California Mayor "Outraged" at Proposal to Exempt Civil Servants from Gay Marriage fo

[kfrost06]

SAN FRANCISCO, May 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has blasted a proposal that would allow San Diego county clerks to decline to perform same-sex "marriages" on conscience grounds saying he is both "shocked" and "outraged" according to Reuters news service.

Newsom was responding to an idea tabled on Wednesday by San Diego County to exempt clerks who had moral or religious objections to gay "marriage" from officiating at those civil ceremonies.
"I was pretty shocked about all that, candidly, and pretty outraged," said Newsom in a Reuters interview.

"This is a civil marriage that civil servants have a responsibility to provide, so for civil servants on religious grounds to start passing judgments, they, I think, are breaking the core tenet of what civil service is all about."

Reuters reported that Newsom also suggested that clerks who refuse to perform same-sex "weddings" in California should lose their jobs if they do.

"If that is their job and they are going to be able to pick and choose based on their morality, then all of a sudden they are not doing their jobs," continued Newsom.

"If you don't want to provide a marriage certificate and you've got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job," he added. "Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego."

Newsom's newfound outrage, however, belies the ironical fact that Newsom's own peculiar morality motivated his choice to violate California law in 2004, when he mandated city clerks to give marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Newsom dismissed existing marriage statutes as "codified discrimination" and the city of San Francisco performed over 4000 illegal "marriages" until the California Supreme Court intervened and nullified them.

Newsom's actions would later lead to the successful challenge of Proposition 22, a super-statute passed in 2000 by 61% of California voters, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and was thrown out by the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court in a narrow 4-3 decision. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051502.html

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk Greg Smith said he made the decision to allow clerks to voice any conscientious objections, so he could prepare for a flood of homosexual couples to the scenic harbor-city. Smith said he had received no objections so far.

"I don't want anybody to be embarrassed. I want everybody to be treated courteously," Smith said. "I expect most people will do their jobs as they are assigned to do. I expect this to be much to-do about nothing."

California will have the marriage licenses changed and new directives written to county clerks before June 16, when the California Supreme Court's ruling goes into effect. California's marriage license currently asks for the name of the bride and groom, but these names are being excised in favor of gender-neutral contract language. Suggestions have been put forth for "Applicant A" and "Applicant B," a slight variation of Massachusetts' "Party A," "Party B" forms.

[Carlos_E]

Is this a real news article? I only see it carried on anti-gay or pro life sites.

http://www.lifesitenews.com
www.catholic.org/
lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/
www.prolifeblogs.com

[Tock]

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.128781.html

Yep . . .
It's stupid, that's what it is. It's excusing employees of a secular government from providing services to citizens based on religious preferences.

IMHO, nobody should get special rights, and that includes government employees who don't want to do their job because they don't like gays or sabbath breakers or adulterers or etc etc etc.


------------------------

San Diego Clerks May Be Excused From Gay Marriages
Last Updated:
05-21-08 at 1:56PM
San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith is considering excusing clerks who have a personal objection to same-sex marriages from officiating at gay weddings, it was reported today.

Smith's comments followed the state Supreme Court's decision last week to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage on grounds that it violated the California Constitution, The North County Times reported.

Smith told the newspaper Tuesday that no specific clerk has asked to be exempt, but the idea of exempting some clerks stemmed from a staff discussion on how the high court ruling would be implemented.

"I don't think it's correct to force employees to do it, and I don't think you would want someone who is hostile to your beliefs performing your ceremony," Smith told the Times.

Smith refused to discuss his personal beliefs on the matter, according to the Times.

Since the court ruling overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage, about a dozen same-sex couples have inquired about marriage licenses in San Diego County, the Times reported.

[kfrost06]

Is this a real news article? I only see it carried on anti-gay or pro life sites.

http://www.lifesitenews.com
www.catholic.org/
lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/
www.prolifeblogs.com

yes it is real news Carlos and carried by other places too.

This coming from someone that gets his news from the huffington report

[kfrost06]

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.128781.html

Yep . . .
It's stupid, that's what it is. It's excusing employees of a secular government from providing services to citizens based on religious preferences.

IMHO, nobody should get special rights, and that includes government employees who don't want to do their job because they don't like gays or sabbath breakers or adulterers or etc etc etc.

This has been going on forever, many prison gaurds are excused from working on executions and they are government employees that object for religous reason or for have a conscience. Many (most) governemnt employees are given off for religous holidays even given personal days to use for religous days that aren't covered. Pharmacist can refuse to fill birth control and the abortion pill. Conscientous objectors to the draft.

Making someone marry 2 men is ridiculous and sad that they would have to be forced to do so or go find a new job but again gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else, right?

[kfrost06]

I wonder how long before they start forcing Churches to preform the "ceremony". It's only a matter of time .

[Tock]

I wonder how long before they start forcing Churches to preform the "ceremony". It's only a matter of time .

That will never happen, unless the churches are funded by taxpayer $$$.
As of right now, Churches are free to deny membership to anyone. If a church raises $$$ from public donations, they can spend it any way it wants. But, if a church gets $$$ from the government, that $$$ comes with strings attached, and they have to spend it according to the way the gov't stipulates. If they don't want to comply with the gov't rules, they don't have to apply for the $$$. Simple as that.

Nobody in the US is asking for this (it's different in other countries where clergy are government employees). Not even heterosexual couples can require churches to perform religious ceremonies for them . . .
Sheesh . . .

[Tock]

This has been going on forever, many prison gaurds are excused from working on executions and they are government employees that object for religous reason or for have a conscience.

Where does this happen, and what exactly are the policies governing excusing an employee from performing his responsibilities?

Seems to me there aren't too many people involved in executing prisoners. Maybe a few guards working on death row and a medical person to administer lethal drugs. The only employee involved in executions who might object to killing a prisoner, probably wouldn't apply for that job in the first place.
So, IMHO, you're sorely mistaken on this . . .

Many (most) governemnt employees are given off for religous holidays even given personal days to use for religous days that aren't covered.

So?
There's a big difference between scheduled days off from work, and excusing individuals from performing their jobs for citizens they don't like.

Pharmacist can refuse to fill birth control and the abortion pill.

That rule applies only to pharmacists in the private sector. And IMHO, shouldn't apply even to them, as long as government regulates that profession.

Conscientous objectors to the draft.

What's the current official policy on that? Got a website from the DOD?

Making someone marry 2 men is ridiculous

Not if it's in their job description, it's not.
If they don't like it, they can find another job.

and sad that they would have to be forced to do so or go find a new job

It's their choice -- do their job, or not do their job, and suffer the consequences. What's so sad about that?

but again gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else, right?

It won't affect any civil servant willing to do their job.

[Coop77]

What if an employee at the DMV thinks women shouldn't be allowed to drive - can he refuse to issue them drivers licenses?
No, he'd be fired. Seems like the same thing to me.

[thegodfather]

Any move or action which pisses off the religious right zealouts who want to tell others how to live their lives is a good move in my book!

[SMCengineer]

Making someone marry 2 men is ridiculous and sad that they would have to be forced to do so or go find a new job but again gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else, right?

That's neither effecting the employee's freedom nor effecting the employee's personal liberty in any conceivable way.

[wantmoremass]

i don't believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages... more importantly, why would a gay couple want their wedding blessed in an institution because they're forced to? why would they even want to belong to such an institution? there are churches here that perform gay marriages (united church of canada, anglican church among others), but if they are not willing, it is not legal to do so.

based on separation of church and state though, i don't see how civil employees can opt out of performing gay marriage if it is endorsed by the state - this part is key, as it has to be legislation or law - then a civil employee should have no choice. that being said, i wouldn't want to force someone to marry me who didn't want to - there are plenty of marriage commissioners/jp's/judges who would do it.

[wantmoremass]

sorry, double post