relevance to this particular circumstance whatsoever.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:56 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's perhaps worth remembering that the beginnings of this wave of legalization began when some Californians broke the law on grounds of personal belief and began handing marriage licenses to queer couples.
No that was due to interpretation of the law. Equal protection + supremacy clause = well this looks open and shut. Especially since GWB said he wanted a constitutional amendment to stop it.
posted by Talez at 6:59 PM on January 1, 2015
No that was due to interpretation of the law. Equal protection + supremacy clause = well this looks open and shut. Especially since GWB said he wanted a constitutional amendment to stop it.
posted by Talez at 6:59 PM on January 1, 2015
There's also an important distinction here between a public servant refusing to provide a service that the state(-slash-county-slash-municipality) provides, and the state ceasing to provide that service in toto. The former is not happening here; the latter is.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 7:01 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by TheNewWazoo at 7:01 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sounds to me that Clay County is looking to perform fewer services to begin with, and is using the issue of gay weddings as a scapegoat.
No. They hate queer people. That is what is happening here.
Eh, it can be both.
posted by darkstar at 7:04 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
No. They hate queer people. That is what is happening here.
Eh, it can be both.
posted by darkstar at 7:04 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just fire them all and hire people willing to do the job. What's the problem?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:05 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 7:05 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
There is a way to express your personal beliefs as a government employee: vote. Vote for the fellow-bigot, and get some bigot-laws enacted, and then when it turns out they're unconstitutional, work on trying to get a constitutional convention together to change the country into one where fascism is actually enshrined in law and not just something that happens most of the time, anyway.
What we,the people paying you, Bigoted Government Employee, want: when you are at work, do the damn things the law says you should do. For example, if you are both a county clerk and also a homophobic bigoted piece of shit, you can express the latter in your personal time, or by quitting if it's too much for you, but while you're in the office you do your damn job. And so on up and down the chain of bosses and subordinates.
It cracks me up that using hair-splitting technicalities to get around something they don't want is exactly what these assholes believe unions do to prevent private businesses from lifting off into a Randian super-future.
posted by maxwelton at 7:10 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
What we,the people paying you, Bigoted Government Employee, want: when you are at work, do the damn things the law says you should do. For example, if you are both a county clerk and also a homophobic bigoted piece of shit, you can express the latter in your personal time, or by quitting if it's too much for you, but while you're in the office you do your damn job. And so on up and down the chain of bosses and subordinates.
It cracks me up that using hair-splitting technicalities to get around something they don't want is exactly what these assholes believe unions do to prevent private businesses from lifting off into a Randian super-future.
posted by maxwelton at 7:10 PM on January 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, if the law in question were, say, a draconian racist drug law in the 21st-century US, or, say, a Nuremberg law in 1930s Germany, a police officer would be correct to refuse to enforce the law on "personal beliefs" grounds, and would be acting unethically by refusing to give their personal beliefs precedence over legal mandates. The most famous genocide trials in history basically reached this sort of conclusion, no?
I'm as disgusted as anyone else about those tasked with enforcing the law failing to do so when the law in question is designed to guarantee equal rights, but you're not making the right argument. "Legalistic" arguments, based on notions of fairness or equivalence, don't cut it because of, e.g., the counterexamples I just cited.
One has to make the more forceful argument that some laws are right, some are wrong, and it's reprehensible to fail to enforce the right ones and reprehensible to enforce the wrong ones. One has, in fact, to argue that some "personal beliefs" are ethically correct and other ones are not, and that the moral course of action is to try to have ethically defensible personal beliefs and act on them. Pluralism and tolerance are not always virtuous on their own merits. This situation nicely illustrates that: intolerance based on sexual orientation is disgusting, while intolerance of bigots, based on bigotry, is not only defensible but imperative.
Yet they're not stopping the law being implemented because they believe it is wrong, they're simply refusing to perform the act of marriage that they are otherwise (by issuing marriage licenses) facilitating. By issuing licenses they are recognizing that the state has the moral right to wed same-sex couples, but deny that it has the moral right to force its employees into wedding same-sex couples. The public officials are not weighing up good and bad law, but rather moving the line between public and individual morality. Their position is indefensible because they believe that their individual morality trumps a public morality which they are not opposing.
They should either resign in recognition that they cannot fulfil their duties, or oppose the whole of the law on the grounds that it is bad, should they believe it to be so.
posted by Thing at 7:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm as disgusted as anyone else about those tasked with enforcing the law failing to do so when the law in question is designed to guarantee equal rights, but you're not making the right argument. "Legalistic" arguments, based on notions of fairness or equivalence, don't cut it because of, e.g., the counterexamples I just cited.
One has to make the more forceful argument that some laws are right, some are wrong, and it's reprehensible to fail to enforce the right ones and reprehensible to enforce the wrong ones. One has, in fact, to argue that some "personal beliefs" are ethically correct and other ones are not, and that the moral course of action is to try to have ethically defensible personal beliefs and act on them. Pluralism and tolerance are not always virtuous on their own merits. This situation nicely illustrates that: intolerance based on sexual orientation is disgusting, while intolerance of bigots, based on bigotry, is not only defensible but imperative.
Yet they're not stopping the law being implemented because they believe it is wrong, they're simply refusing to perform the act of marriage that they are otherwise (by issuing marriage licenses) facilitating. By issuing licenses they are recognizing that the state has the moral right to wed same-sex couples, but deny that it has the moral right to force its employees into wedding same-sex couples. The public officials are not weighing up good and bad law, but rather moving the line between public and individual morality. Their position is indefensible because they believe that their individual morality trumps a public morality which they are not opposing.
They should either resign in recognition that they cannot fulfil their duties, or oppose the whole of the law on the grounds that it is bad, should they believe it to be so.
posted by Thing at 7:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Their position is indefensible because they believe that their individual morality trumps a public morality which they are not opposing.
They should either resign in recognition that they cannot fulfil their duties, or oppose the whole of the law on the grounds that it is bad, should they believe it to be so.
I completely agree with both assertions. This situation is very different from your first comment's police officer enforcing only those laws xe agreed with, which is the situation my comment was mainly addressing. That police officer would seem to be taking the second of the courses of action you mention.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:17 PM on January 1, 2015
They should either resign in recognition that they cannot fulfil their duties, or oppose the whole of the law on the grounds that it is bad, should they believe it to be so.
I completely agree with both assertions. This situation is very different from your first comment's police officer enforcing only those laws xe agreed with, which is the situation my comment was mainly addressing. That police officer would seem to be taking the second of the courses of action you mention.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:17 PM on January 1, 2015
The Underpants Monster: "Wait, marrying people isn't part of their jobs? It was just something they got to choose to do voluntarily if they felt like it? It was just some kind of hobby they were allowed to do on company time?"
Maybe a better way of putting it is ceremonies aren't part of the Court House mandate. Governing bodies do this kind of thing (minus the GLBT angle) all the time when it comes to providing services. If something proves or is anticipated to create headlines or resource expenditures wildly out of line with the benefit provided to the community they'll just stop providing that service. This measure is sure to side step a shit storm of controversy and save money at a small cost of convenience to the effected population.
posted by Mitheral at 7:18 PM on January 1, 2015
Maybe a better way of putting it is ceremonies aren't part of the Court House mandate. Governing bodies do this kind of thing (minus the GLBT angle) all the time when it comes to providing services. If something proves or is anticipated to create headlines or resource expenditures wildly out of line with the benefit provided to the community they'll just stop providing that service. This measure is sure to side step a shit storm of controversy and save money at a small cost of convenience to the effected population.
posted by Mitheral at 7:18 PM on January 1, 2015
I completely agree with both assertions. This situation is very different from your first comment's police officer enforcing only those laws xe agreed with, which is the situation my comment was mainly addressing. That police officer would seem to be taking the second of the courses of action you mention.
Yes, my police officer analogy wasn't quite correct, that's true. The point I wanted to make is that these clerks are not being asked to argue right from wrong, but can decide the boundary between public morality and their own seemingly without consequences; while a police officer would be asked to test and defend their actions (say, in an employment tribunal), and have the opportunity to argue that a law was unethical. I don't believe it is an issue of good or bad law, but rather that having a defense of "personal beliefs" requires some kind of process of examination and determination else the law becomes whatever the implementers want it to be.
Sorry I wasn't particularly clear.
posted by Thing at 7:36 PM on January 1, 2015
Yes, my police officer analogy wasn't quite correct, that's true. The point I wanted to make is that these clerks are not being asked to argue right from wrong, but can decide the boundary between public morality and their own seemingly without consequences; while a police officer would be asked to test and defend their actions (say, in an employment tribunal), and have the opportunity to argue that a law was unethical. I don't believe it is an issue of good or bad law, but rather that having a defense of "personal beliefs" requires some kind of process of examination and determination else the law becomes whatever the implementers want it to be.
Sorry I wasn't particularly clear.
posted by Thing at 7:36 PM on January 1, 2015
A few years back in Lousiana...
That is all kinds of fucked up.
What's more fucked up is wondering how many times this has happened--not just with that JP, but others--and the people involved chose not to fight.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:47 PM on January 1, 2015
That is all kinds of fucked up.
What's more fucked up is wondering how many times this has happened--not just with that JP, but others--and the people involved chose not to fight.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:47 PM on January 1, 2015
seemingly without consequences
This is what I thought you might be getting at, and, actually, I'm now less sure I agree with the first assertion, or I'm not exactly sure what it means. It would seem to value individual morality more highly than public morality ("value" means almost in the sense of "price" here -- the assertion seems to ask individuals to put their metaphorical money where their mouth is to an extent it doesn't require of the public/authority) while giving the latter a significant competitive advantage.
For instance, suppose War Resister A pulls some mediapathic, highly illegal stunt -- LSD or Ex-Lax on the President's water bottle before they strut about in a flight suit and codpiece at a press conference, say -- and incurs great personal and legal risk in so doing. War Resister A has categorically opposed the law of the land in asserting that their personal morality trumps public morality (as expressed by, let's pretend, a formal declaration of war by the duly-elected congress). War Resister B, meanwhile, can't stomach supporting the war, so they figure out how to survive on an annual income of less than their standard deduction, thus reducing their federal tax liability, and consequent contributions to the Collateral Damage Fund, to $0. They don't say anything publicly about it, and they don't violate any law, even benign ones, in putting their personal morality above public morality. (Now, WRB's action also, arguably, is an attack on the public -- the taxes that the (let's say) formerly high-earning WRB would have paid had they not engaged in their silent protest would have created an awful lot of military-industrial complex jobs!)
I think the assertion in question would exonerate WRA, morally, more or less because they're sitting in jail in the end, figuring out how to turn their assault trial into a referendum on the war, while WRB's actions are, by the assertion in question, indefensible, because WRB's opposition was private and incurred no risk. Both believed their individual morality trumped public morality, but only WRA can easily demonstrate their opposition. Is that right? I am genuinely unsure if this toy example faithfully applies the principle you're driving at, Thing.
I guess my problem with what I think is being asserted is that meaningful clear opposition to public morality is pretty much definitionally risky. I think people ought to be able to buy into such opposition at various levels of risk, because I think it is more important to discuss moral issues than it is to judge whether the raising of those issues passes some kind of sincerity test.
I have a feeling I completely misunderstood something, though.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:48 PM on January 1, 2015
This is what I thought you might be getting at, and, actually, I'm now less sure I agree with the first assertion, or I'm not exactly sure what it means. It would seem to value individual morality more highly than public morality ("value" means almost in the sense of "price" here -- the assertion seems to ask individuals to put their metaphorical money where their mouth is to an extent it doesn't require of the public/authority) while giving the latter a significant competitive advantage.
For instance, suppose War Resister A pulls some mediapathic, highly illegal stunt -- LSD or Ex-Lax on the President's water bottle before they strut about in a flight suit and codpiece at a press conference, say -- and incurs great personal and legal risk in so doing. War Resister A has categorically opposed the law of the land in asserting that their personal morality trumps public morality (as expressed by, let's pretend, a formal declaration of war by the duly-elected congress). War Resister B, meanwhile, can't stomach supporting the war, so they figure out how to survive on an annual income of less than their standard deduction, thus reducing their federal tax liability, and consequent contributions to the Collateral Damage Fund, to $0. They don't say anything publicly about it, and they don't violate any law, even benign ones, in putting their personal morality above public morality. (Now, WRB's action also, arguably, is an attack on the public -- the taxes that the (let's say) formerly high-earning WRB would have paid had they not engaged in their silent protest would have created an awful lot of military-industrial complex jobs!)
I think the assertion in question would exonerate WRA, morally, more or less because they're sitting in jail in the end, figuring out how to turn their assault trial into a referendum on the war, while WRB's actions are, by the assertion in question, indefensible, because WRB's opposition was private and incurred no risk. Both believed their individual morality trumped public morality, but only WRA can easily demonstrate their opposition. Is that right? I am genuinely unsure if this toy example faithfully applies the principle you're driving at, Thing.
I guess my problem with what I think is being asserted is that meaningful clear opposition to public morality is pretty much definitionally risky. I think people ought to be able to buy into such opposition at various levels of risk, because I think it is more important to discuss moral issues than it is to judge whether the raising of those issues passes some kind of sincerity test.
I have a feeling I completely misunderstood something, though.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:48 PM on January 1, 2015
Before y'all go all LOL LOOZYANA I would like to point out that the racist shithead judge was hounded out of his office, as he should have been, and helping to arrange that seems to be one of the few things Bobby Jindal has gotten right in his years as our governor.
posted by localroger at 7:52 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by localroger at 7:52 PM on January 1, 2015
The link I shared makes that point - refusing to follow the law ended that judge's career. Presumably it would end the careers of these officials too.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:07 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:07 PM on January 1, 2015
Man, I should go in on Monday and ask my boss which parts of my job are the ones I'm permitted to do but not mandated to do.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:11 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
while a police officer would be asked to test and defend their actions (say, in an employment tribunal), and have the opportunity to argue that a law was unethical
See, I think police officers do this every day consequence free. For example: jaywalking is illegal in NYC, but how many times is that enforced out of how many times do people do it in front of cops? There's usually very little consequence from NOT arresting someone - nor, honestly, should there be.
I think a lot of people are getting het up about "How dare these public servants not do their job", but really, if their job was, say, I don't know, investigating people's sexuality for public shaming and they weren't doing their job, we'd be fucking cheering. So maybe the legalistic 'No one has a right to not do their JOBS' is not exactly the right tack for this.
posted by corb at 9:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
See, I think police officers do this every day consequence free. For example: jaywalking is illegal in NYC, but how many times is that enforced out of how many times do people do it in front of cops? There's usually very little consequence from NOT arresting someone - nor, honestly, should there be.
I think a lot of people are getting het up about "How dare these public servants not do their job", but really, if their job was, say, I don't know, investigating people's sexuality for public shaming and they weren't doing their job, we'd be fucking cheering. So maybe the legalistic 'No one has a right to not do their JOBS' is not exactly the right tack for this.
posted by corb at 9:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
That is a delicious benchslap.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:26 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:26 PM on January 1, 2015
If you are being paid out of the public purse you are required to do the job you were hired to do. If you are working in the public interest (e.g. doctors, pharmacists) you are required to do the job you were hired to do.
If you do not wish to do the job you were hired to do, you can seek employment elsewhere. That goes both for these idiots and for some hypothetical ridiculous sex-shaming public servant job.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:42 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you do not wish to do the job you were hired to do, you can seek employment elsewhere. That goes both for these idiots and for some hypothetical ridiculous sex-shaming public servant job.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:42 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
> See, I think police officers do this every day consequence free. For example: jaywalking is illegal in NYC, but how many times is that enforced out of how many times do people do it in front of cops? There's usually very little consequence from NOT arresting someone - nor, honestly, should there be.
It's worth drawing a line here. On one side, you've got officers exercising everyday discretion on certain kinds of low-level offenses. Jaywalking should (arguably) be discouraged, but strict enforcement of a jaywalking ban in all instances is probably not the best way for an officer to spend their time. And so on. We know that officers can't be everywhere and do everything at once and we give them some latitude to apply their enforcement power, hopefully wisely.
On the other side, you've got something far more troubling. Rather recently it came out that a police officer in New Orleans who worked in the NOPD's Special Victims division had stated to at least three different people that she “did not believe simple rape should be a crime” — “simple rape” being, for instance, sex with someone who is passed-out drunk, or other situations where the sex was not obtained through force. She was given 11 cases of simple rape in three years and presented only one of those cases to the DA.
Now, this is a rather extreme example, but the point I’m making is that we wouldn’t want an officer to pick a specific law to refuse to enforce at all on principle.
I don’t quite mean to compare a police officer to a county clerk because, as has been illustrated in this case, there is a process that gets followed when a clerk refuses to do something because of personal beliefs: there’s a long and costly court case, the clerk loses, and then the clerk has to do the thing anyway. The system works, if in a Rube Goldberg–type fashion. Whereas a cop can rather easily decide not to enforce a certain law on principle and have it mistaken for an exercise of discretion. The oversight is far more lax on the police side.
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's worth drawing a line here. On one side, you've got officers exercising everyday discretion on certain kinds of low-level offenses. Jaywalking should (arguably) be discouraged, but strict enforcement of a jaywalking ban in all instances is probably not the best way for an officer to spend their time. And so on. We know that officers can't be everywhere and do everything at once and we give them some latitude to apply their enforcement power, hopefully wisely.
On the other side, you've got something far more troubling. Rather recently it came out that a police officer in New Orleans who worked in the NOPD's Special Victims division had stated to at least three different people that she “did not believe simple rape should be a crime” — “simple rape” being, for instance, sex with someone who is passed-out drunk, or other situations where the sex was not obtained through force. She was given 11 cases of simple rape in three years and presented only one of those cases to the DA.
Now, this is a rather extreme example, but the point I’m making is that we wouldn’t want an officer to pick a specific law to refuse to enforce at all on principle.
I don’t quite mean to compare a police officer to a county clerk because, as has been illustrated in this case, there is a process that gets followed when a clerk refuses to do something because of personal beliefs: there’s a long and costly court case, the clerk loses, and then the clerk has to do the thing anyway. The system works, if in a Rube Goldberg–type fashion. Whereas a cop can rather easily decide not to enforce a certain law on principle and have it mistaken for an exercise of discretion. The oversight is far more lax on the police side.
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:48 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Now, this is a rather extreme example, but the point I’m making is that we wouldn’t want an officer to pick a specific law to refuse to enforce at all on principle.
No, that's a beautiful clarifying example. I absolutely do want police refusing to enforce numerous unjust or ridiculous laws, while it's obviously horrifying that a cop refuses to believe that simple rape is a crime, and the community should not tolerate a cop that refuses to enforce the law against rape on this basis. One has to actually take a position on the morality of the specific situation, rather than employing a legalistic fig leaf that claims equivalence between radically different actions and motivations.
I'm actually rather surprised by the "just do your damn job" attitude. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which this attitude would entail defence of activities one would think would be regarded as unambiguously heinous (presumably behind every act of CIA torture stands a mountain of well-executed clerical work). The only way to defend the "JDYDJ" attitude in such a scenario is, of course, to point out the differences between the hypothetical scenario and the present one by, presumably, appealing to the different moral properties of the laws (or whatever) in question. In other words, I suspect that most "JDYDJ" people don't actually hold that belief; it's just easy to profess this belief in the case at hand, where all reasonable people agree that the functionaries should be upholding the law.
posted by busted_crayons at 10:16 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, that's a beautiful clarifying example. I absolutely do want police refusing to enforce numerous unjust or ridiculous laws, while it's obviously horrifying that a cop refuses to believe that simple rape is a crime, and the community should not tolerate a cop that refuses to enforce the law against rape on this basis. One has to actually take a position on the morality of the specific situation, rather than employing a legalistic fig leaf that claims equivalence between radically different actions and motivations.
I'm actually rather surprised by the "just do your damn job" attitude. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which this attitude would entail defence of activities one would think would be regarded as unambiguously heinous (presumably behind every act of CIA torture stands a mountain of well-executed clerical work). The only way to defend the "JDYDJ" attitude in such a scenario is, of course, to point out the differences between the hypothetical scenario and the present one by, presumably, appealing to the different moral properties of the laws (or whatever) in question. In other words, I suspect that most "JDYDJ" people don't actually hold that belief; it's just easy to profess this belief in the case at hand, where all reasonable people agree that the functionaries should be upholding the law.
posted by busted_crayons at 10:16 PM on January 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Personal beliefs". Were a police officer to refuse to arrest somebody because they didn't "personally believe" in a given law, what would happen to them?
I know this has probably already been addressed, but this happens all the time and it's generally seen as a feature of the system. otherwise every time a cop saw someone driving 2mph over, or jaywalking, or stepping on to the sidewalk while mowing their lawn and drinking a beer, or whatever... they would have to issue a citation or arrest them.
Personally i see it as a shitty feature though, because it creates a system in which it's seen as a normal working state for that system to constantly have you breaking some law. Therefor a cop basically always has probably cause to stop you or ding you for something, and hey, look at who is consistently stopped more...
I'd support removing officers discretion and "personal beliefs" from the books even if that made my own life shittier, because at least then maybe, just maybe, the people who always get a free pass would finally feel some heat.
posted by emptythought at 10:28 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know this has probably already been addressed, but this happens all the time and it's generally seen as a feature of the system. otherwise every time a cop saw someone driving 2mph over, or jaywalking, or stepping on to the sidewalk while mowing their lawn and drinking a beer, or whatever... they would have to issue a citation or arrest them.
Personally i see it as a shitty feature though, because it creates a system in which it's seen as a normal working state for that system to constantly have you breaking some law. Therefor a cop basically always has probably cause to stop you or ding you for something, and hey, look at who is consistently stopped more...
I'd support removing officers discretion and "personal beliefs" from the books even if that made my own life shittier, because at least then maybe, just maybe, the people who always get a free pass would finally feel some heat.
posted by emptythought at 10:28 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm actually rather surprised by the "just do your damn job" attitude.
But the attitude here is much closer to "If you can't do the damn job, get a different one." County clerks aren't drafted, nor are cops or CIA officers or pharmacists.
If you are morally unwilling to bust people for drugs, or insufficiently violent rape, or capital crimes, you probably should not be a cop.
If you are morally unwilling to give marriage licenses to gay couples, or interracial couples, or May/December couples, or cousins if that's legal in your state, then your first line of moral defense isn't to just not do that part i f your job. It's to quit a job whose duties you believe to be immoral.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:31 PM on January 1, 2015 [15 favorites]
But the attitude here is much closer to "If you can't do the damn job, get a different one." County clerks aren't drafted, nor are cops or CIA officers or pharmacists.
If you are morally unwilling to bust people for drugs, or insufficiently violent rape, or capital crimes, you probably should not be a cop.
If you are morally unwilling to give marriage licenses to gay couples, or interracial couples, or May/December couples, or cousins if that's legal in your state, then your first line of moral defense isn't to just not do that part i f your job. It's to quit a job whose duties you believe to be immoral.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:31 PM on January 1, 2015 [15 favorites]
Thank goodness I previewed, ROU_Xenophobe said it much more elegantly than I was about to.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:46 PM on January 1, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:46 PM on January 1, 2015
It is sad to see the rhetorical lengths people will go to come up with hypotheticals completely unrelated to what these clerks are doing — completely unrelated, in point of fact, to the cruelty they perpetrate, not only discriminating against gay people, but anyone who wants to get married. As if this is some abstract, consequence-free, academic discussion, when it is really about these bigoted clerks actively denying the public they serve any dignity and basic fairness. Truly sad.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:32 PM on January 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Actually, if due to the County Clerk's office requiring CIVIL, licensed marriages to be officiated elsewhere by non-civil servants, it may be practically impossible for same-sex (or mixed race, non-xian, other non-favored group) couples to marry in some counties.
All it takes are for all the local clergy and notaries to have their sincerely held homophobic beliefs against facilitating same-sex marriage. It's not difficult to imagine such a situation in some rural areas. Yes, the couple could go to the next county or city, but most, more favored types of couples would not be so burdened. No couple should have to go to another jurisdiction for a public service that is legal statewide (and maybe nationally! by the end of the next SCOTUS Session).
posted by Dreidl at 12:31 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
All it takes are for all the local clergy and notaries to have their sincerely held homophobic beliefs against facilitating same-sex marriage. It's not difficult to imagine such a situation in some rural areas. Yes, the couple could go to the next county or city, but most, more favored types of couples would not be so burdened. No couple should have to go to another jurisdiction for a public service that is legal statewide (and maybe nationally! by the end of the next SCOTUS Session).
posted by Dreidl at 12:31 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
It seems to me the refusing Clerks are creating a situation much like that of obtaining an abortion. It's federally legal, but some states have just one, or a very insufficient number of providers, along with such burdensome and restrictive TRAP legislation, such that only the most well-to-do and mobile women can obtain that supposedly federally permitted medical procedure.
Bigots have found out on a state-by-state basis that they can prevent federally legal activities, such as voting, unionizing and fertility control by gradually restricting access to said legal activities. We see the strategies of next round of queer civil rights struggles. Federal ENDA may not have been perfect, but the prospect of decades more activism to have the SAME RIGHTS as assumed-heterosexual/cis-gendered people, one state at a time... SSM is going to look like very low-hanging fruit in comparison.
posted by Dreidl at 12:54 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bigots have found out on a state-by-state basis that they can prevent federally legal activities, such as voting, unionizing and fertility control by gradually restricting access to said legal activities. We see the strategies of next round of queer civil rights struggles. Federal ENDA may not have been perfect, but the prospect of decades more activism to have the SAME RIGHTS as assumed-heterosexual/cis-gendered people, one state at a time... SSM is going to look like very low-hanging fruit in comparison.
posted by Dreidl at 12:54 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
All it takes are for all the local clergy and notaries to have their sincerely held homophobic beliefs against facilitating same-sex marriage.
25 bucks gives anyone a ministry in the universal life church - most states recognize these ministers as being able to hold marriages - in fact, some states allow anyone to do that, but i don't know which ones
worth looking into for those who live in repressive places
posted by pyramid termite at 2:49 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
25 bucks gives anyone a ministry in the universal life church - most states recognize these ministers as being able to hold marriages - in fact, some states allow anyone to do that, but i don't know which ones
worth looking into for those who live in repressive places
posted by pyramid termite at 2:49 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dreidl, I am not at all in disagreement with you, but I think it should probably be noted that right now, it looks like it's fairly easy for a non-civil servant to become licensed to perform a marriage ceremony in Florida. If this becomes combined with attempts to change that, it will create the kind of undue burden you're talking about, and I think a sharp eye should be kept out for it. But at the moment, if you're in a county where the clerks and notaries are being troglodytic assholes, all you have to do is find a friend who is willing to become "ordained" in a church specifically set up for the purpose (or become a notary, although that's a little pricier and requires a three-hour instruction course.)
Don't get me wrong, I think these people are being horrible, but right now this is a service that can almost certainly be obtained elsewhere. If there are chip-away attempts to restrict that, though, it could get ugly ...
posted by kyrademon at 2:55 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't get me wrong, I think these people are being horrible, but right now this is a service that can almost certainly be obtained elsewhere. If there are chip-away attempts to restrict that, though, it could get ugly ...
posted by kyrademon at 2:55 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I certainly agree there are work-arounds for FL, especially in the short term, until SCOTUS rules on the current SSM cases. But let's not forget the situation, for instamce, in KS, where SSM is legal but the state is refusing to recognize the marriages in any other way. Or the advice of the FL County Clerks Association, before the most recent "clarification" smackdown, not to register any SSM lest the Clerks be prosecuted.
My concern is successfully anticipating the bigot's strategies. Clearly the three FL County Clerks discontinuing conducting any marriages is an attempt at narrowing the possibilities for SSM, even at the cost of inconveniencing every other type of marriage. I'd love to see the local gay coffeehouse barista as notary, and rabbis, imams, UU ministers, pagans, ULC, Pastafarians and so on merrily flaunting freedom of religion. But this is CIVIL marriage and allowing Clerks to refuse part of their duties without any notice or public discussion by the local voters, out of homophobic or other animus, is not a good precedent.
After more than three decades as a queer activist, I see a lot of work ahead - quashing bigoted civil disobedience or access restriction early will save us huge amounts of effort and an many personal tragedies later. Every delayed SSM is yet another offense against all ready oppressed people.
posted by Dreidl at 3:40 AM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
My concern is successfully anticipating the bigot's strategies. Clearly the three FL County Clerks discontinuing conducting any marriages is an attempt at narrowing the possibilities for SSM, even at the cost of inconveniencing every other type of marriage. I'd love to see the local gay coffeehouse barista as notary, and rabbis, imams, UU ministers, pagans, ULC, Pastafarians and so on merrily flaunting freedom of religion. But this is CIVIL marriage and allowing Clerks to refuse part of their duties without any notice or public discussion by the local voters, out of homophobic or other animus, is not a good precedent.
After more than three decades as a queer activist, I see a lot of work ahead - quashing bigoted civil disobedience or access restriction early will save us huge amounts of effort and an many personal tragedies later. Every delayed SSM is yet another offense against all ready oppressed people.
posted by Dreidl at 3:40 AM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not just "most states" that recognize universal life church ministers: every state of the union is required to under the Constitution because of the first amendment (although some require registration). When I got married it was a little bit easier to get the required paperwork for registration in NYC through American Marriage Ministries (which has a great page detailing the requirements in various states).
posted by grae at 4:32 AM on January 2, 2015
posted by grae at 4:32 AM on January 2, 2015
Ugh, I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I am. There's an empty lot normally used by food trucks right next to the Duval County Courthouse. I wonder how difficult it would be to rent out the lot for a week, and have gay marriage ceremony after ceremony right there in sight of all these bigots.
posted by nulledge at 5:13 AM on January 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nulledge at 5:13 AM on January 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
A Big Gay Marriage Tent Revival sounds pretty awesome.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:32 AM on January 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:32 AM on January 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
It does seem like the county clerks have opened up a business opportunity for a semi retired person. Call it "Weddings on Wheels". The county with 660 court house weddings a year would generate enough business for someone to work at it full time.
a lungful of dragon: "completely unrelated, in point of fact, to the cruelty they perpetrate, not only discriminating against gay people, but anyone who wants to get married. As if this is some abstract, consequence-free, academic discussion, when it is really about these bigoted clerks actively denying the public they serve any dignity and basic fairness."
One of the jarring things in this discussion for me is that court house weddings aren't a thing here. Everyone is required to hire an independent officiant who is registered with the province (both civil and religious officials need to register) and the fee is a usually 75-100 dollars.
posted by Mitheral at 7:01 AM on January 2, 2015
a lungful of dragon: "completely unrelated, in point of fact, to the cruelty they perpetrate, not only discriminating against gay people, but anyone who wants to get married. As if this is some abstract, consequence-free, academic discussion, when it is really about these bigoted clerks actively denying the public they serve any dignity and basic fairness."
One of the jarring things in this discussion for me is that court house weddings aren't a thing here. Everyone is required to hire an independent officiant who is registered with the province (both civil and religious officials need to register) and the fee is a usually 75-100 dollars.
posted by Mitheral at 7:01 AM on January 2, 2015
It is sad to see the rhetorical lengths people will go to come up with hypotheticals completely unrelated to what these clerks are doing — completely unrelated, in point of fact, to the cruelty they perpetrate, not only discriminating against gay people, but anyone who wants to get married. As if this is some abstract, consequence-free, academic discussion, when it is really about these bigoted clerks actively denying the public they serve any dignity and basic fairness. Truly sad.
Straw men are pretty fucking sad, too.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:25 AM on January 2, 2015
Straw men are pretty fucking sad, too.
posted by busted_crayons at 7:25 AM on January 2, 2015
And yes, a conversation of this type on the Blue is pretty much academic and consequence-free. In fact, most discussions between random citizens about the moral features and failings of the law are essentially academic and consequence-free, since the "public morality" is extremely resistant to influence by individual moral decisions, which are sometimes more enlightened (and sometimes less).
The law happened to get this one right. It will get another one wrong tomorrow. A public servant upholding the law under all circumstances will therefore get it wrong sometimes. This seems suboptimal; better that we value a situation in which the good stuff gets upheld and the shitty stuff doesn't.
Somewhat analogously, people who are reluctant to indulge in hypotheticals give me the howling fantods, because who knows when their empathy is going to fail? Maybe they're correct about this issue, because it's close to their experience, but as soon as problem we're trying to deal with doesn't affect them directly, watch out!
posted by busted_crayons at 7:41 AM on January 2, 2015
The law happened to get this one right. It will get another one wrong tomorrow. A public servant upholding the law under all circumstances will therefore get it wrong sometimes. This seems suboptimal; better that we value a situation in which the good stuff gets upheld and the shitty stuff doesn't.
Somewhat analogously, people who are reluctant to indulge in hypotheticals give me the howling fantods, because who knows when their empathy is going to fail? Maybe they're correct about this issue, because it's close to their experience, but as soon as problem we're trying to deal with doesn't affect them directly, watch out!
posted by busted_crayons at 7:41 AM on January 2, 2015
Florida AG continues to willfully misread Order: Bondi, in a statement issued Thursday evening, said, “This office has sought to minimize confusion and uncertainty, and we are glad the Court has provided additional guidance. My office will not stand in the way as clerks of court determine how to proceed.”
The attorney general did not say whether she planned to drop the state’s appeal of Hinkle’s initial August ruling, which still hasn’t been heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
David Weinstein, a former assistant Miami-Dade state attorney and assistant U.S. attorney, now in private practice and not involved in the case, said Bondi was trying to walk a fine line.
“She’s saying look, ‘Judge Hinkle did not tell the clerks that they are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, however, he told them that they may issue marriage licenses’ and she’s not going to stand in their way of whatever independent decisions they may make,” he said.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:18 AM on January 2, 2015
The attorney general did not say whether she planned to drop the state’s appeal of Hinkle’s initial August ruling, which still hasn’t been heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
David Weinstein, a former assistant Miami-Dade state attorney and assistant U.S. attorney, now in private practice and not involved in the case, said Bondi was trying to walk a fine line.
“She’s saying look, ‘Judge Hinkle did not tell the clerks that they are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, however, he told them that they may issue marriage licenses’ and she’s not going to stand in their way of whatever independent decisions they may make,” he said.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:18 AM on January 2, 2015
Well, it's interesting that the backlash to "just do your job" came up at this particular time.
Starting Monday, my job description has undergone a radical change. Back when my bosses made the decision about my new duties, they asked me if I was OK with it, because they appreciated my work and although they would really hate to lose me, they'd give me all the assistance they could in my job search. And it wasn't anything that involved matters of "conscience;" it was just different work.
If I had a crisis of conscience about something new my bosses asked me to do, I would, of course, refuse to do it. And I have no doubt that their response would be to graciously accept my resignation and give me a glowing reference for a position in which I wouldn;t be asked to do it.
I'm a vegetarian. I wouldn't go to work in a meat market (unless I had no other choice). If I had trouble with enforcing certain laws, I wouldn't become a police officer. The fact that someone can put a gun in my hand and order me to shoot someone without a good reason is one of the many reasons why I would never join the armed forces. If I had the deeply-held that only certain people* deserved to be married under the law, I wouldn't become a county clerk.
*No matter who they are. I have an uncle who's still a holdout on interracial marriage. I have an acquaintance with an intense paranoia about "green card marriages." Neither of those people should be involved with other people's marriages, just like the clerks in the article.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:20 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Starting Monday, my job description has undergone a radical change. Back when my bosses made the decision about my new duties, they asked me if I was OK with it, because they appreciated my work and although they would really hate to lose me, they'd give me all the assistance they could in my job search. And it wasn't anything that involved matters of "conscience;" it was just different work.
If I had a crisis of conscience about something new my bosses asked me to do, I would, of course, refuse to do it. And I have no doubt that their response would be to graciously accept my resignation and give me a glowing reference for a position in which I wouldn;t be asked to do it.
I'm a vegetarian. I wouldn't go to work in a meat market (unless I had no other choice). If I had trouble with enforcing certain laws, I wouldn't become a police officer. The fact that someone can put a gun in my hand and order me to shoot someone without a good reason is one of the many reasons why I would never join the armed forces. If I had the deeply-held that only certain people* deserved to be married under the law, I wouldn't become a county clerk.
*No matter who they are. I have an uncle who's still a holdout on interracial marriage. I have an acquaintance with an intense paranoia about "green card marriages." Neither of those people should be involved with other people's marriages, just like the clerks in the article.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:20 AM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you are morally unwilling to bust people for drugs, or insufficiently violent rape, or capital crimes, you probably should not be a cop.
So I suppose a lot of my feeling on this comes from personal experience. I was a soldier who received a lot of orders, some of which I felt were morally acceptable and others which I felt were not. I have a lot of friends who received orders, some of which were morally acceptable and some of which were not. The orders which were not ranged from as minor as "prosecuting people for things they did not do" to "turning people over to be tortured and refusing them medical care."
Now it's easy to say, "If you have a problem turning people over to be tortured, then you shouldn't be a soldier." But what does that mean in practice? That means that rather than confronting people with the immorality of their orders and choices, the job is left only to those who operate in a moral vacuum. Those who will torture with a song in their heart and a smile on their face, rather than saying, "No, that's wrong, I won't do that."
It cannot be as simple as saying "Just follow your orders/duties," because to abandon your responsibilities in those situations is essentially to create them.
Now is marrying gay people morally wrong? Of course not. But the answer to this is not a broad, blanket, "People should just do their damn jobs no matter what the morality of them."
posted by corb at 8:29 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
So I suppose a lot of my feeling on this comes from personal experience. I was a soldier who received a lot of orders, some of which I felt were morally acceptable and others which I felt were not. I have a lot of friends who received orders, some of which were morally acceptable and some of which were not. The orders which were not ranged from as minor as "prosecuting people for things they did not do" to "turning people over to be tortured and refusing them medical care."
Now it's easy to say, "If you have a problem turning people over to be tortured, then you shouldn't be a soldier." But what does that mean in practice? That means that rather than confronting people with the immorality of their orders and choices, the job is left only to those who operate in a moral vacuum. Those who will torture with a song in their heart and a smile on their face, rather than saying, "No, that's wrong, I won't do that."
It cannot be as simple as saying "Just follow your orders/duties," because to abandon your responsibilities in those situations is essentially to create them.
Now is marrying gay people morally wrong? Of course not. But the answer to this is not a broad, blanket, "People should just do their damn jobs no matter what the morality of them."
posted by corb at 8:29 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The law happened to get this one right. It will get another one wrong tomorrow. A public servant upholding the law under all circumstances will therefore get it wrong sometimes. This seems suboptimal; better that we value a situation in which the good stuff gets upheld and the shitty stuff doesn't.
How does allowing public servants to effectively nullify federal and state law accomplish that?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:32 AM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
How does allowing public servants to effectively nullify federal and state law accomplish that?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:32 AM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
as minor as "prosecuting people for things they did not do"
Uh, that is not 'minor.'
Now it's easy to say, "If you have a problem turning people over to be tortured, then you shouldn't be a soldier." But what does that mean in practice?
That means you resign, you go AWOL, you go to the press, you chain yourself to the White House fence, you refuse to turn people over to be tortured. You go to jail if need be.
'Just following orders' is a defence that was entirely dismissed somewhere around 1945.
But the answer to this is not a broad, blanket, "People should just do their damn jobs no matter what the morality of them."
No. What we are saying is "Just do your damn job that we are paying you to do, or go get another one."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Uh, that is not 'minor.'
Now it's easy to say, "If you have a problem turning people over to be tortured, then you shouldn't be a soldier." But what does that mean in practice?
That means you resign, you go AWOL, you go to the press, you chain yourself to the White House fence, you refuse to turn people over to be tortured. You go to jail if need be.
'Just following orders' is a defence that was entirely dismissed somewhere around 1945.
But the answer to this is not a broad, blanket, "People should just do their damn jobs no matter what the morality of them."
No. What we are saying is "Just do your damn job that we are paying you to do, or go get another one."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The fact that someone can put a gun in my hand and order me to shoot someone without a good reason is one of the many reasons why I would never join the armed forces.
Me too, but I still support things like this, because of actual things like unforeseeable circumstances.
How does allowing public servants to effectively nullify federal and state law accomplish that?
I haven't made any claims at all about what should and should not be "allowed", since it's unlikely that any of us here is in a position to allow or disallow things. Not all discussions are attempts to make law or policy.
posted by busted_crayons at 8:40 AM on January 2, 2015
Me too, but I still support things like this, because of actual things like unforeseeable circumstances.
How does allowing public servants to effectively nullify federal and state law accomplish that?
I haven't made any claims at all about what should and should not be "allowed", since it's unlikely that any of us here is in a position to allow or disallow things. Not all discussions are attempts to make law or policy.
posted by busted_crayons at 8:40 AM on January 2, 2015
'Just following orders' is a defence that was entirely dismissed somewhere around 1945.
Exactly!
posted by busted_crayons at 8:45 AM on January 2, 2015
Exactly!
posted by busted_crayons at 8:45 AM on January 2, 2015
Mod note: busted_crayons can you take a step back from this thread, you've made a significant % of comments here already
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I haven't made any claims at all about what should and should not be "allowed", since it's unlikely that any of us here is in a position to allow or disallow things. Not all discussions are attempts to make law or policy.
But you keep saying that people shouldn't be punished for refusing to do certain parts of their jobs.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:51 AM on January 2, 2015
But you keep saying that people shouldn't be punished for refusing to do certain parts of their jobs.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:51 AM on January 2, 2015
I think you think that was some kind of gotcha, but it wasn't.
If your job requirements are morally repugnant to you, stop doing those things by finding yourself a new job. In the private sector, refusing to do parts of your job ends with termination. The public sector should be no different.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 AM on January 2, 2015
If your job requirements are morally repugnant to you, stop doing those things by finding yourself a new job. In the private sector, refusing to do parts of your job ends with termination. The public sector should be no different.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 AM on January 2, 2015
Oops, dirigibleman, that was in response to busted_crayons, not you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:52 AM on January 2, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:52 AM on January 2, 2015
But you keep saying that people shouldn't be punished for refusing to do certain parts of their jobs.
Where did I say that? I have only commented on: (a) what sort of ethical positions we, as observers, should take regarding people who refuse to do certain parts of their jobs on personal moral grounds and (b) what arguments we should make in support of those positions. I don't care at all what the rules are or who gets punished or whatever.
Sorry, mathowie, I had intended not to say anything else in this thread, but this comment was explicitly directed to me and completely misrepresents what I was trying to say. I guess I won't say anything else.
posted by busted_crayons at 9:09 AM on January 2, 2015
Where did I say that? I have only commented on: (a) what sort of ethical positions we, as observers, should take regarding people who refuse to do certain parts of their jobs on personal moral grounds and (b) what arguments we should make in support of those positions. I don't care at all what the rules are or who gets punished or whatever.
Sorry, mathowie, I had intended not to say anything else in this thread, but this comment was explicitly directed to me and completely misrepresents what I was trying to say. I guess I won't say anything else.
posted by busted_crayons at 9:09 AM on January 2, 2015
Now is marrying gay people morally wrong? Of course not. But the answer to this is not a broad, blanket, "People should just do their damn jobs no matter what the morality of them."
Your military analogy is a very bad one. Once in the military, you cannot simply refuse to do something unless you're willing to face punishment of some sort. You cannot simply say "I won't do that" and leave.
In the civilian world, which is what people here were discussing, you can do exactly that. And saying "I won't do that" and leaving is your first line of moral defense.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:30 AM on January 2, 2015
Your military analogy is a very bad one. Once in the military, you cannot simply refuse to do something unless you're willing to face punishment of some sort. You cannot simply say "I won't do that" and leave.
In the civilian world, which is what people here were discussing, you can do exactly that. And saying "I won't do that" and leaving is your first line of moral defense.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:30 AM on January 2, 2015
feckless fecal fear mongering: "If your job requirements are morally repugnant to you, stop doing those things by finding yourself a new job. In the private sector, refusing to do parts of your job ends with termination. The public sector should be no different."
If your job, public or private, includes the ability to change your duties in consultation with your boss and co-workers why wouldn't you at least try to take that approach? Private companies do this all the time.
posted by Mitheral at 10:39 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
If your job, public or private, includes the ability to change your duties in consultation with your boss and co-workers why wouldn't you at least try to take that approach? Private companies do this all the time.
posted by Mitheral at 10:39 AM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do you even have to have a marriage ceremony? I mean, can't you just walk into a courthouse, get a marriage license, sign it and have your witnesses sign it, and then hand it to the clerk to be filed, and be done with it? Why are courthouses providing ceremonial services for what is primarily, for the state, a legal matter? Surely the actual ceremony is a public observance of this legal status that isn't required by law?
My bona fides here are that I was a notary in Florida and performed three wedding ceremonies during that time. The last was right before I permanently moved from Florida shy of ten years ago, so it's possible but unlikely anything about it has changed since then. That booklet linked & quoted above looks the same, though I don't recall a same-sex specific section in mine; my notary was granted sometime in the middle 90s so it may not have been as present an issue then.
While the booklet does say there's more than signing the license, what I always took from it and the other documentation of my notary was that the guiding part was this: "the couple’s vows must reflect their intentions to make a legally binding commitment to each other" and the graf immediately following the quoted one: "The ceremony does not have to be in any particular form. Any form of ceremony to solemnize a marriage that the parties choose ordinarily suffices, as long as both parties agree to the marriage and make a legally binding commitment to each other" (emphasis mine)
In all three weddings I performed we did it traditional-style. One was on a beach, two were in private homes (one of them mine, of two of my roommates :) and we stood in front of people and all said stuff and did the usual do-you questions. But nothing in my understanding made that required; I always interpreted the requirement of a "ceremony" to mean we had to verbally discuss the fact that they were entering into a legally binding and serious contract. Thus the "the ceremony does not have to be in any particular form" bit.
So really, yes, this we're not going to do "ceremonies" thing is disingenuous bullshit. You don't need a "marriage ceremony" in any sense that people think of a wedding, courthouse or otherwise. They could certainly do what you're describing and it could be no more gussied up than when you go vote and have to affirm that your current address is what the voter rolls say it is. But the notary system in Florida doesn't require notaries to do things they don't want to (and in fairness, it would be impossible to have that system require it - I would have had to do anything any coworker asked if they wandered into my office just because I paid the $79 to be a backup for our office manager when she filed documents) so they can pull this nonsense.
On the upside, solemnizing marriage is a notary duty that you can perform for family. It's unfair and hateful and stupid that people could potentially have to spend $79 to get someone admitted as a notary to do this rather than just get it done at the courthouse. But on the upside they get one more loved one's name on their marriage document - that's why I was asked to do the three I did.
I would wager that we'll see a lot of people within local communities/friend groups become notaries in order to do this, to the extent that those groups don't already have someone who is one. In the end it probably won't be anywhere near as much of a hardship for same-sex couples in Florida as it is a public temper tantrum by dumbasses.
Which isn't to say I disagree at all with the "just do your job" conclusion, but impact-wise this is way more red meat dogwhistle and reason for us to sneer at bigots than it will be bad for same sex couples.
posted by phearlez at 12:25 PM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
My bona fides here are that I was a notary in Florida and performed three wedding ceremonies during that time. The last was right before I permanently moved from Florida shy of ten years ago, so it's possible but unlikely anything about it has changed since then. That booklet linked & quoted above looks the same, though I don't recall a same-sex specific section in mine; my notary was granted sometime in the middle 90s so it may not have been as present an issue then.
While the booklet does say there's more than signing the license, what I always took from it and the other documentation of my notary was that the guiding part was this: "the couple’s vows must reflect their intentions to make a legally binding commitment to each other" and the graf immediately following the quoted one: "The ceremony does not have to be in any particular form. Any form of ceremony to solemnize a marriage that the parties choose ordinarily suffices, as long as both parties agree to the marriage and make a legally binding commitment to each other" (emphasis mine)
In all three weddings I performed we did it traditional-style. One was on a beach, two were in private homes (one of them mine, of two of my roommates :) and we stood in front of people and all said stuff and did the usual do-you questions. But nothing in my understanding made that required; I always interpreted the requirement of a "ceremony" to mean we had to verbally discuss the fact that they were entering into a legally binding and serious contract. Thus the "the ceremony does not have to be in any particular form" bit.
So really, yes, this we're not going to do "ceremonies" thing is disingenuous bullshit. You don't need a "marriage ceremony" in any sense that people think of a wedding, courthouse or otherwise. They could certainly do what you're describing and it could be no more gussied up than when you go vote and have to affirm that your current address is what the voter rolls say it is. But the notary system in Florida doesn't require notaries to do things they don't want to (and in fairness, it would be impossible to have that system require it - I would have had to do anything any coworker asked if they wandered into my office just because I paid the $79 to be a backup for our office manager when she filed documents) so they can pull this nonsense.
On the upside, solemnizing marriage is a notary duty that you can perform for family. It's unfair and hateful and stupid that people could potentially have to spend $79 to get someone admitted as a notary to do this rather than just get it done at the courthouse. But on the upside they get one more loved one's name on their marriage document - that's why I was asked to do the three I did.
I would wager that we'll see a lot of people within local communities/friend groups become notaries in order to do this, to the extent that those groups don't already have someone who is one. In the end it probably won't be anywhere near as much of a hardship for same-sex couples in Florida as it is a public temper tantrum by dumbasses.
Which isn't to say I disagree at all with the "just do your job" conclusion, but impact-wise this is way more red meat dogwhistle and reason for us to sneer at bigots than it will be bad for same sex couples.
posted by phearlez at 12:25 PM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
So if I'm following you correctly, phearlez, any government clerk who has the ability to carry out a marriage ceremony can do so regardless of location? Are there any laws that say a courthouse must be open to providing marriages, or would such a law conflict with existing legislation? Let's assume we're talking about just Florida for now.
posted by halifix at 12:50 PM on January 2, 2015
posted by halifix at 12:50 PM on January 2, 2015
In the civilian world, which is what people here were discussing, you can do exactly that. And saying "I won't do that" and leaving is your first line of moral defense.
I don't, in general, want a world where people who are asked to do something wrong don't resist but just quit their jobs so they can be replaced by someone else willing do the wrong thing.
So I agree with busted_crayons that the right response here is not, "Ignore your conscience or quit your job," but rather "Your conscience is wrong." And I think we can get behind the employer saying, "Your conscience is wrong; do your job or you are fired," but that's a very different thing from saying employees ought to ignore their consciences or quit.
posted by straight at 12:57 PM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't, in general, want a world where people who are asked to do something wrong don't resist but just quit their jobs so they can be replaced by someone else willing do the wrong thing.
So I agree with busted_crayons that the right response here is not, "Ignore your conscience or quit your job," but rather "Your conscience is wrong." And I think we can get behind the employer saying, "Your conscience is wrong; do your job or you are fired," but that's a very different thing from saying employees ought to ignore their consciences or quit.
posted by straight at 12:57 PM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
SPrintF: The use of the term "dick" was ambiguous. I apologize.The unambiguous use of dicks is exactly how we got to this thread.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:03 PM on January 2, 2015
Falling on the side of "suck it up and do your job" here. Actually, more like part of your job.
I'm an urban planner. There are many land uses that I find offensive. Let's take the Westboro Baptist Church. If the WBC wants to get approval to build a church in my city, I would not work for them to get their proposed church approved. However, if I worked for the city's planning department, I couldn't refuse to process their application on moral grounds, if they met all the requirements of the application process. If I didn't want to be a cog in the machinery of land uses that I find abhorrent getting approved, I expect that I would have to find another job. Or another employer, to be precise.
Public servants are expected to implement the laws of their jurisdiction.
posted by dry white toast at 1:04 PM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm an urban planner. There are many land uses that I find offensive. Let's take the Westboro Baptist Church. If the WBC wants to get approval to build a church in my city, I would not work for them to get their proposed church approved. However, if I worked for the city's planning department, I couldn't refuse to process their application on moral grounds, if they met all the requirements of the application process. If I didn't want to be a cog in the machinery of land uses that I find abhorrent getting approved, I expect that I would have to find another job. Or another employer, to be precise.
Public servants are expected to implement the laws of their jurisdiction.
posted by dry white toast at 1:04 PM on January 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't, in general, want a world where people who are asked to do something wrong don't resist but just quit their jobs so they can be replaced by someone else willing do the wrong thing.
I don't think either side is really tenable as a matter of general principle. On the one hand, county clerks or pizza deliverymen or whatever asked to, say, tear orphans apart with large forks as part of their jobs ought to do more than simply resign. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would find a world where the electric lineman or power company decides which firms, nonprofits, and private citizens are moral enough to receive power, or where the fire department or individual firemen decide which structures are moral enough to be defended, to be acceptable.
In any case, this is not about people being asked to perform tasks they find morally objectionable in themselves. It's about people who want to refuse to perform tasks there is every reason to believe they find unobjectionable, but for people they don't like.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:47 PM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think either side is really tenable as a matter of general principle. On the one hand, county clerks or pizza deliverymen or whatever asked to, say, tear orphans apart with large forks as part of their jobs ought to do more than simply resign. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would find a world where the electric lineman or power company decides which firms, nonprofits, and private citizens are moral enough to receive power, or where the fire department or individual firemen decide which structures are moral enough to be defended, to be acceptable.
In any case, this is not about people being asked to perform tasks they find morally objectionable in themselves. It's about people who want to refuse to perform tasks there is every reason to believe they find unobjectionable, but for people they don't like.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:47 PM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
grae: It's not just "most states" that recognize universal life church ministers: every state of the union is required to under the Constitution because of the first amendment (although some require registration).
This is not true. I have a particular interest in the marriage laws of Connecticut at the moment, which do not allow ULC ministers to perform marriages. Here's the statute:
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:55 PM on January 2, 2015
This is not true. I have a particular interest in the marriage laws of Connecticut at the moment, which do not allow ULC ministers to perform marriages. Here's the statute:
Persons authorized to solemnize marriages in this state include [...] (3) all ordained or licensed members of the clergy, belonging to this state or any other state, as long as they continue in the work of the ministry.The key is as long as they continue in the work of the ministry. Here's then Attorney General of Connecticut Richard Blumenthal in response to a question about the legality of ULC-performed marriages:
According to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-22a, the validity of a marriage performed by a person claiming to be an ordained or licensed member of the clergy, whose only activity of a religious nature is the performance of marriages, will be highly suspect, especially if the ceremony does not have a religious character. Marriages performed by unauthorized persons are void, not just voidable, resulting in possible serious consequences for the individuals wishing to marry. However, only a court of competent jurisdiction can say definitively whether a marriage is void.Similar comments by him are quoted in this New York Times article about the legality of weddings performed by ULC ordained ministers:
But Connecticut is one of a half-dozen places that do not recognize marriages performed by someone who became a minister for the sole purpose of marrying people. Such a minister “doesn’t meet the requirements of the state statutes,” said William Gerrish, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Public Health.That the American Marriage Ministry doesn't mention this information on their page about the marriage laws of Connecticut seems pretty suspect. You stand a good chance of having the marriage accepted by the town clerk, and a good chance at never having the issue come up, but it's not stable ground.
[...]
As for the marriage, the statute is clear, Mr. Blumenthal said. Nonetheless, he encouraged couples not to panic; unless the issue is forced through divorce or death, the judicial system tends to grant couples the benefit of the doubt.
"If the marriage is performed by someone unauthorized, but the two people having the marriage still believe it to be valid, it may continue to be valid until someone challenges it," he said.
But, he said, "They are at risk."
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:55 PM on January 2, 2015
According to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-22a, the validity of a marriage performed by a person claiming to be an ordained or licensed member of the clergy, whose only activity of a religious nature is the performance of marriages, will be highly suspect, especially if the ceremony does not have a religious character.This is exactly the kind of should-be-unconstitutional bullshit designed explicitly to preserve the monopoly of certain existing social institutions which are NOT supposed to enjoy state protection against the intrusion of new competitors.
Who's to say what "a religious character" is? We left seven silver dimes for Papa Legba, made a plate of chicken for Baron Samedi, jumped over a broomstick and consummated the great rite in front of all the witnesses. If you don't think that's a ceremony you can take it up with Bondye.
posted by localroger at 5:31 PM on January 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm actually rather surprised by the "just do your damn job" attitude. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which this attitude would entail defence of activities one would think would be regarded as unambiguously heinous
Shouldn't the focus be on changing the law, not on encouraging individual law enforcement officers to ignore their duties? If it's the latter, then we just end up with a very irregular and potentially corrupt system - like, for instance, the way anti-drug laws are currently enforced.
If you're white and college educated, you generally can buy or use drugs without much fear, while if you're poor and black the same activity can get you into a lot of trouble. In both cases, individual officers think they're making reasonable choices - in the ghetto, drugs are destroying lives! but with the college kids, hey, c'mon, look the other way, let the parents or college deal with it if it gets out of hand...
THe thing is, it's only destroying lives in the ghetto because officers are enforcing those laws, and the laws don't change because they rarely impact the lives of people who have any power, since officers are using their personal judgment... so the cycle continues.
Consistency is key to justice. Occasional exemptions in extreme cases (like Nazi Germany) is one thing. But allowing individual officers to decide on a case by case basis whether to enforce the law will create a very unfair system.
posted by mdn at 6:15 PM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't the focus be on changing the law, not on encouraging individual law enforcement officers to ignore their duties? If it's the latter, then we just end up with a very irregular and potentially corrupt system - like, for instance, the way anti-drug laws are currently enforced.
If you're white and college educated, you generally can buy or use drugs without much fear, while if you're poor and black the same activity can get you into a lot of trouble. In both cases, individual officers think they're making reasonable choices - in the ghetto, drugs are destroying lives! but with the college kids, hey, c'mon, look the other way, let the parents or college deal with it if it gets out of hand...
THe thing is, it's only destroying lives in the ghetto because officers are enforcing those laws, and the laws don't change because they rarely impact the lives of people who have any power, since officers are using their personal judgment... so the cycle continues.
Consistency is key to justice. Occasional exemptions in extreme cases (like Nazi Germany) is one thing. But allowing individual officers to decide on a case by case basis whether to enforce the law will create a very unfair system.
posted by mdn at 6:15 PM on January 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Halifax - I'm really only up on the notary aspect; presumably various government functionaries garner their authority on this from a different statute. Notaries are free to solemnize anywhere within the confines of Florida.
posted by phearlez at 7:48 PM on January 2, 2015
posted by phearlez at 7:48 PM on January 2, 2015
Shouldn't the focus be on changing the law, not on encouraging individual law enforcement officers to ignore their duties?
Well, yeah. I think what some of us are saying here is that the focus should be, "Obey the law because it's right," or "Change the law because it's it's wrong," but not "Obey the law because it's the law."
posted by straight at 8:00 PM on January 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah. I think what some of us are saying here is that the focus should be, "Obey the law because it's right," or "Change the law because it's it's wrong," but not "Obey the law because it's the law."
posted by straight at 8:00 PM on January 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Put it this way. I think most people's consciences are mostly not broken. I think even someone whose religion has them convinced that gay marriage is immoral has a conscience that is mostly telling them, "Don't be unkind to other people." I think that an employee is far more likely to be in a situation where their conscience is troubled by an employer telling them to treat someone like shit to save a dollar than in a situation where they have to make decisions about how to treat gay people.
So I'm really uncomfortable with this whole "Shut up and do your job or else just quit already." I think even for these clerks who don't want to get involved with gay marriage, that's an approach to life that will end up hurting more people than it helps.
posted by straight at 8:13 PM on January 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
So I'm really uncomfortable with this whole "Shut up and do your job or else just quit already." I think even for these clerks who don't want to get involved with gay marriage, that's an approach to life that will end up hurting more people than it helps.
posted by straight at 8:13 PM on January 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fair enough. I think people's consciences are mostly broken, and that people have an amazing ability to regard treating others badly as moral if those people were always treated badly when they were young.
I think that if people in general had the nonbroken consciences you describe, the Civil Rights Act and various state extensions to sexual orientation would seem as silly as legislation requiring that people breathe.
And I think that a depersonalized and anonymized government, and to a lesser extent civil society, is a good and important thing. Though like any good thing, it can be perverted into something terrible. It's good that when I go get a driver's license or apply for a benefit or whatever that I can be reasonably confident that whether ot nit I get what I'm after will depend on the merit of my application and not on whether or not the officer making the decision likes me or likes people like me in some way.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:45 PM on January 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think that if people in general had the nonbroken consciences you describe, the Civil Rights Act and various state extensions to sexual orientation would seem as silly as legislation requiring that people breathe.
And I think that a depersonalized and anonymized government, and to a lesser extent civil society, is a good and important thing. Though like any good thing, it can be perverted into something terrible. It's good that when I go get a driver's license or apply for a benefit or whatever that I can be reasonably confident that whether ot nit I get what I'm after will depend on the merit of my application and not on whether or not the officer making the decision likes me or likes people like me in some way.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:45 PM on January 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think most of those are situations where people have learned to ignore and suppress their consciences. I think it's not often that people don't know what's right. Most of the time it's that we find excuses not to do what we know is right.
So I agree that a civil servant who discriminates should be disciplined or fired -- because discrimination is wrong. Our discussion of the issue should focus on the wrongness of discrimination, not on the supposed virtue of ignoring your conscience on the job.
posted by straight at 12:13 PM on January 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
So I agree that a civil servant who discriminates should be disciplined or fired -- because discrimination is wrong. Our discussion of the issue should focus on the wrongness of discrimination, not on the supposed virtue of ignoring your conscience on the job.
posted by straight at 12:13 PM on January 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do you really think the maxim, "Just do your job, don't take it upon yourself to decide whether what you've been asked to do is right or wrong, or else quit your job," would, generally applied, do more good than harm?
posted by straight at 12:29 PM on January 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 12:29 PM on January 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Like I said before, I don't think either side makes much sense as a general principle.
On the one hand, of course there are things heinous enough that of course people should do more than simply resign when asked by their employers to do them.
On the other hand, we have a good idea of what people taking it upon themselves to decide whether what they've been asked to do is right or wrong looks like, and it looks like Jim Crow because, depending on how you want to look at it, a lot of people either have their consciences warped and broken or they confuse their own prejudices and wishes with their consciences.
In the US of 2015, yeah, I honestly think it would do more good than harm. There seem to already be precious few people inclined to resist things that should be resisted from their positions, while there are lots of people who seem very intent on resisting things that are good or harmless. In societies that were less broken than the modern US, I'd probably agree with you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:06 PM on January 4, 2015
On the one hand, of course there are things heinous enough that of course people should do more than simply resign when asked by their employers to do them.
On the other hand, we have a good idea of what people taking it upon themselves to decide whether what they've been asked to do is right or wrong looks like, and it looks like Jim Crow because, depending on how you want to look at it, a lot of people either have their consciences warped and broken or they confuse their own prejudices and wishes with their consciences.
In the US of 2015, yeah, I honestly think it would do more good than harm. There seem to already be precious few people inclined to resist things that should be resisted from their positions, while there are lots of people who seem very intent on resisting things that are good or harmless. In societies that were less broken than the modern US, I'd probably agree with you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:06 PM on January 4, 2015
The stay has been lifted in Miami-Dade, and marriages for all couples will begin immediately.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:14 AM on January 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:14 AM on January 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue
On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.An Idea Whose Time Has Long Since Come
Shifts in public opinion have made Ginsburg’s concerns about getting too far ahead of the public moot. Unless there are questions about Kennedy’s vote — which seems increasingly unlikely — it’s time to grant cert.posted by tonycpsu at 9:53 AM on January 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem with Lemieux's observation about the public sentiment is that the greatest shift is in the group least respected by the power elite - the under 30 crowd. They're the 75% approval. 30 and up drops it to 50% but I'd wager that the people who the justices constantly pay attention to are the much older and much more likely to be unsupportive crowd.
I'm still hopeful they're going to go the right way on this one - and I think the the entire group declining to stop Florida from moving forward when Thomas turfed it to them is a big sign of how it'll shake out.
posted by phearlez at 11:10 AM on January 6, 2015
I'm still hopeful they're going to go the right way on this one - and I think the the entire group declining to stop Florida from moving forward when Thomas turfed it to them is a big sign of how it'll shake out.
posted by phearlez at 11:10 AM on January 6, 2015
arcticseal: "This all smacks of King Canute trying to stop the sea, but with added asshole for good measure. They can't win in the end, but damned if they aren't going to be extremely nasty while they lose."
As a side point - Canute was aware that he couldn't stop the tide, he was demonstrating to his courtiers that his power was not absolute.
Of course, it's likely just a story, but that's the point of the story.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
As a side point - Canute was aware that he couldn't stop the tide, he was demonstrating to his courtiers that his power was not absolute.
Of course, it's likely just a story, but that's the point of the story.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older “Witch flee, flee from here, or it will go ili... | If I couldn’t have meat, I needed something damn... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by poffin boffin at 1:21 PM on January 1, 2015 [155 favorites]